HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA minutes 1212162
3
4
5
6
7
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Approved 3113117
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DATE DECEMBER 12, 2016
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Samantha Cabe (Chair)
Karen Barrows (Vice- Chair)
Matt Hughes
Barry Katz
Susan Halkiotis
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
Patrick Mallet, Planner II
Elaina Cheek, Board Secretary
James Bryan, Staff Attorney
Anne Marie Tosco, Staff Attorney
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER
Samantha Cabe called the meeting to order,
AGENDA ITEM 2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
There were no additions to the agenda.
AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 2016 AND OCTOBER 24, 2016 REGULAR MEETING
Samantha Cabe requested that the Minutes reflect that rather than absent she was recused for conflict. Karen Barrows
noted that on page 102, line 45 it was herself that had asked that question.
MOTION to approve Minutes as modified made by Susan Halkiotis, Seconded by Karen Barrows,
VOTE; Unanimous
33
34 AGENDA ITEM 4: PUBLIC CHARGE
35 Karen Barrows read the public charge
36
37 The Board of Adjustment pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct
38 themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any
39 member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the
40 meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting
41 until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. All electronic devices such as cell phones,
42 pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate,
43
44 The Board of Adjustment is a quasi-judicial administrative body established in accordance with the provisions of local
45 regulations and State law to perform specified functions essential to the County's planning program. Action(s) taken by the
46 board are based solely on competent, substantial, and material evidence presented during a previously scheduled and
47 advertised public hearing on a specific item. As detailed within Section 2.12.2 of the UDO the Board chair reserves the
48 right to exclude evidence and testimony that is deemed: `incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious' and
49 therefore fails to reasonably address the issues before the Board of Adjustment. While it should be noted there is no time
OC Board of Adjustment- 12/12/16 Page 1 of 156
Approved 3113117
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.
4 AGENDA ITEM 5: A -2 -16 — Class B Special Use Permit application proposing to
5 erect a telecommunication facility at 1941 MT. CARMEL
6 CHURCH ROAD (PIN(s) 9796 -09 -9658 and 9797 -00 -5005)
7 In accordance with Section(s) 2.7 Special Uses, 5.2.2 Table of Permitted Uses, 5.3.2
8 Application of Use Standards — Special Uses, and 5.10 Standards for Telecommunication
9 Facilities of the UDO, TowerCom IV, LLC has submitted a Class B Special Use Permit
10 application seeking a permit to erect a 199 ft. tall (195 ft. tall tower with a 4 ft. lighting pole
11 at the top for a combined total height of 199 ft.) monopole telecommunication facility (i.e. a
12 telecommunication tower) on a parcel of property located at 1941 Mt. Carmel Church Road,
13 further identified utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9796 -09 -9658.
14 The parcel, owned by the Buckner Family Farm Trust, is zoned Rural Buffer (RB) and
15 Jordan Lake Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District and is approximately 18 acres
16 in area (hereafter `the property').
17 As detailed within the application, the applicant wishes to erect a telecommunication
18 tower within a 100 foot by 100 foot leased area on the property. There will be an
19 equipment cabinet at the base of the tower to house equipment for the various communication
20 providers utilizing the tower within a 60 foot by 60 foot fenced compound.
21 The proposed facility will be accessed via an existing private roadway, specifically
22 Wilbuck Lane, through a driveway extending across an approximately 2 acre parcel of
23 property owned by Edwards Williams (PIN 9797 -00- 5005). This parcel is a part of this
24 application and review process.
25
26 Samantha Cabe: Now moving to the last item on the Agenda prior to adjornment the Board will
27 entertain a Class B SUP application proposing to erect a telecommunication facility at the address
28 of 1941 Mount Carmel Church Road. Does staff have a presentation for the Board?
29
30 Michael Harvey: Yes ma'am. Prior to our presentation we would ask that all individuals intending
31 to offer testimony at tonight's hearing to stand up, come forward, and be sworn in by the clerk.
32
33 All individuals were sworn in.
34
35 Michael Harvey: When you presenting please stand up, state your name and address for the
36 record and indicate that you have been sworn.
37
38 Samantha Cabe: Thank you Mr. Harvey.
39
40 Michael Harvey: Madame Chair the item on tonights agenda is case A -2 -16 meeting it's in the
41 16th year of 2000. And it's the second SUP we've receveived, therefore A -2 -16. It's for a SUP
42 being reviewed in accordance with the provisions of section 2.7, 5.2.2, 5.3.2, 5.10 of the UDO.
43 Calls to the erection of a 199 foot tall telecommunications facility, also known as a
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 2 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 telecommunication tower, on a parcel of property located at 1941 Mount Carmel Church Road
2 zoned Rural Buffer, Jordan Lake Protected Watershed protection overlay district. As detailed
3 within the application in our abstract package the applicant wishes to erect the proposed tower
4 within a 100 by 100 foot leased area of the property. There will be an equipment cabinet at the
5 base of the tower to house the various communication infrastructure necessary to support the
6 tower and will be enclosed by a fenced in area. The property will be accessed via a private
7 driveway off of Willbuck Lane. There will be a driveway extending across a 2 -acre parcel of
8 property that is owned by Edward Williams, identified using Orange County parcel identification
9 number 9797 -00 -5005. This application is part of this review process.
10 As part of your agenda packet you have beginning on page 117 staff abstract. That includes
11 attachment 1 on page 124 which is a property map. Attachment 2 the notification materials and
12 certifications for this project beginning on page 125. The SUP permit findings of fact beginning on
13 page 144. Staff comments beginning on page 165. A balloon test and photo simulation report
14 provided from the applicant beginning on page 171. And under separate cover this booklet which
15 is the application packet submitted by the applicant. As a housekeeping measure I have a couple
16 of items to add. We have additional comments, staff comments, received from our
17 telecommunications consultant and I have listed these additional attachment 4, which I'd like to
18 hand out. And Ms. Hicks is here this evening and she can offer testimony on this documentation. 1
19 also have... I've received an email yesterday. Comments from Mr. John Price concerning this
20 tower. This is not being included as attachment 4, these are not staff comments but this is
21 information we have received. Madame Chair before I begin my very brief presentation I ask that
22 the Board have a motion accepting pages 117 through 210, including Staff's abstracts, attachment
23 1 property map, attachment 2 notification materials, attachment 3 SUP findings of fact, attachment
24 4 Staff's comments, attachment 5 balloon test and photo simulation report, as well as the
25 application binder into the record.
26
27 MOTION to accept the abstract and all its attachments, including the additional attachment 4
28 together with the application into evidence and also accept into evidence a letter dated December
29 11th, 2016 on the letterhead of Calhoun, Bella & Seacrest LLP from Mr. John Price made by Matt
30 Hughes. Seconded by Susan Halkiotis.
31 VOTE: Unanimous
32
33 Michael Harvey: I further ask the Board to have a Motion entering into record a copy of the
34 Orange County UDO as it exists on the day of this hearing as well as a copy of the adopted
35 comprehensive plan as adopted by the County Commissioners on November 18th, 2008.
36
37 Motion to enter the Orange County LIDO as it exists on the day of this hearing and a copy of the
38 adopted comprehensive plan as adopted by the County Commissioners on November 18th, 2008
39 made by Matt Hughes. Seconded by Susan Halkiotis.
40 VOTE: Unanimous
41
42 Samantha Cabe: Any questions to Staff from the Board? (none)
43
44 Michael Harvey: Ms. Laura Goode is represetning the applicant here this evening.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 3 of 156
Approved 3113117
2 Laura Goode: Good evening. My name is Laura Goode. I'm with Baker Donaldson. My business
3 address is 1501 Main Street Suite 600, Columbia, South Carolina. However, I live and work in
4 Raleigh, North Carolina. Baker Donaldson represents telecom and their application for a SUP for
5 a new wireless telecommunitcations tower. Micahel has done a great job of explaining to you our
6 overall plan for the proposed tower. This is a copy of the overall site plan that was included in your
7 packets. This shows the general location of the facility in relation to the subject property and Mt.
8 Carmel Church Road. The property owner is the Butner Family Farm Trust, however a portion of
9 the access road will be going over in adjacent property owned by the Williams'. Both of these
10 properties are zoned rural buffer. Additionally, the type of monopole telecommunication tower that
11 is being proposed is permitted as a Class B Special Use in the rural buffer district. This is to give
12 you another aerial view, giving you an idea of where the proposed center of the tower will be
13 located on the property. At this time I'm going to talk to you about the network objective for the
14 need for the proposed tower. And before I get into that, a couple of things: First, you'I see that
15 Verizon's logo is on this side. That's because Verizon Wireless will be the anchor tenant and will
16 immediately co- locate on the tower as soon as it's constructed by Towercom. Therefore,
17 Towercom is going to build this tower to meet the network objective of Verizon Wireless. Also, 1
18 wanted to point out to you, as I'm sure that your attorney has advised you, that North Carolina law
19 does not require the applicant to provide a need or justification for the tower and does not require
20 the applicant to provide any propreitary or confidential business information. However, in an effort
21 to be as transparent as possible and to explain why it is that we're asking for this permit we have
22 provided some information about the network objective for this tower. And the main purpose for
23 this tower is that there is a significant gap in coverage along Mt. Carmel Church Road, in between
24 the Governers' Club area to the South and the UNC main campus to the North. So this towers'
25 primary purpose is to fill a large portion of that signifcant gap in coverage along that road. Another
26 purpose of the tower is to provide a capacity offload for surrounding sites that are already in
27 existence. If you see this map up here, the red circle is there; those are existing Verizion Wireless
28 sites already serving the area. The main focus of the capacity offload is to use the campus site,
29 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
30 that increase coverage as well as to provide capactity offload. And what that means is the
31 demand for wireless service in that area is exceeding the capacity of the existing sites to handle
32 that traffic. What that means in real world terms is that you're dropping calls in that area, not able
33 to send and receive text messages in that area, and you're not able to browse the internet at
34 optimal speeds in that area. So the second map you see here; the prior one was what the
35 coverage and capacity looked like without the proposed Clearwater Lake site. The second map
36 shows what the coverage will look like if this Board grants the SUP for this propsed tower. And to
37 bring down what this means, the red and green is really really good service. That means that
38 inside a building just like this one you should be able to use your wireless device to make calls
39 and surf the internet. Blue areas is not such great coverage and capacity. That means that you're
40 really only going to be able to use your cell phone when you're in your car or outdoors. And if you
41 get down to the gray or white areas, that's where it's very hit or miss and you may not be able to
42 make a phone call or use the internet on your wireless device. So red and green is what we're
43 shooting for and this second map shows how the proposed tower will fill a significant portion of
44 that significant gap in coverage, and provide that additional needed capacity. Now based on this
45 network objective, this is the search area map that was determined. Which means this is the area,
46 the red circle, in which a new wireless facility is needed in order to meet that network objective
47 that I just discussed with you. So we needed to find a .place within this search area to locate the
48 facility. Now the first thing that we do when we're looking in a search area is we look for
49 opportunities to co- locate. That's required by this ordinacne but it's also a best business practice
50 for Verizon Wireless because it is much faster to co- locate on an existing tower or inaudible than
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 4 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 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
2 preference to co- locate. Unfortunately, within this search area there were not existing towers and
3 there were not existing other structures as sufficient in height to meet that network objective that 1
4 discussed earlier. Now, in addition to there not being other structures to co- locate on Orange
5 County Planning Department brought to our attention an additional candidate. There was another
6 candidate that the Planning Department brought to our attention. They call it the Mellot Candidate.
7 My understanding is that the property owner for that site is their last name is Mellot. And so they
8 asked Verizion Wireless, "Can you put your facility here and meet your network objective ?"
9 Verizon Wireless was happy to do that, they analyzed it, and the results of that analysis is that this
10 candidate could not meet the network objective. And what this is, it shows... David Haughney, the
11 engineer for Verizon Wireless, is here to explain this a little bit better. But essentially the distance
12 between the Mellot candidate and the proposed Clearwater Lake site, there is a topography and
13 foliage obstruction that makes it so that Verizon would not be able to meet it's network objective at
14 this proposed site. So given that there were no opportunities to co- locate and we could not go on
15 this Mellot candidate a need for a new tower at the subject property was determined. In terms of
16 the proposed tower it would be a 195 foot monopole with a 4 -foot lightning rod. This is the tower
17 design that was shown in the application. As you can see here, it will be a monopole structure
18 which means it will not be lattice. I don't know if you're familiar with the 3 -leg lattice structure, it will
19 not have big lines that go out from the tower. Also, it will not be lit and it will be... The type of pole
20 that they use for these monopoles is the same type of pole they use for power lines, it's just taller.
21 But that's what you can expect. It's galvanized steel. It will be designed to accommodate 3 future
22 co- locators as required by the ordinance. So that means this is going to reduce the need for
23 towers in this area, and when this is implemented it won't only help Verizon Wireless' customers,
24 it will not only help the Orange County residents in this area who have Verizon, it will also help the
25 residents who have AT &T, Tmobile, to the extent that they come and co- locate on this tower. And
26 again, it will be a requirement that any carriers that want to go in this area, they will have to prove
27 an inability to co- locate on this tower. So they will have to first try to co- locate on this tower. There
28 are 3 findings of fact that this Board must consider in determining to grant this SUP and we have
29 addressed those findings of fact in pages 59 -64 of the narrative, which is exhibit 1. 1 just wanted to
30 briefly go over a few of those points with you here tonight. The first finding of fact that the Board
31 must consider is whether the use will maintain or promote the public health, safety, and welfare.
32 So there's two ways that this use will promote good public health, safety, and welfare. First, it's a
33 public necessity and second, it will follow and be in compliance with all applicable Federal, State,
34 and Local regulations. As to the first part of it being a public necessity, the reason this is a public
35 necessity is currently almost half of American households are wireless only households. And that
36 number is only increasing. That means that for about half of Americans, their only means of
37 communicating by phone is on their cell phone. So they need that wireless service on a day to day
38 basis. That becomes even more crucial in an emergency situation. If your only way of
39 communication is on a cell phone you need that wireless coverage in the event of an emergency.
40 And then that goes both ways as well. The wireless coverage not only helps for people making a
41 911 call but it helps the emergency responders be able to respond to those emergency phone
42 calls. Wireless service also aids in public responders in other ways. For example, police officers
43 have computers in their cars. They're using those computers and they're using wireless service to
44 access things like criminal records, driving records, or warrants for arrest. So that's crucial for
45 them to have in their vehicles. And they rely on wireless for that. The second finding of fact that
46 the Board must consider is whether the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous
47 property. Unless the use is a public necessity then there's no need to enhance or maintain the
48 property value. Now I've just discussed with you how this will be a public necessity. However, in
49 addition to that Towercom has retained David Smith. He's a North Carolina certified real estate
50 appraiser MAI and SRA, he has prepared a report that was submitted as Exhibit 32 of the
OC Board of Adjustment- 12/12/16 Page 5 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 application as well as a supplemental report that should be in your materials as supplemental
2 evidence item G, and he is here tonight to give his expert testimony that in his opinion the tower
3 will maintain or enhance the property values. The third finding of fact the Board must consider is
4 that the use will be in harmony with the area and in compliance with the development of the
5 County as embodied by the Comprehensive plan. So in terms of the use being in harmony with
6 the area the first main way that it's in harmony with the area is that the subject property is zoned
7 rural buffer as are the majority of properties in the search area. All of the adjacent properties are
8 zoned rural buffer and therefore the proposed tower would be permited as a special use on all of
9 those properties. North Carolina courts have held that the fact that a use is permitted, even with
10 special conditions, in a zoning district that evidences that the use is in harmony with the area.
11 That's been held by the North Carolina Supreme Court in Mann Media vs. Randolf County,
12 Woodhouse vs. Town and Nags Head. In addition to being in harmony in the area because it is
13 zoned appropriately for this use, the faciltiy will further be in harmony with the area based on how
14 the facility will be located on the subject property. So it will be set back approximately 1,000 -feet
15 from the closest public right of way, Mt. Carmel Church Road. Additionally, the property is
16 currently wooded, heavily wooded. However, if that natural vegetation is ever moved for any
17 reason, for timbering of the property, or a hurricane or tornado comes in and wipes it out, Telecom
18 has agreed to install the Type C 40 -foot wide vegetative buffer that is required for Class B special
19 use towers. This is what's required when a tower is built on a property that isn't wooded already.
20 So this is what Towercom will agree to install so that it would be in compliance with the ordinance
21 in the event that that vegetation is ever removed. And that has been submitted as part of the
22 application as well.
23
24, Samantha Cabe: Can I stop you one second? Is that one of the conditions that is included on the
25 recommendations?
26
27 Michael Harvey: I'm assuming you're talking about the findings of fact that came in attachment 3?
28
29 Samantha Cabe: Yes, sir.
30
31 Michael Harvey: The condition is number 2, that existing vegetation be maintained. If something
32 happens to the vegetation, if it is removed for whatever reason, they're obligated under the
33 ordinance to establish a Class C buffer. Otherwise we revoke their SUP. And the ordinance
34 already mandates that as a condition.
35
36 Samantha Cabe: Ok, thank you.
37
38 Barry Katz: Just to carry on with that, this is a contingent plan? But not something that goes
39 intially, and this vegetation buffer has to be maintained, right?
40
41 Laura Goode: Correct.
42
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 6 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Barry Katz: You would also have an irrigation plan, some way to maintain this vegetation? Not
2 simply put the vegetation in?
3
4 Laura Goode: I'm not sure that there is an irrigation per se but it definitely has to be maintained. If
5 the vegetation dies we have to go in there and ranstall it. It has to be maintained in order to
6 maintain our SUP.
7
8 Barry Katz: Alright. You know when they go in they're not big enough to actually obscure anything.
9 They have to grow and have to live. Is there any plan for suppressing the inevitable poison ivy and
10 sumac and things that come in there so that you can actually sustain these plants?
11
12 Samantha Cabe: May I clarify, did I understand you correctly that this is a heavily wooded area
13 now that you're only putting this in if the current trees die?
14
15 Laura Goode: That's correct. Yes. And I believe that Towercom would agree to any additional
16 conditions that you want to place on the SUP to make sure that it is maintained appropriately.
17
18 Barry Katz: My sense though is that if the natural vegetation is lost and you make the effort to put
19 in this landscape plan and it's not sustained that the Planning Department will hear from the
20 neighbors.
21
22 Michael Harvey: Well actually the Planning Department will revoke the SUP.
23
24 Barry Katz: Right, ok. I understand.
25
26 Samantha Cabe: Ok. I didn't mean to interrupt, I just wanted to make sure that that agreement
27 was documented in what we were going to be improving.
28
29 Barry Katz: You said at the top of this tower there's a 4 -foot lightning rod?
30
31 Laura Goode: Yes.
32
33 Barry Katz: And there's not little red light at the top?
34
35 Laura Goode: Correct. It is not required to be lit by Federal and Aviation administration. So that's
36 how we satify all three findings of fact for the Board. In addition to the three findings of fact there
37 are SUP standards that this Board must consider. The first being that there's adequate sewage,
38 solid waste, and water for the facility. This will be an unmanned facility that will not require those
39 services. The second special use standard that the Board must consider is that there be adequate
40 police, fire, and rescue squad protection. According to the staff report they state that the Orange
OC Board of Adjustment - 12/12/16 Page 7 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 County emergency staff and the sheriff have reviewed our plan and have indicated that they can
2 serve this facility adequately. The third SUP standard is that there be vehicular access and
3 address traffic conditions. There will be an improved access to the site that Towercom
4 understands they're under the obligation to maintain throughout the duration of the SUP.
5 Additionally, there will be no increase in traffic after construction. Construction ususally is about 45
6 days. After that we anticipate on average one employee per month will come out to do routine
7 maintenance and make sure that everything is working appropriately at the facility.
8
9 Karen Barrows: Let me ask you, Chuck Edwards the DOT person put in his report that they need
10 a driveway permit. Is that part of what we're going to get? Because I didn't see it.
11
12 Laura Goode: So a driveway permit, I don't believe, is a requirement for the SUP but it will be
13 something that we will have to get before we can construct the tower.
14
15 Karen Barrows: Do you have it?
16
17 Michael Harvey: On page 163, condition 8 per section 5.10.8 134J in section 2.5 of the UDO the
18 applicant shall obtain all necessary development permits from the County prior to the initiation of
19 and land disturbing activity associated with the construction of the telecommunication facilities
20 including, but not limited to: Building permit, Erosion Control permit, Solid Waste Management
21 permit, Zoning compliance permit. The Zoning Compliance permit requires the DOT signify that
22 they've issued any and all permits that are necessary to allow the project to move forward. That's
23 part of the LIDO as it currently exists.
24
25 Karen Barrows: The only other thing I noticed, Michael, was on page 165. John Kase said that he
26 needs a permit and some money to look into residence at 1801 Mt. Carmel Road. I didn't know if
27 that had been addressed.
28
29 Michael: On page 165, this is in Attachment 4, the memo we got for Environmental Health.
30 Environmental Health has reviewed the site plan for this particular project and there are no
31 proposed septic systems. There's an existing septic system and well that serves the residence
32 1811 Mt. Carmel Church Road but it is approximately 600 feet, the proposed tower should not
33 impacted by the project. Additionally, a residence exists at 1801 Mt. Carmel Road according to the
34 Orange County JS records but it could not be located pertaining to a well or septic system on the
35 property. The site plan for the proposed project shows that there is a wide access and utility right
36 of way to access the tower site. There will need to be an exisiting permit application for 1801 to
37 ensure that the site impact, that that's handled at the Zoning Compliance Permit stage.
38
39 Laura Goode: So that is how we meet each of those 3 SUP standards. Now, there have been
40 concerns about the proposed facility that have been brought to Towercom's attention and I want
41 to briefly address a few of those concerns. One concern that was raised was access to the
42 proposed facility as I stated. There will be an improved access road that will be improved by
43 Towercom. Towercom recognizes that it has an ongoing obligation to maintain that access road
44 throughout the duration of this facility. In addition, Towercom recognizes that it needs to have
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 8 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 legal access to the site and has acquired that legal access. Any issue regarding the legal access
2 to the site would not be something that this Board needs to determine as part of the Special Use
3 process. Other concerns were raised. There are people who I believe are here in opposition to
4 this tower facility tonight. And you will hear from them. We did receive the letter dated December
5 11th, last night, and read through that. Looking at their concerns, it does appear that these are the
6 same concerns that you all are fully familiar with we see often with these tower applications.
7 They're concerns about health, about impact of property values, and aesthetics. So in terms of
8 health, Exhibit 17 in the application is a certification from the Verizion engineer stating that the
9 facility will at all times be maintained and in compliance with SCCU regulations. And again, as I'm
10 sure your attorney has advised you, Federal Law is pretty strict about what can be the basis of
11 denial for a construction of placement of a tower and health affects and concerns of that nature
12 are not a basis for determining location of any wireless facility. In terms of impact to property
13 values, again, David Smith performed his impact study that was part of the application and he is
14 here to give his expert opinion as to the impact of property values. In terms of concerns about
15 aesthetics, again, they've raised concerns that the property may be timbered in the future. I've
16 already addressed how this facility will be in harmony with the area and what steps Towercom will
17 take in the event that timbering occurs. However,'l did want to just underscore again the fact that
18 this will be an innoculous use. It's a monopole tower without the lattice or the guywires, it's going
19 to be galvanized steel gray in color without painting or marking, it's not going to be lit, it's not
20 going to be emitting noise, there's not going to be dust, there's not going to be odor. Those are
21 the things that are usually the biggest impact to property. Now, is it going to be visibile from some
22 properties? Yes. A 195 -foot pole is not going to be invisible, but we have taken steps to make this
23 as minimally visible as possible given that it is a 195 -foot tower. Overall, there is a signifcant gap
24 in coverage. This tower is needed to fill that gap in coverage, and provide capacity offload and the
25 staff has determined as well as the staff's consultant, Jackie Hicks, has determined that this
26 application as submitted met all of the ordinance requirements and therefore we would
27 respectfully request that this Board approve the SUP. And at this time I would be happy to answer
28 any questions. I also have some witnessed to call to support the application.
29
30 Karen Barrows: I have a couple for Ms. Goode. Under tab 28 .... According to tab 28 it looks like
31 the bond is going to be for $75,000.
32
33 Laura Goode: Yes, Ma'am.
34
35 Karen Barrows: In our packet it said that the bond had to be a total of 110% of what it's actually
36 going to cost to remove this (the tower). And one of your tabs showed a cost of $74,000 and
37 change to remove it, so does that meet the obligation?
38
39 Laura Goode: So there are two bonds that are required. The performance bond and the tower
40 removal bond. So I believe that 28 is the performance bond.
41
42 Michael Harvey: I'm sorry, let me interrupt. If you'll go back to the main portion of the application,
43 (tab) 28 is the draft performance bond, and then tab 24 establishes the costs of removing the
44 tower. That (tab 24) establishes the cost to remove the tower and tab 23 is the removal bond in
45 the sum of $81,537.50.
OC Board of Adjustment- 12/12/16 Page 9 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Karen Barrows: I saw that figure but then elsewhere it says $75,000 so I was confused.
3
4 Michael Harvey: It would seem to me that they're providing you the cost to remove it in tab 24,
5 and then in tab 23 is the bond necessary to comply with the provisions of the UDO.
6
7 Laura Goode: If I could just add, I think there's two separate bonds that are required. There's a
8 performance bond of $75,000, which we will provide. And then there's a removal bond, and that's
9 based on the estimated cost removals, so that's where there's two different bond amounts in
10 there.
11
12 Karen Barrows: Thank you.
13
14 Matt Hughes: I have one question. You mentioned that Verizon looks for other structures where
15 they could possible co- locate. What types of structures would have been looked for before
16 deciding to build a tower?
17
18 Laura Goode: Sure. First, other towers within the search area. That's the easiest thing to co- locate
19 on, that's usually going to be where we can meet our height requirement. Other than that we will
20 look for water towers, tall buildings, those types of structures that are going to give you the type of
21 height you need for a macro type cell, this is going to be a macro cell. We're filling in a big
22 coverage out here. So those are the types of structures you're going to look at for co- location for
23 this type of a macro site.
24
25 Barry Katz: It just occurred to me. I believe you said that health issues are not germaine to this
26 hearing, right?
27
28 Laura Goode: Correct ... If there are no other questions at this time I will respectfully request that 1
29 be able to call my first witness.
30
31 Samantha Cabe: Any other questions from the Board? You may call your first witness.
32
33 David Smith: Good evening. My name is David Smith and I live at 3 Morristown Circle, in Durham,
34 North Carolina and I have been sworn.
35
36 Laura Goode: Great. Mr. Smith, could you tell us your occupation?
38 David Smith: I'm a commercial real estate appraiser.
39
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 10 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Laura Goode: Do you have any licenses, certifications, or memberships pertinent to that
2 occupation?
3
4 David Smith: I'm a state certified general real estate appraiser. I also hold the MAI and SRA
5 designations from the inaudible.
6
7 Laura Goode: Can you explain what those are?
8
9 David Smith: They're additional requirements that you have to have. Sort of a step up from just a
10 general appraiser. A sort of vocation that the state has. As a matter of fact, when they started
11 licensing people in the state they just automatically gave it to people that had a MAI designation.
12 You have to take a series of courses, have your experience reviewed by other appraisers, and
13 you have to take something that's called an in -depth report to show that you're capable of being
14 an appraiser.
15
16 Laura Goode: And how long have you been a certified real estate appraiser?
17
18 David Smith: Ever since they started it, I've been an appraiser for 35 years.
19
20 Laura Goode: How did you become involved in this particular site?
21
22 David Smith: I was contacted by Michael Hurst.
23
24 Laura Goode: Was that with Towercom?
25
26 David Smith: Yeah, I guess.
27
28 Laura Goode: What were you asked to do?
29
30 David Smith: To do an impact analysis on this tower, on the surrounding properties.
31
32 Laura Goode: Will you be paid as part the work you did for this site?
33
34 David Smith: Yes I will.
35
36 Laura Goode: Will the payment that you receive be contingent upon the opinion you give here
37 tonight at this hearing?
38
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 11 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 David Smith: No. I would lose my license if I were to have a contingent fee.
2
3 Laura Goode: Can you please briefly talk to us about your education, your training, and you
4 experience in this field.
5
6 David Smith: Well, again, I had to take, I think there were 8 at this time, of my courses to get my
7 MAI designation. And since then I have to go to numerous seminars. An average of about two a
8 year. In addition to other courses that I've taken over the 35 years I've had my designation.
9
10 Laura Goode: Have you done real estate impact studies before?
11
12 David Smith: I have, yes.
13
14 Laura Goode: Approximately how many?
15
16 David Smith: I would say somewhere around 20.
17
18 Laura Goode: Ok. Of any type of these, not just cell phone towers?
19
20 David Smith: Cell towers, and schools, and churches.
21
22 Laura Goode: Ok. Have you done any real estate impact studies in Orange County?
23
24 David Smith: I have.
25
26 Laura Goode: Have you ever been accepted as an expert in a real estate appraisel and
27 determining impact to property values of adjacent properties?
28
29 David Smith: I have.
30
31 Laura Goode: At this time I would respectfully request that this Board accept David Smith as an
32 expert in real estate appraisel and the determination of the impact of land uses on surrounding
33 property values.
34
35 Samantha Cabe: Does anyone have any objection to being qualified? No objection.
36
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 12 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Laura Goode: So earlier you testified that you retained by Towercom to do a real estate analysis
2 of the impact of the cell tower on adjacent properties. Did you prepare a report for that?
3
4 David Smith: I did.
5
6 Laura Goode: Is Exhibit 32 of the application, as well as supplemental item G, are those your
7 report in your supplemental reports?
8
9 David Smith: I asssume so. Yes, that looks like my report.
10
11 Laura Goode: What is the difference between those two reports?
12
13 David Smith: One does an analysis of just a subdivision in Wake County and the other includes
14 two announces that I did in Orange County.
15
16 Laura Goode: And did you come to an opinion based on the analysis that you did in a report that
17 you prepared about what any impact the proposed tower will have to contiguous property values?
18
19 David Smith: I didn't think it'd have any adverse impact on property values of the adjacent parcels.
20
21 Laura Goode: So let's talk about the basis of that opinion. What were the methods you used in
22 preparing these reports?
23
24 David Smith: I did a match pair analysis, and in that you find one property that has been adjacent
25 to a tower and you compare it to one that's away from a tower. Inaudible Sunrise Road, just
26 North of Chapel Hill, and I compared with a property on Kelly Court to the West of Chapel Hill and
27 there were some in those respects and I adjusted many differences and then got a per square foot
28 value and they were comparable. So I didn't see any impact from the one that had the tower and
29 the one that didn't.
30
31 Laura Goode: When you say a match pair analysis, is that an accepted method for evaluating the
32 impact to property values or proposed use?
33
34 David Smith: That is the accepted practice by the appraisel institute.
35
36 Laura Goode: Ok. Were there any other methods that you used in your report?
37
38 David Smith: I also looked at two subdivisions. One was in Lake Hogan Farms in Carrboro and it
39 was a large tower next to that, it was a lattice tower that had a light on it and it was clearly visible
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 13 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 from about half of the neighboring and not from the rest. So again, I did the same sort of thing. I've
2 made adjustments for differences in age and date of sale, and anything like that and then got per
3 square foot value. And the ones that could see the tower, there was about less than 1 % difference
4 in their sales prices verus the ones that could not see it. And again, this was a much more
5 intrusive cell tower since it was lattice and lit. And that less than 1 % is within range of error.
6
7 Laura Goode: Ok. What percentage difference in value to properties would lead you to conclude
8 that a use impacts negatively then the property values?
9
10 David Smith: I would say somewhere around 5 %.
11
12 Laura Goode: Were there any other towers or subdivisions that you looked at as part of your
13 analysis?
14
15 David Smith: I located one in Holly Springs in Lake County, and in this subdivision one of the lots
16 had a cell tower and it was a monopole, very similar to this subject one. But it was lit and I studied
17 the impact of the properties that were adjacent to the tower as well as those right across the street
18 that had a clear view of it and I compared those with properties that were further away that had a
19 much lesser view of it and there seemed to be no impact. Then I also went to another similar
20 subdivision that couldn't see the tower at all and again I did the same analysis where I make an
21 adjustment for any differences and per square foot there was no indication that there was a lower
22 value due to the presence to the tower.
23
24 Laura Goode: And are the data that you're talking about tonight, is that contained in your report
25 that you submitted?
26
27 David Smith: Yes it is.
28
29 Laura Goode: And what was the reason for doing the match pair as well as doing the subdivision?
30
31 David Smith: Well the match pair I just felt like that is sort of the standard, but I thought the other
32 two methods gave good support to that. So that's why I prepared those.
33
34 Laura Goode: Now, have you had a chance to look at the report that the opposition presented?
35
36 David Smith: I have.
37
38 Laura Goode: Is it done by Michael Ogburn?
39
40 David Smith: Yes.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 14 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Laura Goode: Is he MAI certified?
3
4 David Smith: Not to my knowledge, no.
5
6 Laura Goode: Ok. Did he do a match pair analysis in his report?
7
8 David Smith: No, he did not.
9
10 Barry Katz: What are we looking at?
11
12 Laura Goode: I'm sorry, this is not in evidence yet. And I have hold my questions on this until it's
13 in evidence.
14
15 John Price: We'd be happy to place it in evidence.
16
17 Samantha Cabe: Do you want to go ahead and mark it and distribute it just so that we know what
18 he's comparing?
19
20 John Price: Yes.
21
22 Samantha Cabe: So for the record the applicant is stipulating to the opposition's submission of
23 their first Exhibit into evidence?
24
25 John Price: No.
26
27 Samantha Cabe: Clarify for me then, what you're doing.
28
29 John Price: The document she is referring to an appraise[ report prepared by our expert witness.
30
31 Samantha Cabe: Right. So they're stipulating to the opposition putting in their first Exhibit before
32 the Board, is that correct?
33
34 John Price: That's my understanding.
35
36 Laura Goode: We're stipulating to it coming into evidence but not necessarily to the opinions or
37 conclusions that are on it.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 15 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Approved 3113117
Samantha Cabe: Exactly. So that we may look at it while your expert is testifying and compare.
Michael Harvey: We'll call this the Op Exhibit 1.
Samantha Cabe: And just for clarification, we will not be asking this witness questions about this
report because he did not prepare it.
Laura Goode: Ok, now I'm looking at what is tabbed as page 19 of 48 in Mr. Ogburn's report. Is
this an article regarding the impact of cell phone towers on house prices in residential
neighborhoods?
David Smith: Yes it is.
Laura Goode: Did you review this article?
David Smith: I looked at it briefly. I only saw it when I came tonight, so I haven't had a chance to
read it thoroughly.
Laura Goode: Ok, was this article written by certified real estate appraisers?
David Smith: No, it does not appear to be so.
John Price: I object to that statement, as a speculation of opinion and not a fact.
Laura Goode: And what was the date of this article?
David Smith: 2005.
Laura Goode: So how many years ago was that?
David Smith: About 11 years.
Laura Goode: In what, did you see from your review, what was the overall conclusion of this
article?
David Smith: Well it was.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16
Page 16 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Price: I object. I think the article speaks for itself. Mr. Smith who has not even reviewed the
3 article in order to comment.
4
5 Samantha Cabe: Does anyone from the Board have an opinion about that objection? I would say
6 we can read the article for ourselves.
7
8 Barry Katz: We haven't had any time to prepare this. So this is a survey? Ok. May I ask? Who's
9 being surveyed? Property owners or people who are considering purchasing property?
10
11 John Price: My expert when he testifies...
12
13 Barry Katz: Ok, he'll answer those questions.
14
15 Samantha Cabe: At this time I think I would ask you to limit Mr. Smith's testimony just to his report
16 and we can refer to this for differences but I believe it might be more appropriate to have the
17 oppostion put in their report to evidence and then you can cross examine all these points. That
18 would be more... Thank you.
19
20 Laura Goode: So based on the review that you did in your study in your report, what was your
21 opinion at the conclusion of this study?
22
23 David Smith: It has no adverse impact effect on value.
24
25 Laura Goode: Thank you. Do you have any questions?
26
27 John Price: Are you offering into the record his impact analysis? Or has it been offered?
28
29 Laura Goode: Yes, it's part of the application that's already been entered into the record.
30
31 John Price: Ok, I have several objections to that analysis. Statements contained in the analysis.
32 And I'd like to start if I may by questioning the witness regarding those questions ........... those
33 issues.
34
35 Samantha Cabe: Yes, and if you could just state your name for the record, your position and who
36 exactly you represent.
37
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 17 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 John Price: Yes, I'm sorry. I'm John Price, I'm will Calhoun, Bhelia, and Seacrest. A law firm here
2 in Durham. I represent, in this matter, several clients. One is Mr. Owen Gwen, individually, who is
3 a property owner on a property in the area of where this cell tower will be located. Mr Gwen is also
4 the member of Dove Field LLC, that's about a 220 -acre piece of property that's situated next to
5 where this cell tower will be constructed. I'm also representing Evan and Erin Gwen, who reside
6 on a piece of the Dove Field LLC property.
7
8 Samantha Cabe: Thank you.
9
10 John Price: Mr. Smith, in your analysis you have several statements that contained in it that I'd
11 like to ask you about. One is, you state that cell towers are in harmony with the area in the same
12 way that other utilities are. Does your expertise include landscape design?
13
14 David Smith: No.
15
16 John Price: Real estate development planning?
17
18 David Smith: No.
19
20 John Price: Master planning?
21
22 David Smith: No.
23
24 John Price: Aesthetic designer analysis?
25
26 David Smith: No.
27
28 John Price: Have you even been engaged as an expert to impigne on what is or is not in harmony
29 with a particular community?
30
31 David Smith: Yes, in front of a place like this I have. Yes.
32
33 John Price: Is there anything in your background that qualifies you in such matters anymore that
34 any other citizen?
35
36 David Smith: In matters of harmony?
37
38 John Price: Yes.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 18 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 David Smith: I am a real estate professional so, yes.
3
4 John Price: So would any real estate agent have just as much knowledge as you regarding what's
5 at harmony?
6
7 David Smith: I would say so.
8
9 John Price: Does it require expertise of a particular person to make that determination?
10
11 David Smith: No.
12
13 John Smith: Thank you. We object to that statement in Mr. Smith's report for the reason that he is
14 not qualified to offer an opinion as to whether or not the cell tower is in harmony with the
15 community and contiguous property. You also say in the report that cell towers are needed, Mr.
16 Smith. Do you recall that?
17
18 David Smith: Yes.
19
20 John Price: Do you consider yourself qualified as an expert on the types of structures or systems
21 that are needed or required for particular areas?
22
23 David Smith: No.
24
25 John Price: Are you an expert on cell towers?
26
27 David Smith: No.
28
29 John Price: We object to that statement in his report, as being that he is not qualified to offer an
30 opinion on need.
31
32 Samantha Cabe: Could you point out the specific statement that you're speaking of?
33
34 John Price: I'm sorry, yes. The first statement with regard to being in harmony with the area was
35 on page 12 of his report.
36
37 Michael Harvey: That's tab 32, page 12.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 19 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Price: Thank you. And with regard to the need, I can't remember where that was exactly, 1
3 didn't have that written down. I also have an objection on page 11, the first paragraph of the
4 analysis where you state, "based on the plans of the proposed tower and conversations of those
5 associated with it, there will be no environmental hazards. ". That statement is solely based on
6 what someone else told you, correct?
7 David Smith: Correct.
8
9 John Price: That's hearsay and we object to that statement to the extent that it would try to be
10 used as evidence as any kind and with respect to whether there are or not environmental hazards.
11
12 Samantha Cabe: And Mr. Price, can I stop you for just one moment? Do we need to be ruling on
13 each of these?
14
15 James Bryan: I wouldn't think so. I think, like we discussed... First of all, it's already in the record
16 so it could be that he's asking you to strike that from record but I don't think that is what we're
17 doing. I think these are arguments that this is not a competent material or substantial evidence. 1
18 think we can take that into consideration and give it it's due weight in your deliberations.
19
20 Samantha Cabe: Thank you.
21
22 Laura Goode: And if I may just comment to that objection on his point, experts are allowed to base
23 their opinions on hearsay and that is what he's done. He's not said specifically whether people
24 said inaudible.
25
26 John Price: It is a recognized exeption to the hearsay when the hearsay is within the specialty and
27 expertise of the witness. In this case the hearsay has nothing to do with his opinion with respect to
28 value of property. This solely goes to the question of environmental hazard, and the exception
29 does not apply.
30
31 Samantha Cabe: Thank you.
32
33 Barry Katz: Did we hear that according to statutes that we're not considering health hazards in the
34 substance of this? Isn't that what you said? Health issues are not a part of this hearing?
35
36 James Bryan: So yeah, if that becomes an issue I would advise you to ask the attorney's to further
37 argue that. There are Federal Laws that apply here that are to only apply to cell towers. I'm not
38 particularly an expert at that. My frank advice is that I don't think that's going to be what they're
39 asking you to base your decision on, either party.
40
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 20 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Susan Halkiotis: I have a question because I was a little confused as to how that can't be part of
2 the decision since one of the findings of fact mentions public health. It seems contradictory.
3
4 Michael Harvey: I think part of it might be a comment made by Ms. Goode at the beginning of the
5 meeting and part of it may also be I want to remind you what's on page 122 of the staff packet
6 where we stick concerns. Questions were asked during the balloon test about the impacts of
7 electromagnetic radiation. And staff's comment is the Federal Government has found there is no
8 conclusive evidence demonstrated that telecommunication towers generate harmful radiation or
9 have an impact with individuals overall health. Section 5.10.8.4 sub section V requires all SUP to
10 include a condition that the "Electromagnetic radiation levels maintain compliance with
11 requirements to the FCC, that's Federal Communications Commission, regarding an emission of
12 electromagnetic radiation" This is a mandatory condition of the telecommunication tower permit.
13 So we will respond to a question about electromagnetic radiation. I won't speak for what Ms.
14 Goode was talking to, but I think Mr. Katz had gleamed on what we said on page 122, which is
15 consistent with our UDO. I wanted to make sure everyone remembered that.
16
17 Barry Katz: Yes, exactly.
18
19 Laura Goode: I want to just clarify that statement I made earlier. I'm referring to 47 USC 332,
20 specifically sections C7 and it states that no state or local government or instrumentality thereof
21 may regulate the placement, construction, and modification or personal wireless facilities on the
22 basis of environmental effects, of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities
23 comply with commissions regulations concerning such emissions. I was talking to the specific
24 health concerns raised in the letter submittal.
25
26 Matt Hughes: So basically that piece of Federal Law is basic civics. The Federal government says
27 we can't do it, therefore no matter what we say locally we can't do it.
28
29 Laura Goode: As to definition, that's correct.
30
31 John Price: I have a little different take on that. I don't think this Board can deny to permit on the
32 basis of enviromental hazard or health hazards on that basis. That does not mean the Board is
33 restricted from considering that in reaching this decision in so far as the policies and goals of the
34 Board are stated.
35
36 Michael Harvey: And we also state that State law says the same thing. You cannot establish a
37 regulatory standard for something that you're preempted from doing. The FCC has preempted you
38 essentially from doing that. They have established what the gauge level is, as Mr. Price is correct,
39 that can't be a basis for decision for denial, which is why it's a mandatory condition from our UDO.
40 And as referenced under State law.
41
42 Barry Katz: So were there any other environmental hazards that you are eluding to with that
43 statement? Was there anything else besides the electromagnetic wave radiation? Are there other
OC Board of Adjustment- 12/12/16 Page 21 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Approved 3113117
environmental hazards you want to bring up to us, besides potential electromagnetic wave
radiation?
John Price: No. Well, yes.
Samantha Cabe: Ok, can we reserve that for your case in chief? Right now we're just on the
objection for his testimony, correct?
John Price: I have additional questions for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith, are you a residential or
commercial appraiser?
David Smith: I started out as a residential appraiser and I'm currently a general appraiser,
primarily commercial meaning non single family dwelling properties.
John Price: And in the last 10 years, predominantly has your work been commercial property?
David Smith: Non single family residential property, yes.
John Price: Are you aware that the Clearwater Lake area includes single family residences?
David Smith: I am.
John Price: And that it does not include commercial or industrial?
David Smith: Yes... Including large tracks of land of which have residents on them.
John Price: Were you engaged to perform an appraisel with any of the property in Clearwater
Lake area?
David Smith: An appraisel, no sir.
John Price: Have you ever appraised any property in that area to determine the value now as
opposed to the value if the proposed tower's constructed?
David Smith: No.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16
Page 22 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 John Price: In analyzing the real estate values of any given property is it important to take into
2 consideration any conditions which are unique, such as large structures within the view of the
3 property?
4
5 David Smith: Yes.
6
7 John Price: Potential hazards?
8
9 David Smith: Yes.
10
11 John Price: Perceived hazards?
12
13 David Smith: Yes.
14
15 John Price: Eye sores.
16
17 David Smith: Yes.
18
19 John Price: Why? Why is it important to take it into consideration?
20
21 David Smith: Because they have a potential of having an adverse effect on property values.
22
23 John Price: Thank you. In connection with performing your impact analysis did you do any search
24 to determine whether there were any published industry studies, reports or surveys regarding the
25 impact of cell towers on property values?
26
27 David Smith: The only ones I found were old.
28
29 John Price: So you did do a search?
30
31 David Smith: I searched the appraisal institute information, like Mr. Ogburn had.
32
33 John Price: Did you find the article in the study that was attached to Mr. Ogburn's appraisal?
34
35 David Smith: Again, I got it tonight and I looked at it,briefly.
36
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 23 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 John Price: No, I'm asking.. In the course of performing your service in this case, did you review
2 any published industry study, or reports, or surveys regarding the potential impact on value of cell
3 towers?
4
5 David Smith: I am aware of the 2005 study.
6
7 John Price: You're aware of it from looking at it? Today?
8
9 David Smith: No. I've seen it before.
10
11 John Price: You have seen it before?
12
13 David Smith: Yes I have.
14
15 John Price: Any other reports, or analysis'?
16
17 David Smith: No.
18
19 John Price: Were you aware of the survey study behind it in Mr. Ogburn appraisel?
20
21 David Smith: The study that he did, or the study ......
22
23 John Price: The study that was performed by.
24
25 David Smith: You mean the survey that they did?
26
27 John Price: Yes.
28
29 David Smith: No. I didn't look at it that closely.
30
31 John Price: To the extent that there are published industry studies, reports, and surveys dealing
32 with the potential impact of the cell towers on the value of properties is that somehting that would
33 be important to review and take into consideration when entering an opinion such as yours?
34
35 David Smith: That's secondary information. It's much better to go on the ground and find your own
36 data. Because these are nationwide studies and each place is different. Especially when they're
37 11 years old.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 24 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Price: Is it your testimony that both of those are 11 years old?
3
4 David Smith: I'm not sure what other one you're talking about.
5
6 John Price: Are you saying that age has an impact on whether you consider it or not? Age of the
7 report or the study?
8
9 David Smith: I'm saying people's opinions change.
10
11 John Price: Are you aware of any studies or reports in addition to those attached to Mr. Osburns
12 appraisel reports, dealing with impact of cell towers on value property?
13
14 David Smith: No.
15
16 John Price: Have you searched for any? Looked for any?
17
18 David Smith: Not recently but I have in the past, yes.
19
20 John Price: In connection with the services in this instance did you?
21
22 David Smith: No.
23
24 John Price: At the time that you prepared the report did you know from where within the
25 Clearwater Lake area the contiguous property the cell tower would be visible?
26
27 David Smith: I don't exactly know, I have a pretty good idea of it. I was not there for the balloon
28 test.
29
30 John Price: As matter of fact you prepared the report before the balloon test, didn't you?
31
32 David Smith: Yes.
33
34 John Price: So you had no idea whether that tower would be visible did you?
35
36 David Smith: No.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 25 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Price: Would you agree that the visibility of that tower is a significant factor in assessing
3 possible impact on property?
4
5 , David Smith: The announces I did showed that visual impact of the tower does not affect property
6 value.
7
8 John Price: So you're saying because you did a study that shows it's not, therefore it doesn't
9 matter?
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
David Smith: Yes.
John Price: On page 11, second paragraph of your report it says, "The ony potential adverse
effect is the visual impact on the tower itself on the adjoining properties ", that's your statement, is
it not?
David Smith: Correct.
John Price: And you don't know what properties the tower would be visible do you?
David Smith: Correct ... inaudible
John Price: You further state on the same page that, "The type of property with the greatest
potential for adverse effect from visibilty is on single family dwellings. ". That's your statement,
correct?
27 David Smith: Correct.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
John Price: Do you know or did you know at the time you prepared the report that the Dove Field
LLC property was the nearest property to where the tower would be constructed?
David Smith: Yes.
John Price: On page 11 of your report you say, "The tower site is completely surrounded by
mature trees. ". Do you recall that?
David Smith: Yes.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16
Page 26 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Approved 3113117
John Price: Is that important to you in accessing the impact?
David Smith: No.
John Price: That's not important to you?
David Smith: No. As long as it's screened by trees or a buffer.
John Price: As long as it's... Repeat that please.
David Smith: As long as there's some screen from the trees or from a buffer, I don't think it
impacts the property values.
John Price: Well if there are mature trees and you made a note that it's completely surrounded by
mature trees, aren't you saying because of that there's less impact?
David Smith: I'm describing the property.
John Price: You also note in the report that the area between the least area and the tower site are
heavily wooded.
David Smith: Yes.
John Price: You also make the statement in your report, "If the trees are removed a 40 -foot wide
landscape buffer would be installed. ".
David Smith: Yes.
John Price: Were you aware at the time you prepared your analysis that the Butner family that
owns the property on which the cell tower was going to be constructed was going to be
considering timbering this property?
David Smith: No.
John Price: No one advised you of that with Towercom?
David Smith: No.
OC Board of Adjustment —12/12/16
Page 27 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Price: Ms. Goode referred to a Type C landscape that would be performed on the property,
3 would be established on the property in the event and I think an answer to the question that was
4 asked to you in the event any of the trees died, I assume that Type C landscaping would also be
5 placed on the property in the event it was timbered. Do you know how long it would take for the
6 trees within a Type C landscape to mature to the same size as the trees that are currently on that
7 property?
8
9 Laura Goode: I would object at this point in time. As that's outside of his expertise.
10
11 John Price: Am I correct that you used Cobble Ridge and Holly Springs as a comparable for
12 comparison purposes in your analysis?
13
14 David Smith: Yes.
15
16 John Price: And also Sunset Ridge?
17
18 David Smith: Yes. That is one of my analysis.
19
20 John Price: Are either Cobble Ridge or Sunset Ridge zoned rural buffer?
21
22 David Smith: Not to my knowledge, no.
23
24 John Price: Do you know what that means, rural buffer?
25
26 David Smith: Well I have a vague idea but I don't feel comfortable providing specifics.
27
28 John Price: Didn't you include a specific definition of it in your analysis?
29
30 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
31 specifics and I would hate to make that assumption.
32
33 John Price: Ok, we'll go on. Were the homes in Cobble Ridge on minimum 2 -acre lots?
34
35 David Smith: Minimum 2 -acre lots? No, I don't believe so.
36
37 John Price: You don't believe so or you know for a fact that they were not?
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 28 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 David Smith: I know for a fact they are not.
3
4 John Price: As matter of fact, do you recall any lot within Cobble Ridge where there was a home
5 on a 2 -acre lot?
6
7 David Smith: No.
8
9 John Price: Same with Sunset Ridge?
10
11 David Smith: Yes.
12
13 John Price: Did the area within Cobble Ridge or Sunset Ridge include creeks or ponds?
14
15 David Smith: I don't know.
16
17 John Price: Wildlife habitats?
18
19 David Smith: I don't know.
20
21 John Price: I'm correct, am I not, that the maximum value on any of the homes in Cobble Ridge
22 and Sunset Ridge that the top value of any of them was $400,000?
23
24 David Smith: I don't know. You mean the selling price, is that what you are referring to?
25
26 John Price: Yes, selling price.
27
28 David Smith: I don't know. I could look at it. You need to know the ones I used?
29
30 John Price: Yes, correct.
31
32 David Smith: I'll take a look.
33
34 John Price: Are you aware the value of the properties of the homes in the Dove Field property?
35
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 29 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 David Smith: I have the tax values of adjacent properties in my report but I don't have... That's all
2 1 have.
3
4 John Price: Tax values are not the same as the actual market value of the property?
5
6 David Smith: Theoretically they are, but no.
7
8 John Price: Are there many of those properties where the value is above $400,000?
9
10 David Smith: I don't know.
11
12 John Price: Are you aware that Mr. Gwen's home site on the property that that home site sits on
13 was valued well in excess of $1,000,000?
14
15 David Smith: No.
16
17 John Smith: Are there significant view sheds or were there significant view sheds in Cobble Ridge
18 or Sunset Ridge?
19
20 David Smith: What do you mean by view shed?
21
22 John Price: I guess what I mean when I use that term is locations where you have views that are
23 natural landscapes or natural environment. Views of forest, views of nature, views of the
24 environment.
25
26 David Smith: I'm not aware, I'm not sure what you mean and I don't know if they did or not.
27
28 John Price: What was the terrain of Cobble Ridge or Sunset Ridge, was it Hope Rolling Hills?
29
30 David Smith: Yes.
31
32 John Price: Do you have an opinion based on your experience whether the presence of a visible
33 199 -foot cell tower in an area would have a greater or lesser impact on a community zoned rural
34 buffer with large lots, large expensive homes, heavily wooded with beautiful views, nearby wildlife
35 habitats, golf courses, as opposed to more densily populated residential areas with smaller homes
36 on smaller lots?
37
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 30 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 David Smith: I would think the larger lots would have a lesser impact because there's more
2 between the property and the tower.
3
4 John Price: You mean in terms of the square foot?
5
6 David Smith: If you have a 2 -acre lot, you've got a lot more trees and screen than a half acre lot
7 would. So I would think that the half acre lot would be impacted more.
8
9 John Price: Wouldn't you also think that someone who's paying a higher price for a property that's
10 located in a community like that is going to be... that the impact of a visible cell tower in that area
11 is going to be greater than it would be in other communities?
12
13 David Smith: I don't think cell towers impact any properties.
14
15 John Price: I understand that's your opinion... On page 8 of your report you state that the area,
16 and you're referring to the Clearwater Lake area, it's popular and property values should increase
17 at a rate greater than inflation. Why is that?
18
19 David Smith: Just the overall Orange County is more popular than the country in general and
20 property values increase.
21
22 John Price: So you were referring to Orange County as opposed to the property contiguous to
23 where the cell tower's going to be constructed?
24
25 David Smith: Yes ..... all of Orange County.
26
27 John Price: How about the propert contiguous to where the cell tower's going to be?
28
29 David Smith: Yes, I think it would increase higher than inflation.
30
31 John Price: Am I also correct that the opinion that you expressed in your report that the presence
32 of the cell tower will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous properties is based solely on the
33 data you collected with respect to the selling prices of homes in these other locations?
34
35 David Smith: Yes.
36
37 John Price: And nothing else?
38
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 31 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 David Smith: No. Just based on that.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
John Price: I don't have any further questions.
Laura Goode: I have a few follow up questions, thank you... And you did your report based on the
requirements of the Orange County code, is that correct?
David Smith: Correct.
Laura Goode: And the specific priming effect is that the use would maintain or enhance the value
of contiguous property, is that correct?
David Smith: That's correct.
Laura Goode: Did you evaluate the contiguous properties to the Butner family farm property?
David Smith: Yes.
Laura Goode: Is that an evaluation contained in your report?
David Smith: It wasn't an evaluation of his property's, it was an effect of value of the cell tower on
his properties.
Laura Goode: Ok. Contiguous meaning that you looked at the properties adjacent to the Butner
family farm trust property?
27 David Smith: Yes.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Laura Goode: Ok so ...... You've been asked about properties owned by the Gwen family that
were valued at $1,000,000, was that part of the contiguous properties that you reviewed as part of
your report?
David Smith: No, I believe they're further away.
Laura Goode: You were also asked about your statement in your report that you stated that the
greatest potential for impact from visibility of the tower is on single family residences, is that right?
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 32 of 156
David Smith: Yes.
Approved 3113117
3 Laura Goode: Ok. And what was your conclusion as to impact of a cell phone tower on single
4 family residences?
5
6 David Smith: It would have no adverse effect.
7
8 Laura Goode: You also testified about doing a match pair analysis as a part of your evaluation?
9
10 David Smith: Yes.
11
12 Laura Goode: Can you explain what a match pair analysis means? Matched to what?
13
14 David Smith: You compare two similar properties. Ideally you would want one difference to find
15 out what the difference in value for that one item is. It's very rare you find an absolute match to
16 pair so what you have to do is adjust the differences until the only difference left is that one item.
17 In this case I did it for a cell tower.
IR
19 Laura Goode: Ok. Now in that match pair analysis what properties were you trying to match to?
20
21 David Smith: I was trying to match a property on Sunrise Drive that backs up to a cell tower with
22 the one of Kelly Court that's similar in most respects but did not have the cell tower. So they
23 were..... I adjusted the Kelly Court until it was essentially equal with the Sunrise, except for the
24 cell tower.
25
26 Laura Goode: And were those homes similar in nature to the homes found on the properties
27 adjacent to the Butner family farm trust property?
28
29 David Smith: A few of them. It was a fairly small house.
30
31 Laura Goode: Now, you've been asked about Mr. Gwen's home being valued at or above
32 $1,000,000. Does the fact of the selling prices in different areas you examined are lower versus
33 the appraisel value of Mr. Gwen's property, does that change you conclusion?
34
35 David Smith: No.
36
37 Laura Goode: Taking into account all the information that you've been asked about, what is your
38 overall conclusion?
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 33 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Price: This is redundent.
3
4 David Smith: That the cell tower would have no adverse impact on property values of contiguous
5 property.
6
7 Laura Goode: I don't have any further questions.
8
9 John Price: On those properties that you did the match pair you said you compared similar
10 properties other than the fact that there was a cell tower on the other properties what else was
11 similar?
12
13 David Smith: They were similar in size and design, one wasn't 2 -story, they were both traditional
14 ranch buildings.
15
16 John Price: You're talking about the similarity between the other properties in your analysis, you're
17 not talking about similarity to the property contiguous to the cell tower, correct?
18
19 David Smith: That's correct. These are two properties that were in different areas, correct.
20
21 John Price: No further questions.
22
23 Samantha Cabe: Do any members of the Board have questions for this witness?
24
25 Barry Katz: You were talking about properties on Sunrise, right? Is Sunrise in a rural buffer?
26
27 Michael Harvey: Yes.
28
29 John Price: Sunrise or Sunset? You said in your report Sunset, I thought?
30
31 David Smith: Sunrise.
32
33 Barry Katz: It is in a rural buffer.
34
35 Michael Harvey: I'm going to answer that questions following that it is. A telecommunications
36 tower that was reviewed in 2004 and 2005 when my tenure with the County started on Sunrise
37 Road. And it is in the rural buffer. It's on the outskirts of Chapel Hill.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 34 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Samantha Cabe: Any other questions?
3
4 Barry Katz: I just wondered if there are any published analysis' of comparables related to cell
5 towers that you could actually identify and use at evidence one way or the other, in the United
6 States?
7
8 David Smith: Well that's what I did. I used properties next to cell towers...
9
10 Barry Katz: You did individually but you couldn't go to some journal and find boat loads of
11 comparisons?
12
13 David Smith: The only journal that I'm aware of is in this report that's 2005, and it was actually
14 done in New Zealand.
15
16 Barry Katz: It was done in New Zealand?
17
18 David Smith: Yes.
19
20 Barry Katz: Are there any in the United States?
21
22 David Smith: Not that I'm aware of.
23
24 Barry Katz: Ok. I'm surprised.
25
26 Samantha Cabe: Ok, your next witness?
27
28 Laura Goode: Good Evening. Could you please state your name?
29
30 David Haughney: My Name's David Haughney.
31
32 Laura Goode: What's your business address?
33
34 David Haughney: My business address is 3020 Hammond Road in Raleigh.
35
36 Laura Goode: Have you been sworn in?
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 35 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 David Haughney: Yes, I've been sworn.
3
4 Laura Goode: And what do you do for a living?
5
6 David Haughney: I'm an RF engineer for Verizon Wireless. It stands for radio frequency.
7
8 Laura Goode: And can you explain what your job involves?
9
10 David Haughney: I'm specifically a design engineer in the Triangle area for Verizon, it involves
11 identifying new coverage and capacity including so needed where the demand is highest, where
12 they would benefit us the most, and then design and work into the deploy those projects.
13
14 Laura Goode: How long have you been doing this job?
15
16 David Haughney: A very long time. In the Triangle area alone 17 years or RF Engineering and
17 technical work.
18
19 Laura Goode: What other experience, training, or education do you have that prepared you for
20 this job?
21
22 David Haughney: My entire career, basically. I was trained in electronics technology in high school
23 and graduated high school with a full time job repairing electronic circuit boards at the component
24 level. And then went on to further my training and experience in the United States Army, in military
25 communications. And have worked in the wireless industry my entire career.
26
27 Laura Goode: At this time I respectfully request that this Board accept David Haughney as an
28 expert in the area of radio frequency engineering and determining network objectives in the
29 explore of new wireless telecommunications facilities... So we've talked a little bit already about
30 the network objective for this site and the propegation maps. The propegation maps that were
31 submitted as Exhibit 7 to the application, did you prepare those maps?
32
33 David Haughney: Yes I did.
34
35 Laura Goode: And can you explain a little bit about what those propegation maps mean?
36
37 David Haughney: The propegation maps are generated from a highly specialized tool that's really
38 only used by people with my title, in my industry, to predict how the network is performing and to
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 36 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 make adjustments to that network and predict what future enhancements or changes you can
2 effect on network using that tool.
3
4 Laura Goode: And can you explain or move to what was Exhibit 5 of the application. The search
5 area map. Is this something you created?
6
7 David Haughney: Yes, absolutely. We design the search areas for the network based on
8 coverage, capacity, demands, customer complaints, input from sales.
9
10 Laura Goode: And is the search area map that's shown as Exhibit 5 of the application, is that the
11 maximum search area in which the proposed telecommunication equipment for the Clearwater
12 Lake site can function as it's intended to meet that network objective?
13
14 David Haughney: Yes it is. This is the optimal search area to improve that huge coverage hole
15 that exists in that area and along Mt. Carmel Church Road.
16
17 Laura Goode: And in terms of the network objective Exhibit 4 of the application is a document
18 titled "Network Objective Statement: Clearwater Lake Site ", it has your signature on it. Is that a
19 true and accurate copy of your statement regarding the network objective for the site?
20
21 David Haughney: Yes it is.
22
23 Laura Goode: To your knowledge were there any existing towers or other structures within the
24 search area that were possible for co- location of the equipment?
25
26 David Haughney: No.
27
28 Laura Goode: Are you familiar with what was known as the Mellot candidate?
29
30 David Haughney: Yes.
31
32 Laura Goode: How did you become aware of this Mellot candidate?
33
34 David Haughney: Through the general search area process. After we go through that analysis and
35 design to determine where the optimal search area is we then submit that to our real estate teams
36 for their review and they're the experts in that department of real estate. And we'll go out and
37 taking all things into consideration, including ordinances, the best candidates to fulfill the need.
38 And one of the priorities is to look for existing structures first to fulfill the need. And then where
39 identified ..... but these two raw link candidates ...... one of them being Mellot as it is known and
40 the primary candidate that we eventually selected.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 37 of 156
Approved 3113117
2 Laura Goode: Did you evaluate Mellot candidate for whether it would meet the network objective
3 for Verizon Wireless with this site?
4
5 David Haughney: Yes, absolutely, I did.
6
7 Laura Goode: And I'm showing you what was introduced as Exhibit 11 to the application. Did you
8 create Exhibit 11, the Mellot candidate analysis?
9
10 David Haughney: Yes.
11
12 Laura Goode: Ok. And is this a true and accurate copy of what you created?
13
14 David Haughney: Yes it is.
15
16 Laura Goode: Ok. Can you explain the analysis you did for the Mellot candidate? As to whether it
17 would meet the network objective for Verizon?
18
19 David Haughney: Yes, absolutely. One of the primary objectives as stated is to improve that dead
20 zone on Mt. Carmel Church Road between about the Orange County line and North towards 15-
21 501 it goes into Chapel Hill. That whole road is a dead zone. You're either going to have no
22 service or very poor, and unreliable service. And that being the primary objective, filling in the
23 coverage hole, in my analysis of Mellot candidate I was not seeing any coverage get over there
24 when I ran it through my prediction inaudible and I had digged deeper into the reasons why; why
25 do we have a simulated a 200 -foot structure at this location and it's not reaching distance away to
26 the road that it should and identify the terrain of structure. There's basically a 200 -foot terrain
27 increase a short distance away from the proposed location and the location sits at the bottom of a
28 200 -foot hill and we're only proposed a 200 -foot tower. So these radio signals we're using do not
29 penetrate through earth. In addition to the 200 -foot terrain obstruction there's another 100 -foot of
30 dense foliage, average height. And the radio signals we're using don't penetrate through dense
31 foliage very well either. So an optimal location has to take in consideration of the terrain in the
32 area to meet the objective. And this did not. Because of that obstructure. It will not reach Mt.
33 Carmel Church Road.
34
35 Laura Goode: Now turning to the proposed Clearwater Lake site; were there any alternatives
36 technologies available that would provide the needed increase coverage in capacity offload in the
37 Clearwater Lake area without the proposed 195 foot tower?
38
39 David Haughney: No, this is a very optimal design for this area.
40
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 38 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Laura Goode: Would small cell or DAS technology work to meet the network objective for the
2 proposed site?
3
4 David Haughney: No. I'll expand on that just a little bit. We use macrocells, small cells, microcells,
5 picocells. Verizon is on the forefront of using those technologies on ..... we've actually
6 implemented a very well developed network of small cells and DAS on UNC campus becusae that
7 is the areas where they are appropriate. Where you have a very high concentration of users and
8 you don't need a really tall structure to an exhaust of the carrier because there's so many users
9 just right in one area. That's where small cells and DAS are appropriate. And they work and
10 Verizon deploys those technologies. In a rural area, this is where you're trying to cover a very
11 large area, let's call it 4 square miles to connect between the surrrounding sites at least, and more
12 sparse usage without concentrated usage a macrocell is the appropriate feasible and practical
13 solution.
14
15 Laura Goode: Is it possible, using the monopole, for Verizon Wireless to meet this network
16 objective for this site but flush mounting the antennas to the structure?
17
18 David Haughney: The optimal design for the site is the one that we proposed and it does include
19 more than one antenna per sector and it includes towercomp radio electronics to enhance and
20 improve the coverage. And using flush mount design takes away those advantages from it. It
21 limits you to one antenna per sector, it limits the amount of towercomp radio electronics that you
22 can mount, and then greatly diminishes the overall coverage and capacity benefit of the solution.
23
24 Laura Goode: Exhibit 27 of the application is a document labeled "Technolgical Invisibility of Flush
25 Mounted Antennas: Clearwater Lake site" has your signature on it. Is that a true and accurate
26 copy of your statement?
27
28 David Haughney: Yes it is.
1801]
30 Laura Goode: And finally, will Verizon Wireless' proposed equipment for the tower comply with all
31 Federal, State, and Local RF emissions requirements?
32
33 David Haughney: Yes, absolutely.
34
35 Laura Goode: In Exhibit 17 of the application is a document labeled "Non- Interference Statement
36 for Clearwater Lake" with your signature. Is that a true and accurate copy of your statement?
37
38 David Haughney: Yes.
39
40 Laura Goode: I don't have any further questions at this time.
41
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 39 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Price?
2
3 John Price: Yes, I have a few. Mr. Haughney, you prepared two letters. One to Michael Harvey at
4 the Planning Department, and one to your counselor Laura Goode that were attached to the
5 application, is that correct? One is tab 21, and one is tab 30. Is that correct?
6
7 Laura Goode: (tab) 21 is not his statement. That's John Yeagley's statement.
8
9 John Price: Have you reviewed Mr. Yeagley's letter of September 28th to counsel?
10
11 David Haughney: I'm not sure what letter you're referring to.
12
13 John Price: It's a letter that addresses the issue of section 5.10.8 (b)(4) of the Orange County
14 Unified Development Ordinance setting forth the priorities for location of telecommunication
15 facilities.
16
17 David Haughney: If I could see that specific letter I could tell you if I reviewed it or not but I'm
18 familiar with what you're speaking about ... (Attorney Goode handed Mr. Haughney a copy of the
19 letter) I have not seen this particular letter but I have seen this, the outline of the section of
20 priorities. I'm familiar with it.
21
22 John Price: You were not consulted by Mr. Yeagley?
23
24 David Haughney: Mr. Yeagley's an expert in that field and he knows that part of his job very well.
25 It's a given communication between inaudible and Mr. Yeagley.
KEV
27 John Price: So you are not offering any opinion with respect to whether there are other locations,
28 including within the priority locations set forth by Orange County the Planning Department on
29 which your cell tower could be located? Is that right?
30
31 David Haughney: Could you rephrase that .... Or summarize .....?
32
33 John Price: You're not expressing any opinion with regard to whether the cell tower structure or
34 facilities could be located anywhere else other than the location selected on the search rank?
35
36 David Haughney: Um ...... I guess I would answer that yes.
37
38 John Price: You are or are not?
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 40 of 156
Approved 3113117
2 David Haughney: I am not a real estate expert. I submit a search ring and a real estate and site
3 acquisition experts return with candidates from that ring. I am familiar with the area, if there was a
4 water tank somewhere in the ring I might even suggest it as part of my search ring submission to
5 Mr. Yeagley. When I submit that ring for evaluation I might say there's a known tower in here, in
6 this ring, and we like it. So in that respect, no, I didn't have any familiarity with any existing
7 structures and I leave it up to them to be professional with site analysis.
8
9 John Price: What are the reasons this new cell tower is needed?
10
11 David Haughney: The coverage hole that exists on Mt. Carmel Church Lake Road needs
12 coverage improvement and all of the surrounding sites around it will greatly benefit from the
13 capacity improvement that it offers.
14
15 John Price: And the other sites around it, does that include the UNC campus?
16
17 David Haughney: Well, absolutely yes.
18
19 John Price: I understand that the proposed tower will create cells using 700 megahertz, AWS, and
20 PCS spectra. Is that right?
21 David Haughney: Correct.
22
23 John Price: Are there different business cases developed for the different spectra?
24
25 David Haughney: I don't think in the context that we're speaking, no. Each one of those bands
26 may indeed be used on this structure and they are used on microcell structures in the network, in
27 this area.
28
29 John Price: I understand but 700 Megahertz travels about 3 times the distance of AWS and PCS
30 spectra. Are output powers of the different spectra adjusted to adjust the covering area so all are
31 equal?
32
33 David Haughney: No, they're not all equal. So the lower band frequencies have better coverage
34 and better penetration but there's a limited amount of bandwith we have in lower band frequency.
35 We use AWS and PCS and we're exploring other frequency bands for use, because we need
36 more spectra. The lower bands are great. I wish I had an unlimited amount of low band spectra,
37 but we don't. We have to use the higher band spectra.
38
39 John Price: If output powers are not adjusted AWS and PCS cell sites would be smaller in area,
40 wouldn't they?
OC Board of Adjustment —12/12/16 Page 41 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 David Haughney: A correct answer to that question is ..... we optimize our network for optimal
3 coverage and performance on all our bands.
4
5 John Price: Would these be focused on different service or market than the 700 megahertz
6 spectrum cell tower?
7
8 David Haughney: Not in particular. That's why earlier I said not in this context. I'll put out an
9 example that might answer your question a little more or maybe what you are alluding to... Small
10 cells, for instance, since they're focused on gererally a hot spot area of coverage, like a building or
11 a shopping center or stadium, we use the higher bands AWS and PCS at those locations
12 sometimes because we know we have a very well defined small coverage area we don't use the
13 low bands. That's an example but I'm not sure about the question or the intent because we do use
14 all bands on microcells. All the bands that are mentioned, they will be used.
15
16 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Price, before you go on I want to just... I don't know if my Board agrees with
17 me but I think we're going into the weeds here. If you could remind us how what you're
18 questioning him about is relevant to the questions before this Board, which are the standards that
19 we have yet to ultimately decide. Maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general
20 welfare, maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, user will be in harmony with the
21 area and complies with the comprehensive plan. I think we're getting into some detail that is
22 beyond the scope here and I want to remind everyone we have a standing rule that this Board
23 adjourns at 10:30 unless we vote to stay open. So I just don't want you to spend your time asking
24 questions that are not relevant to what we're deciding.
25
26 John Price: Well the questions I'm asking have to do with laying a foundation for my expert
27 witness' testimony, which has to do with whether or not there are in fact alternatives to the single
28 cell tower that is being proposed in this case by Towercom for solving and addressing the specific
29 needs along Mt. Carmel Road and the UNC Campus that would not involve putting up a large cell
30 tower that has other impacts on the community. That is one of the requirements...
31
32 Samantha Cabe: Ok, I'm just telling you how much time we have left and I am saying your
33 testimony is going into an area that we do not have to consider as a Board. It's not our decision as
34 to whether there are alternatives. Our decision is about the application before us. So if you could
35 just proceed with cross examining this witness on the relevant evidence.
36
37 John Price: I do think...
38
39 Samantha Cabe: I'm not arguing with you, I'm just asking you to go forward.
40
41 John Price: Right, ok I'll move forward. What is your call completion rate in the area along Mt.
42 Carmel Road?
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 42 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Laura Goode: At this point in time I would object to that being proprietary confidential business
3 information.
4
5 John Price: That goes directly to the issue of whether or not this cell tower is needed or not.
6
7 David Haughney: And we presented a prop map showing no coverage in the area.
8
9 John Price: The entire Mt. Carmel Road has no coverage? Is that your testimony?
10
11 David Haughney: As indicated on the propegation map, obviously I didn't testify to that, I testified
12 to the map.
13
14 John Price: How has the completion rate changed over the years on Mt. Carmel Road?
15
16 Laura Goode: Again I would object to this being confidential proprietary business information that
17 the applicant is not required to provide pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes.
18
19 John Price: You're not going to answer the question?
20
21 Laura Goode: Correct.
22
23 John Price: On average, how long would it take a driver to traverse the section of the road that
24 has bad coverage?
25
26 Laura Goode: Again I would object to this being proprietary and confidential business information
27 that is not required to be presented pursuant to the NCGS.
28
29 John Price: What is your goal for capacity and call completion?
30
31 Laura Goode: Again this is proprietary and confidential business information that is not required to
32 be presented pursuant to the NCGS.
33
34 John Price: Mr. Haughney, you do recall your September 28th letter ... I am sorry ..... Are you
35 only involved in the site selection for this cell tower opposed to the need for the cell tower?
36
37 David Haughney: No, I did determine the need.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 43 of 156
Approved 3113117
2 John Price: And you came to the conclusion I assume, am I correct, that the only way to address
3 the issue of coverage along Mt. Carmel Road and the offload capacity at UNC Campus was to
4 build a single tower ...... a199 -foot tower in this particular location? Is that right?
5
6 David Haughney: You're reading a little bit into the statements. The UNC Campus site is not even
7 in the jurisdiction you're speaking of and there are other capacity improvements that we have
8 designed for that site. You're interpreting it as if that's the only capacity improvement in that area
9 or for that site and Ive already stated that we use small cell and DAS appropriately in that campus
10 environment to help. But this is an additional effort to improve our coverage and capacity in this
11 area.
12
13 John Price: Well I guess the reason that I came to that conclusion or opinion was because in your
14 application you specifically state that one of the purposes of this cell tower was for capacity
15 offload on the UNC Campus.
16
17 David Haughney: It is. It is not the only one.
18
19 John Price: I didn't say it was the only one.
20
21 David Haughney: I thought you did. I thought you were implying that.
22
23 John Price: No. I am implying, asking ...... There were two primary reasons that you say you need
24 this cell tower. One in because of the coverage gap along Mt. Carmel Road. Correct?
25
26 David Haughney: Yes sir.
27
28 John Price: The other one was for capacity offload in UNC Campus.
29
30 David Haughney: Absolutely.
31
32 John Price: And the Verizon tower that we're talking about is on the UNC Campus, is it not?
33
34 David Haughney: It's a water tank, owned by OWASA, on the Campus. Yes.
35
36 John Price: And is it a Verizon facility?
37
38 David Haughney: It is a water tower with antennas on it, yes.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 44 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Price: Verizon antennas?
3
4 David Haughney: Operated by Verizon, yes sir. That seems obvious.
5
6 John Price: And you are, or are you not, of the opinion that the only way to address those two
7 issues is to build a single cell tower?
8
9 David Haughney: No sir. That's why I'm disagreeing with you. We employ a lot of other measures
10 to help our UNC Campus. So it sounds to me like you're saying ...... this is the only solution for
11 capacity to those surrounding sites, including UNC Campus. It's not. We are employing other
12 solutions, in particular some of the ones you've asked about. Which are small cell dats, this is an
13 additional needed solution as for the testimony. This is a needed solution.
14
15 John Price: So is this cell tower not needed for capacity offload in UNC Campus?
16
17 David Haughney: No. It is absolutely needed. As testified.
18
19 John Price: In conjuntion with something else or in and of itself?
20
21 David Haughney: In conjunction with other efforts we're taking on UNC Campus and at all of our
22 sites to improve capacity. Yeah, absolutely.
23
24 John Price: Did you consider alternatives along Mt. Carmel Road that would address the issue of
25 the coverage or the coverage gap along that road?
26
27 David Haughney: We always consider alternatives when creating a search ring. We created the
28 search ring and that search ring is a solution for that problem.
29 (Unintelligible comments)
30 John Price: Are you aware of the fact that Mr. Yeagley who works with, according to the letter, for
31 the same company as you do? Chase Real Estate Services.
32
33 David Haughney: I do not work for Chase.
34
35 John Price: Ok.
36
37 David Haughney: I work for Verizon. I am a Verizon employee.
38
OC Board of Adjustment —12/12/16 Page 45 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 John Price: Ok. And so it was Verizon that selected the search ring?
2
3 David Haughney: Yes, we did design the search ring.
4
5 John Price: If you aren't granted this application that's pending before Orange County what will
6 you do to address the needs along Mt. Carmel Road?
7
8 Laura Goode: I would object to that as argumentative, he is an RF manager and he has not been
9 hired or at this time evaluated alternative solutions at this point in time.
10
11 John Price: And that's .... That's the whole point. The purpose for the question is to illicit what the
12 options are for building this single cell tower, 199 -foot cell tower, on this location. Is there an
13 alternative that would solve and address the problem along Mt. Carmel Road? And they know
14 there is and they know what that alternative is but they're unwilling to testify.
15
16 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Price, this is not the time for an argument. I understand the point you're
17 making, I think we all understand your point. We have a set of questions to answer per our UDO.
18 And we understand your questioning and you'll be given a chance to argue at the end if you're
19 finished with your cross examination. I'm just trying to keep this on track because again we have
20 an hour left and I think there's still a lot of people here that want to be heard.
21
22 John Price: Yes. Maybe staff can assist on this. But it's my understanding that the burden of proof
23 is upon Towercom. We've established that it meets all the requirements, and it has met all the
24 requirements of the ordinance, including consideration of alternatives.
25
26 Samantha Cabe: And we're going to discuss all of that in our deliberation. But we're ruling on
27 summary judgement here, we have to collect all the information and make our decision at the end
28 and we get your point. You've made it.
29
30 John Price: But I can't illicit the information that would assist you in the deliberation because they
31 won't answer the question.
32
33 Michael Harvey: Madame Chair ....... can I ask for your indulgence and ask our
34 telecommunications consultant to address the Board on this line of questioning?
35
36 Samantha Cabe: Absolutely.
37
38 Michael Harvey: Thank you. This is Mr. Rusty Monroe.
39
40 Rusty Monroe: Thank you Michael.
OC Board of Adjustment- 12/12/16
Page 46 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Michael Harvey: Rusty before we begin you have been sworn but you are here as the County's
3 telecommunication consultant, correct?
4
5 Rusty Monroe: That's Correct. My name's Rusty Monroe, I am a consultant to Carolina
6 Telecommunication Services. I've been before the Board a number of times on other applications.
7 And I think one of the things that's really underlying this whole issue is State Law and what the
8 State says that the County may or may not do as regards to type of information that's being
9 discussed. Specifically, (North Carolina General Statutes) 153a- 349.52 (c) says in relevant part: a
10 county may not require information that concerns the specific need for the wireless support
11 structure including if the service to be provided from the wireless support structure is to add
12 additional wireless coverage or additional wireless capacity. A county may not require proprietary,
13 confidential, or other business information whereas to find the need for the new wireless support
14 structure including propegation maps, and telecommunication traffic studies. I just wanted the
15 Board to clearly understand what it may and may not use in its deliberation as regards of making
16 a decision. The discussion is interesting, I have had numerous discussions like that myself in
17 hearings, but in this particular instance you cannot make a decision that involves this information.
18 It's pretty simple from there.
19
20 Samantha Cabe: Thank you.
21
22 Rusty Munroe: I shouldn't say you cannot, you may not make a decision based upon that
23 information.
24
25 John Price: Is it your decision Mr. Haughney that the cell tower that's proposed here, the 199 -foot
26 cell tower, will solve the needs identified?
27
28 David Haughney: Yes.
29
30 John Price: Is it your testimony that there are no other alternatives that could be utilized to
31 address the individual needs identified, namely the Mt. Carmel Road coverage issue and second
32 the UNC Campus capacity offload?
33
34 Laura Goode: At this point I'm going to object as asked and answered ..... and already explained
35 the need in whether there's other solutions and other technologies they're employing in addition to
36 this solution.
37
38 John Price: You may answer the question.
39
40 Samantha Cabe: We have heard him.
41
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 47 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 John Price: Once you determined what the search ring was for this cell tower did you consider any
2 other alternatives? For locations, alternative technologies?
3
4 Laura Goode: Again I feel like at this point in time we've already been over this answer. He's
5 already explained his evaluation of candidates and other technologies and whether they would
6 work for this network objective.
7
8 Samantha Cabe: Do you have any further questions Mr. Price?
9
10 John Price: I don't think so, give me a minute ........ I don't believe I do.
11
12 Samantha Cabe: Ok, thank you. Does the Board have any questions for this witness? Ok thank
13 you. Do you have any other witnesses?
14
15 Laura Goode: One more witness very quickly. Good evening, could you please state your name?
16
17 John Yeagley: John Yeagley.
18
19 Laura Goode: What is your business address?
20
21 John Yeagley: 10612 D Providence Road, Charlotte, North Carolina.
22
23 Laura Goode: Have you been sworn to testify tonight?
24
25 John Yeagley: Yes.
26
27 Laura Goode: Ok. Can you please explain what your job is?
28
29 John Yeagley: Real estate site acquisition. We find land, and find cell sites for Verizon Wireless
30 and other wireless carriers.
31
32 Laura Goode: Did you search for a potential location for the wireless facility for the Clearwater
33 Lake site?
34
35 John Yeagley: Yes.
36
37 Laura Goode: Ok. Did you use the search area issued by Verizon Wireless?
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 48 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Yeagley: Yes.
3
4 Laura Goode: Ok. Within that search area did you find any structures that were capable of co-
5 location?
6
7 John Yeagley: Nope.
8
9 Laura Goode: Ok. Exhibit 21 of the record ...... of the application is labeled as Application for
10 Zoning Approval by Towercom LLC for construction of the new telecommunication tower and
11 related apparatuses. It has your signature on it. Is this a true and accurate copy of your statement
12 about the facility priorities of the Orange County UDO?
13
14 John Yeagley: Yes it is.
15
16 Laura Goode: Ok. Excuse me, I'm sorry. Exhibit 21, does this address the search that you did to
17 try to find facilities to co- locate within the search area?
18
19 John Yeagley: Correct. There were no towers to co- locate on in the search area. That's the first
20 thing we look for, as David mentioned. And a lot of times he gives us co- locations to go after if
21 that's what he prefers.
22
23 Laura Goode: Exhibit 30 of the application that's in the record .... is a document titled Clearwater
24 Lake facility siting certification with your signature. Is that a true and accurate copy of the
25 statement that you prepared?
26
27 John Yeagley: Yes it is.
28
29 Laura Goode: Ok. And this discusses the facility priority requirements of the ordinance. Are you
30 familiar with those requirements?
31
32 John Yeagley: Yes I am.
33
34 Laura Goode: Ok. Did you evaluate the search area for whether there were County owned
35 facilities within the search area?
36
37 John Yeagley: Yes I did and there were none.
38
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 49 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Laura Goode: What about for exisiting facilities without increasing the height of the tower?
2
3 John Yeagley: I did, and there were none.
4
5 Laura Goode: What about County owned properties or facilities?
6
7 John Yeagley: There were none.
8
9 Laura Goode: What about areas zoned for commercial or industrial use?
10
11 John Yeagley: There were none. There were two small areas that are commercial but they don't
12 meet any of the setback requirements and they're right out on Mt. Carmel Chruch Road so they
13 really weren't considered after discussing it with Planning.
14
15 Laura Goode: What about properties within the search area zoned agriculture residential or AR?
16
17 John Yeagley: There were none in that area.
18
19 Laura Goode: And Exhibit 31 of the application which is in the record. This is labeled as
20 Clearwater Lake Tower Separation Certification with your signature. Is this a true and accurate
21 copy of the facility or the tower separation certification that you prepared?
22
23 John Yeagley: Yes, that is my letter and my signature.
24
25 Laura Goode: Are there any existing towers within Y2 mile of the proposed Clearwater Lake tower?
26
27 John Yeagley: No.
28
29 Laura Goode: Thank you. I don't have any additional questions.
30
31 John Price: Excuse me. Mr. Yeagley?
32
33 John Yeagley: Yes.
34
35 John Price: On Exhibit 21 that you were just inquired about that recites the provisions of section
36 5.10.8.13.4 (b) of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance setting forth the priority
37 locations, does it not? First page.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 50 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Yeagley: I think we're talking about a different letter. Are you on?
3
4 John Price: What I am marked 21, which I thought according to the application was 21. Dated
5 September 28th. A letter from you to Laura Goode.
6
7 John Yeagley: I think you've got them flip flopped.
8
9 John Price: Ok, let's go to 30 then.
10
11 John Yeagley: Thank you. Ok.
12
13 John Price: First page of that letter you specifically set forth the requirements of the section of the
14 Unified Development Ordinance pertaining ..... that states applicants for a facility shall locate site
15 in erect set facilities according to the following priorities in the following order. Correct?
16
17 John Yeagley: That's what the ordinance states, yes.
18
19 John Price: You see it lists from A through F the priority sites, correct?
20
21 John Yeagley: Correct.
22
23 John Price: Anywhere in that ordinance does it state within the search area?
24
25 John Yeagley: I don't see it in this ordinance.
26
27 John Price: And at the bottom of your first page you recite the fact that under section 4 an
28 applicant may not bypass sites of higher priority merely because the site proposed is the only site
29 leased or selected, correct?
30
31 John Yeagley: That's what the ordinance states, yes.
32
33 John Price: On the second page of your report, in certifying that you complied with this
34 requirement, am I correct that in each instance with respect to each of the localities within the
35 priority listing you say there are none within the search ring?
36
37 John Yeagley: Right. It says in review of the search area. That is correct.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 51 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Price: Each and every instance for priority A there are none within the search ring, correct?
3
4 John Yeagley: That is correct, yes.
5 John Price: And the same for B, C, D, and E. All are limited to within the search ring, correct?
6
7 John Yeagley: Yes.
8
9 John Price: And you are not arguing .... oh pining .... on whether there are other locations outside
10 of the search ring that would fit within the priorities?
11
12 John Yeagley: That is not my job.
13
14 John Price: That is not your job?
15
16 John Yeagley: No. That is not what this letter states.
17
18 John Price: In your Exhibit 21 that you were asked about it recites the provisions of section 5.10.8
19 B 3 (d) of the ordinance. It refers to a listing of wireless communication support structures within a
20 2 -mile radius, including utility poles and other structure in the vicinity of the proposed facility that
21 are technically feasible. Is that right?
22
23 John Yeagley: That's what this states, yes.
24
25 John Price: In responding to this section of the requirement am I correct that you limit your
26 statements to within the search ring?
27
28 John Yeagley: This is actually a 2 -mile radius, so we also look at because this ordinance states a
29 2 -mile radius there's no high powered transition lines, there's nothing out there to co- locate on.
30
31 John Price: Is Mt. Carmel Road within 2 -miles of the proposed site?
32
33 John Yeagley: Yeah.
34
35 John Price: And does it include structures such as utility poles and other structures?
36
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 52 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 John Yeagley: I'm sure there's utility poles, but we don't co- locate on utility poles when we're
2 looking for 190 -foot tower. We look for a high power electric transmission towers to meet that
3 need.
4
5 John Price: Does this regulation state it's limited to co- location? Would you typically co- locate on a
6 utility pole?
7
8 John Yeagley: Ok. Can you define utility pole?
9
10 John Price: A power line pole.
12 John Yeagley: When I'm assigned a search ring, I look for parameters. The parameters for this
13 search were for a 190 -foot tower and there are no structures that are even close to that height in
14 that area that could meet that need. Or within 2- miles.
15
16 John Price: So it'd be in responding as to whether you have or had not complied with these
17 ordinance as I've been reciting are you limited your search solely to places that 195 -foot cell tower
18 could be located? Or on which all of the equipment could be co- located to a tower of a similar
19 size?
20
21 John Yeagley: Not fully 195 -feet. Sometimes we look for something, you know 170. But in this
22 case 190 was our goal.
23
24 John Price: So you just did not consider at all other structures?
25
26 Laura Goode: Again, at this point in time I would object to asking an answer he's already testified
27 to what searches he looked at and what were available within the search area.
29 Samantha Cabe: For clarification, the testimony I heard is that you looked for other structures that
30 are required by the ordinance and if there's anything close you will investigate that but here there
31 was nothing close to that height requirement.
32
33 John Yeagley: Correct.
34
35 Samantha Cabe: That's what I interpreted from what you said.
36
37 John Yeagley: Yes.
38
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 53 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 John Price: So you limited it to a height requirement that you were told was required by Verizon, is
2 that correct?
3
4 Laura Goode: Again I would object to ask an answer.
5
6 Samantha Cabe: We need to move along Mr. Price.
7
8 John Price: I have no further questions of this witness.
9
10 Samantha Cabe: Does the Board have any further questions? Do you have any?
11
12 Laura Goode: I have no further questions. Those are all of my witnesses.
13
14 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. Mr. Price, do you have witnesses?
15
16 John Price: Yes I do.
17
18 Samantha Cabe: If you'll call your first please?
19
20 John Price: If I might, before I call on my first witness I had a few other preliminary matters I'd like
21 to cover if that's alright?
22
23 Samantha Cabe: What type of preliminary matters?
24
25 John Price: First I would like to have the opportunity to present to the members of the Board
26 petitions that have been signed by local residents in the area of where the cell tower is going to be
27 situated.
28
29 Samantha Cabe: Sure, if you want to hand those out.
30
31 Laura Goode: At this time I would respectfully object, just because this is heresay. Statements out
32 of court, statements offered to prove a truth of matter and we have no opportunity to cross
33 examine these individuals.
34
35 Samantha Cabe: Anybody here object if we take it and give it its due rate?
36
37 Laura Goode: And we would be fine with that.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 54 of 156
Approved 3113117
2 Michael Harvey: This is Op Exhibit 2, which includes pre - petitions.
4 John Price: I would also ask if I could present to the members of the Board and place it into the
5 record sworn affidavits of two individuals who were unable to attend regarding the impact of the
6 proposed tower on each of their proceeding with negotiations for the potential purchase of tracks
7 of land within Dove Field LLC's property. And each of them states in their affidavit that they were
8 unable to attend, one is actually in California.
9
10 Laura Goode: Again, I'd just respectfully object to these as being hearsay and we're not able to
11 cross examine these witnesses.
12
13 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. We'll receive them into the record.
14
15 John Price: And finally, I'll offer into the record correspondence between me and Ms. Goode
16 pertaining to the issue of timbering on the Buckner property.
17
18 Michael Harvey: So the November 29th letter is Opposition Exhibit 4.
19
20 John Price: Were the affidavits?
21
22 Michael Harvey: Opposition Exhibit 3.
23
24 Samantha Cabe: Collectively it's number 3?
25
26 Michael Harvey: Yes, the two affidavits are both 3. The November 29th letter is 4. And 2 are the
27 three petitions and 1 is the appraisal report.
28
29 John Price: And before calling a witness I would like to, with permission of the Board, ask some
30 questions of Ms. Goode as counsel for the applicant.
31
32 Samantha Cabe: I don't believe you can call opposing counsel as a witness.
33
34 John Price: I'm not calling her as a witness, but I have some questions I would like to inquire of
35 her pertaining to the issue of the timbering which is addressed in these letters.
36
37 Samantha Cabe: I would say no. I'm going to defer to our counsel before, I should not say no.
38
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 55 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 James Bryan: Yeah, I think that's an extraordinary request. I don't think it has to be granted.
2
3 Samantha Cabe: Does any of the Board want to hear questions from attorney for the other sides
4 attorney? If you do, that's fine. I'm just trying to keep this on track and it's not typical that
5 attorney's ask each other questions.
6
7 John Price: The reason for the questioning is to find out why information pertaining to the
8 timbering is not included in the application that was prepared by Ms. Goode, and submitted by Ms.
9 Goode to the Board for the permit.
10
11 Samantha Cabe: And given that explanation does that change anyone's mind? Then, no sir. Go
12 ahead and proceed with your witness.
13
14 John Price: Could I tender for the record .... for purposes of the record the questions I would have
15 asked? That's what's typically done in court.
16
17 Samantha Cabe: Sure. Typically in court attorney's aren't allowed to question other attorneys'.
18
19 John Price: Correct.
20
21 Samantha Cabe: You can tender your questions. If you have a piece of paper we don't need to sit
22 here and listen to them all. Am I out of line counsel?
23
24 James Bryan: A copy should be given to the clerk.
25
26 Samantha Cabe: Do we have access to make a copy of those for him, if he wants to tender them
27 on paper?
28
29 Michael Harvey: Yes.
30
31 Samantha Cabe: Ok. Would you like us to make you copies so you can submit those in writing?
32
33 John Price: The purpose of this is to find out why this was not disclosed to the Board in this
34 application. And I don't know anyone else I can call as a witness for the applicant who can answer
35 that question.
36
37 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Price, with all due respect we don't need you to argue with us. That is not a
38 requirement of what we are being asked to consider. Whether or not the owner of this property
39 plans to timber their property some time in the future is not related to their application.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 56 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Price: It's related to..
3
4 Samantha Cabe: Do not ...... I'm telling you it's not related, it's not before us. Can we move on to
5 what is, because I want everyone here to have a chance to be heard. And I don't want everyone
6 to have to come back on another night.
7
8 John Price: Yes, I would call as my first witness Mr. Owen Gwen. State your name.
9
10 Owen Gwen: Owen Gwen. I was sworn.
11
12 John Price: What is your resident address Mr. Gwen?
13
14 Owen Gwen: It's 1700 Clearwater Lake Road.
15
16 John Price: How long have you lived there?
17
18 Owen Gwen: I built in 1988.
19
20 John Price: How large is your property?
21
22 Owen Gwen: 4,800 square feet.
23
24 John Price: I mean the property on which your home site is located?
25
26 Owen Gwen: My home site is adjacent to the property which I also own, which is Dove Field LLC.
27 Dove Field is 220, my track is separated for mortgage purposes, is 13.5 acres.
28
29 John Price: What is your relationship to Dove Field LLC?
30
31 Owen Gwen: I'm the managing part.
32
33 John Price: Managing member?
34
35 Owen Gwen: Managing member, yes.
36
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 57 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 John Price: And are you authorized to act on behalf of Dove Field LLC?
2
3 Owen Gwen: I am.
4
5 John Price: Was the property now owned by Dove Field LLC once your family's farm?
6
7 Owen Gwen: It was. We've had it for over 50 years.
8
9 John Price: Would you describe the property in terms of terrain, foliage, wildlife, and so forth?
10
11 Owen Gwen: It's ....... It's ...... Cub creek runs basically through the center of it, which is part of
12 the Jordan Lake watershed. We've got many springs, and several ponds. At one time, it is
13 interesting, we were going to propose a resovoir for the property as a water supply for Chapel Hill.
14 We would've supplied a little over a weeks worth of water at the current use but the impact factors
15 on to meet the environmental impact were going to cost over $4,000,000 just in impact fees so we
16 couldn't do that project, so instead we looked towards setting up an area for a wildlife corridor.
17
18 John Price: Do your son and daughter also live on the Dove Field Property?
19
20 Owen Gwen: That's true. They manage the farm.
21
22 John Price: Do you currently hold any positions of any boards or commissions for environmental
23 organizations?
24
25 Owen Gwen: Well I'm a family member of the National Trust Real Estate Program. It's not really
26 inaudible. Also the chair person at the Global Housing Foundation, which builds affordable
27 housing and I've been a real estate agent in Orange County for 40 years. So I'm Board of
28 Realtors and that sort of thing.
29
30 John Price: What caused you to become involved with other organizations?
31
32 Owen Gwen: I was a familiy member of the North Carolina Traveling Tourism Board and part of
33 the mandate of the Board was to preserve the State's estuaries and forests, wetlands, open lands,
34 and that endoctrined into me towards that. I have to admit I've never met an appraiser that didn't
35 understand what a view shed was but I'm just saying view sheds are an intrical part of valuation in
36 my mind of any property.
37
38 John Price: How would you describe the geography character aestheics of the properties?
M
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 58 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Owen Gwen: The topography is up and down, they've talked about between the Mellot site and
2 this particular subject property. The 200 -foot obstuction is my house, which is built on top of
3 what's called High Hill, which is a northern part of Edward's Mountain, which is the northern
4 remedy inaudble forest, which many geologists think is one of the oldest geological features in
5 North America.
6
7 John Price: Is this the first time that there's been a proposal for constrcution of a cell tower in the
8 area where you reside?
9
10 Owen Gwen: No, we had one 17 years ago proposed on Clearwater Lake Road.
11
12 John Price: Did you object to that?
13
14 Owen Gwen: I objected for the same reason on this one. The impact of property values, the view
15 shed destruction, I could talk about that all day but I know we're short on time, and I appreciate
16 everyone's time here.
17
18 John Price: Was that application for permit granted?
19
20 Owen Gwen: No.
21
22 Laura Goode: I object to the relevance of that as to the findings of fact that the Board needs to
23 make whether another tower was approved or denied.
24
25 John Price: Have you ever considered developing the Dove Field Property?
26
27 Owen Gwen: Just low density residential and once we found out the reservoir .... the impact was
28 too great for the resevoir. When I mean low density we had a track of land that was 90 plus acres,
29 1 at about 40 acres, that ....... certainly, nothing less than 10 acres in area.
30
31 John Price: Did you ever gauge anyone to prepare a master plan?
32
33 Owen Gwen: I did. Randall Arndt whose is a national recognized rural planner for open space
34 development, we hired him. He came out and did a study on the sites .... possible sites for
35 proposed homes and we had a professional go out and do the perk testing to see if the sites
36 would conform to Randall's location of the homes. The total for the 220 was about 12 sites.
37
38 John Price: When was that done?
39
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 59 of 156
Approved 3113117
Owen Gwen: Last year.
2
3 John Price: At that time did you know anyone was proposing building a cell tower?
4
5 Owen Gwen: No, I didn't.
6
7 John Price: Describe for the Board what that master plan consisted of, in terms of the Dove Field
8 Property?
9
10 Owen Gwen: Well, we have a couple of ponds and creek so the idea was to create a wildlife
11 corridor through the center and then have some sites that overlook those features. We've got
12 creeks and streams, stuff like that. So we wanted to develop sites that fit into the topography and
13 the landscape and that they were all self contained types of homes. It could be enjoyed without...
14 Low density homes.
15
16 John Price: And from your view point is the Towercom cell tower consistent with the masterplan?
17
18 Owen Gwen: The cell tower, to me, is here's a company from South Carolina wants to build a
19 tower wants to build a tower and lease it with Verizon, it's all about... Wish I had a team of
20 attorneys and I could come and prepare a defense. But no, I don't think there's anything about it
21 that should be in the rural buffer, or in the Jordan Lake watershed.
22
23 John Price: Why are opposed to the application?
24
25 Owen Gwen: Well several reasons. Obviously, the eye sore part of it. The fact that why is it 195-
26 feet, well because if any higher it has to have a light on it because of aviation systems, and if it
27 had a light it would then not kill the birds but without a light it does kill birds, not as bad as a guide
28 tower would but there are reasons behind why this is done. This is optimized based on what the
29 RDU requirements are. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's in Clearwater Lake, in the rural
30 buffer. To me it's just throw it down and go over to the next tower. These guys build them all over
31 the country.
32
33 John Price: Have you ever engaged in services of an appraiser to appraise your property? Both
34 without the proposed tower and in the event the tower is built?
35
36 Owen Gwen: I did.
37
38 John Price: Who was that?
39
40 Owen Gwen: Mike Ogburn.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 60 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Price: And when was that?
3
4 Owen Gwen: Recently, within the last several weeks. As soon as I found out about the proposal.
5
6 John Price: Have you reviewed that appraisel evaluation report provided?
7
8 Owen Gwen: I did.
9
10 John Price: As a long time real estate agent yourself do you agree with it?
11
12 Owen Gwen: I do. I think that it's very well done.
13
14 John Price: Why, in your opinion, would having the proposed tower on the Buckner Family Farm
15 Trust property have an adverse impact on your property and Dove Field Property?
16
17 Owen Gwen: Well as you can see from the map...
18
19 Laura Goode: Respectfully, I would object to this testimony, they have not tendered him as an
20 expert witness, North Carolina Law states that an expert witness testimonies are followed to give
21 an opinion about impact property values from their proposed use.
22
23 Samantha Cabe: I believe we did just discuss that requirement in some detail.
24
25 Owen Gwen: Ok, what's next?
26
27 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Price, I don't mean to interupt your questioning but could you question your
28 witness about the evidence that he's going to present that shows that he has standing to be a
29 party in this proceeding?
30
31 John Price: I think the evidence regarding standing has been placed in the record. He's the
32 property owner himself and he is the managing member of the Dove Field LLC property which is
33 located adjacent to where this tower's being built.
34
35 Samantha Cabe: And we understand that standing in this type of proceeding requires a showing
36 of special damages. If you could question him about the special damages that he would incur if
37 this cell tower is built.
38
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 61 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 John Price: Alright, that was the question I thought I just asked. If you could in your own words
2 say what you think the damage is to your property if this property is built.
3
4 Owen Gwen: I think it's financial, from the stand point of the evaluation of the property value. 1
5 think it's visual from the view shed corridor destruction. I think it's not in harmony with the fact that
6 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
7 changes the whole setting, the whole environment, to me, of what being located where I am has
8 to do with being where I am. If I wanted to be around cell towers, and I've seen this happen where
9 one tower's approved and the next thing you know there's a cluster. But if people wanted to live
10 near them they could, but as far as the value I think the value... I think Mike Ogburns' appraisal..
11 He can explain the impact financially. And I totally concur with his findings. If anything, I think
12 they're more damages because there'd be something that I would be forced to deal with everyday.
13
14 Samantha Cabe: Is he here? Mr. Ogburn?
15
16 John Price: Yes he is.
17
18 Samantha Cabe: Ok.
19
20 John Price: Those are the only questions I have for Mr. Gwen.
21
22 Laura Goode: I just have one question for you. Do you reside at 1700 Clearwater Lake Road?
23
24 Owen Gwen: Yes I do. That little yellow line stops at my house on the hill.
25
26 Laura Goode: This is your house right here?
27
28 Owen Gwen: That's my house.
29
30 Laura Goode: Ok, and this is a clip from Google Earth showing that your house is approximately
31 Y mile from the proposed Clearwater Lake site. Is that correct?
32
33 Owen Gwen: You know, that I don't know but I can get a gps and tell you.
34
35 Laura Goode: I don't have any further questions.
36
37 John Price: How close is the Dove Field property to the proposed tower?
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 62 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Owen Gwen: The driveway is as close as you can get. Not even a setback. It's interesting that you
2 say that because I've been trying to acquire property adjacent to this to recombine this property
3 and when I purchased some property from Mr. Williams earlier when they gave me the approval
4 the County has setbacks. I don't see any setbacks on their Verizon map, maybe they're there but
5 the point is the road is adjacent to our property. It's just another factor. I'm not as disturbed about
6 a road as I am about a tower.
7
8 Laura Goode: I just have one follow up question. You don't reside on the Dove Field property
9 adjacent to the Butner Family Farm Trust property, do you?
10
11 Owen Gwen: I own everything from that little pin to the end of that yellow line.
12
13 Laura Goode: But you don't reside on the property adjacent to the Butner Family Farm Trust
14 property?
15
16 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
17 then I could say I reside there. I mean... It's a distance. What you don't see from this photgraph
18 os the fact that that's a hill. That house is on a hill. It's called High Hill. So I look over it.
19
20 John Price: I now have a couple of questions. What is the elevation of the High Hill property?
21
22 Owen Gwen: It's about 560 feet about sea level. It's about the same as Chapel Hill.
23
24 John Price: Does it look down on the location of where this cell tower would be built?
25
26 Owen Gwen: It does. Amazingly enough I can see the light tower at the Raleigh /Durham airport
27 from my yard. You can see a long way.
28
29 John Price: Can you see any sky lines from your property?
30
31 Owen Gwen: Oh sure. I can see to Raleigh. But I don't see a cell tower right there adjacent to my
32 property.
33
34 John Price: If the cell tower is built will you see that as part of the skyline?
35
36 Owen Gwen: Well, from different places I probably would. If I decided to do a few things then it
37 would be. One of my biggest concerns is the view from the lakes. You can see it from the lakes.
38 That's where you go for serenity.
39
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 63 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 John Price: No further questions.
2
3 Samantha Cabe: Thank you.
4
5 John Price: I would next like to call Mr. Evan Gwen.
6
7 Evan Gwen: I'm Evan Gwen and I have been sworn in.
8
9 John Price: Mr. Gwen, where do you and your wife reside?
10
11 Evan Gwen: We live at 1645 Mt. Carmel Church Road.
12
13 John Price: And what is your relationship with the location of the property and home site where
14 you reside. What is it's relationship to the proposed cell tower site?
15
16 Evan Gwen: Our home is on the Dove Field LLC property. It is identifiable on that map by the
17 open field with the dirt patch just to the north of the small pond.
18
19 John Price: Could we go Michael to the photos? Are you familiar with this map?
20
21 Evan Gwen: I am.
22
23 John Price: Did you create this map?
24
25 Evan Gwen: I added the color and the numbers to that Google Map.
26
27 John Price: Ok and it says Map showing locations of Owen Gwen home property and home
28 property of Evan and Erin Gwen, as well as location of proposed cell tower.
29
30 Evan Gwen: Correct.
31
32 John Price: And Legend number one in what I'll call an Orange color, is that your fathers home
33 property?
34
35 Evan Gwen: It is.
36
OC Board of Adjustment- 12/12/16 Page 64 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 John Price: And legend number two, is that the property you and your wife live on?
2
3 Evan Gwen: Legend number two represents the entirety of the blue area which is the Dove Field
4 LLC property.
5
6 John Price: Ok. And Legend number three then is your property?
7
8 Evan Gwen: Yes.
9
10 John Price: Can you walk up there and show where that is? It's hard for me to see it.
11
12 Evan Gwen: We live right here where my finger is and spend the vast majority of our time outisde
13 maintaining, enjoying this area outlined in black, which runs around the larger of the two ponds
14 and towards the eastern edge of the Dove Field Property going closer to the Towercom proposed
15 tower location.
T
17 John Price: Ok, thank you. Would you describe the improvements on your property?
18
19 Evan Gwen: We have a small one bedroom cabin and an unheated utility barn.
20
21 John Price: How would you describe the geopgraphy character aesthetics of the Dove Field
22 Property that your proeprty resides on?
23
24 Evan Gwen: It ranges in elevation from just over 200 -feet along Cub Creek to over 600 -feet on the
25 Chatham County side, the southside of here. And there's half a dozed springs and small
26 tributaries to Cub Creek. 200 creeks flowing in and multiple ponds on the property. So it's very
27 diverse.
IM
29 John Price: And the red dot that reperesents the tower location and the property between that dot
30 and the property that you and your wife reside on; what's the nature of that property?
31
32 Evan Gwen: That was an acquisition that Dove Field made a few years ago in the 2000's and it's
33 currently a potential onsite for a family friend who has expressed his interest in purchasing that to
34 build a home for his future family.
35
36 John Price: What's the name of that family friend?
37
38 Evan Gwen: His name is Stanford Benjamin Rudnik.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 65 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Price: And is that one of the affidavits that was entered into the record?
3
4 Evan Gwen: It is.
5
6 John Price: Is there any other portion of the Dove Field property that you've been considering
7 selling?
8
9 Evan Gwen: The southside of the property, everything south of the Cub Creek corridor running
10 south up Edwards Mountain to an elevation of just over 600 -feet. An area approximately 100
11 acres.
12
13 John Price: And Michael, if you could show the other slide? Is the area that's orange to me, that's
14 next to the tower, is that the 40 plus acre property that you considered selling to Mr. Rudnik?
15
16 Evan Gwen: Correct. The Orange represents the potential home site. The 40 -acres would also
17 include some of, if not all of the pond and some of the Cub Creek area. But the home site is just to
18 the left of the red dot, which has already had soil test done and proved to be suitable for a septic
19 system in that location.
20
21 John Price: And has Mr. Rudnik indicated to you an interest in purchasing that property?
22
23 Evan Gwen: Informally, yes. Many times.
24
25 John Price: And with 'respect to the 100 plus acres does the Orange represent the entire 100-
26 acres?
27
28 Evan Gwen: Yes.
29
30 John Price: Were you present during the balloon test?
31
32 Evan Gwen: Yes.
33
34 John Price: Were you able to determine whether the cell tower would be visible from your
35 property?
36
37 Evan Gwen: From my home, no. From my property, yes in many places.
38
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 66 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 John Price: Would it be visible from the 40 -acre track that Mr. Rudnik is interested in purchasing?
2
3 Evan Gwen: It would be visible from everywhere except indoors, underneath a roof. It would cast
4 a shadow upon that property.
5
6 John Price: Would it be visible through the woods?
7
8 Evan Gwen: Above the trees and through the woods, yes. It's proposed 200 -feet away from the
9 property line. So it would most definitely be visible through the woods.
10
11 John Price: With respect to the 100 plus acres, I don't think I asked this, is Mr. Anylan the other
12 person who submitted an affidavit?
13
14 Evan Gwen: Yes.
15
16 John Price: And do you know whether the tower would be visible from that property?
17
18 Evan Gwen: I can confirm that it would be visible from that property.
19
20 John Price: What are the views like from the 100 plus acre property?
21
22 Evan Gwen: 270 degrees from west to south going clockwise. From west of Chapel Hill to
23 Durham /Raleigh skyline and the majority of Jordan Lake.
24
25 John Price: And in the views of the skylines, would the cell tower be an obstruction of those views
26 in any way?
27
28 Evan Gwen: The cell tower would be an obstruction of those views and would be visible from that
29 home site all four seasons year round.
30
31 John Price: Have you had any discussions with Mr. Anylan with respect to the price of the 100
32 plus acre property?
33
34 Evan Gwen: We've discussed the price of $2,500,000.
35
36 John Price: I believe that's also stated in the affidavit. At the time of the balloon test were you and
37 your wife both present?
38
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 67 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Evan Gwen: Yes.
2
3 John Price: Did you have any difficulty finding the balloon initially?
4
5 Evan Gwen: We did.
6
7 John Price: If we could go back to the beginning photo on the power point? There are a number of
8 photos that were taken of this nature. Who took the photos?
9
10 Evan Gwen: My wife and I took these photos.
11
12 John Price: And were you present when the photograph was taken?
13
14 Evan Gwen: I was.
15
16 John Price: Would you describe what that shows?
17
18 Evan Gwen: I will. This and the next six photos from various angles show that the balloon test was
19 a misrepresentation of the height of the balloon as it was snagged at multiple locations in the pine
20 trees. We were standing at the very base where the string was tied, saw the string hit a pine
21 branch and then horizontally, if not downward, for what I paced out to be an estimation of 100 feet
22 before it hit another snag and went straight up into the very low winds that day. So I do not
23 attribute personally the wind being a factor but the visbile snags in the trees holding that line
24 down, my guess around 100 -feet.
25
26 John Price: Would you go to the next slide, please? And would you describe what this is?
27
28 Evan Gwen: It's a different angle of the balloon line. The arrow on the left and then the oliptical
29 red shape is showing that line in a snag and then how far away the actual balloon is that you can
30 see through the trees inside the red circle the red balloon.
31
32 John Price: Next slide please.
33
34 Evan Gwen: Similar situation. The balloon line is running horizontally to the ground in that oliptical
35 shape to misrepresent the height of the proposed tower.
36
37 John Price: Next slide please. What does this show?
38
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 68 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Evan Gwen: That's very dark. It shows myself in the red circle, wearing a blue jacket. I'm 100 -feet
2 away. It was about 35 paces from the anchor point which is on the right side of the photo. You can
3 see the white line tied to the small tree. And I am standing directly below the balloon in the air.
4
5 John Price: Are you familiar with this photo?
6
7 Evan Gwen: I am. That's from Carmel Market on Mt. Carmel Church Road. That's the balloon
8 above the treeline.
9
10 John Price: And did you take this photograph?
11
12 Evan Gwen: Yes.
13
14 John Price: Is that anywhere close to your property?
15
16 Evan Gwen: It's the opposite side of the proposed location that my property is.
17
18 John Price: Ok. What is this photograph?
19
20 Evan Gwen: This photograph is on my property looking across the pond showing the balloon
21 above the treeline. Again at the same time that the snag was still in the trees to misrepresent the
22 height of the proposed tower.
23
24 John Price: So this shows the balloon when it was snagged?
25
26 Evan Gwen: Correct.
27
28 John Price: Do you know how many feet that snag would have resulted in?
29
30 Evan Gwen: My guess is 100 based upon my 35 paces.
31
32 Laura Goode: Objection. That's speculation.
33
34 John Price: Next slide please? Now as I understand it this picture is the same as the prior one but
35 it shows the cell tower itself that someone had put in there instead of just the balloon?
36
37 Evan Gwen: Correct.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 69 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Price: Did you do that?
3
4 Evan Gwen: I did that to have a visualization of what that tower would look like across the pond.
5
6 Laura Goode: I'll object to this. They have not layed the foundation that he has any experience or
7 education that would allow him to accurately depict what a cell phone tower would look like in a
8 photo simulation.
9
10 John Price: Again, is the height of that cell tower with the balloon fully extended?
11
12 Evan Gwen: No.
13
14 John Price: The next slide?
15
16 Evan Gwen: Its another angle across the same pond with the balloon above the treeline.
17
18 John Price: Was the balloon still snagged?
19
20 Evan Gwen: Yes.
21
22 John Price: Where did you discover that the snag in the line was occuring?
23
24 Evan Gwen: After attending the hearing at the Mt. Carmel Baptist Church and then proceeding to
25 walk into the woods to the location of the proposed tower?
26
27 John Price: Was that the neighborhood meeting you're talking about?
28
29 Evan Gwen: Yes.
30
31 John Price: And who did you advise?
32
33 Evan Gwen: I advised the Towercom employees who were at the hearing who heard my advice
34 and promptly attended to the correction of the snag.
35
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 70 of 156
Approved '3 /13/17
1 Michael Harvey: Madame Chair, if I could also state, that we were at the site. I was at the site, the
2 telecommunications consultant for the County as at the site, and Mr. Gwen is correct. He informed
3 everybody on the property, which included non Towercom employees. Just for the record.
4
5 Samantha Cabe: Thank you.
6
7 John Price: In addition to what is shown in these photos did you also determine whether there
8 were other locations on the Dove Field property and more generally in the area from which the
9 proposed tower would be visible?
10
11 Evan Gwen: There are multiple locations.
12
13 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Price, could I stop you? I just have one quick question for Mr. Harvey. Was
14 the snag corrected and do you know whether or not the photographs submitted were taken before
15 or after that snag was?
16
17 Michael Harvey: I can't answer when the photgraph was taken as articulated in attachment 5 but 1
18 will say when I got out there there was no snag in the balloon early in the morning. When I went
19 back out to the site to address Mr. Gwen's concern it had become bound by a tree limb. Mr.
20 Herring who was the balloon operater pulled on it and attempted to free it. Whether or not that's
21 going to be a bone of contention's Mr. Herring's going to answer. But I will stipulate that when 1
22 was out there the balloon was straight up. I believe the depiction of attachment 5 does show 199-
23 foot tall representation of a telecom tower.
24
25 Samantha Cabe: Ok, thank you.
26
27 John Price: What other locations in the community were you able to determine the tower would be
28 visible from?
29
30 Evan Gwen: In addition to the multiple locations on the Dove Field property, the Aquaduct
31 Conference Center across the street would have an excellent view of the tower, in addition to
32 various properties in the Governers Club that are north facing on Edwards Mountain, as well as
33 some of the higher floor condos and apartments of the Governers Village.
34
35 John Price: And how about the Edwards Mountain?
36
37 Evan Gwen: On Edwards Mountain anybody looking north down on that area would see that
38 tower. Including the proposed Anylan home site.
39
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 71 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 John Price: In the discussions at the neighborhood meeting did any representative of Towercom
2 advise you or any other people who were at that meeting that there was going to be timbering on
3 the Buckner Family Farm property?
4
5 Evan Gwen: I only heard that as a whisper or rumor. But.that day was the first day that I'd heard
6 about it and it was from nobody official with Towercom, to my knowledge.
7
8 John Price: Was that mentioned by anyone at the meeting?
9
10 Evan Gwen: It was being discussed at that meeting, in that parking lot at the Baptist Church.
11
12 John Price: Discussed by who?
13
14 Evan Gwen: Discussed by residents, my wife and myself, but I didn't ever have somebody tell me
15 for sure that that was going to happen.
16
17 John Price: Just to make sure, did anyone from Towercom tell anyone at that meeting that there
18 could be timbering down on the Buckner property?
19
20 Laura Goode: Objection as to that personal knowledge about what Towercom disclosed with other
21 people other than Mr. Gwen.
22
23 John Price: I'll limit to when you were in attendance...
24
25 Evan Gwen: I did hear that question asked and it was not denied or confirmed by the Towercom
26 employees.
27
28 John Price: What was said by the Towercom employees?
29
30 Evan Gwen: I don't remember exactly. It was not confirmed or denied.
31
32 John Price: Is that important to you? That timbering may be occurring on that property?
33
34 Evan Gwen: It would definitely be a negative to me.
35
36 John Price: Why?
37
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 72 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Evan Gwen: Well, some of the trees you see in that photo right there would be removed and it
2 would obstruct the wildlife that come through, which we enjoy thoroughly. And it obstruct the views
3 and it would diminish the property values for potential buyers.
4
5 John Price: And when you talk about the wildlife, did the wildlife actually come through anywhere
6 on the Buckner property?
7
8 Evan Gwen: They do. We have a draw that comes north to south for the deer, coyotes, other
9 wildlife to drink at this pond.
10
11 John Price: Do you know how close they would be coming through relative to where the tower's
12 going to be built?
13
14 Evan Gwen: They would be crossing the proposed access road.
15
16 John Price: Ok. Could you describe for the Board the surrounding area outside of Dove Field of
17 the property of this community in terms of what it consists of, in terms of schools, hiking trails?
18
19 Evan Gwen: It's mostly low density residential single family homes. One of the witnesses earlier
20 said there were two commercial sites along Mt. Carmel Church, those are both very, very small
21 markets right on the road. Other than that the only commercial space is the Governers Village
22 about a mile down the road. So it's large lots, single family homes, and lots of trees and wildlife.
23
24 John Price: Are there dog parks?
25
26 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Price, can I ask you how many more questions you have, because it's 10:38
27 and we will need to take a vote to extend the time. If you've got just a couple more questions I'll let
28 you finish up before we do that, for this witness.
29
30 John Price: I just have a few more questions.
31
32 Evan Gwen: We have a YMCA camp. Camp Clearwater adjacent to our property which is
33 adjacent to the site. There's a Montessori school. There's a daycare. There's dog parks. There's
34 churches. Lots of communal activities.
35
36 John Price: Why are you opposed to the proposed tower?
37
38 Evan Gwen: Negative effects on property value, view shed, and increased destruction of wildlife
39 and construction traffic, and potential health hazards for me, neighbors, and children.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 73 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Laura Goode: I would object to his opinion that it will impact property values as they have not
3 designated him as an expert witness qualified to testify to that and I ask it be stricken from the
4 record.
5
6 John Price: I think he's describing his concerns. He's not testifying as an expert.
7
8 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Bryan, do we have to rule on a motion to strike from the record? Or do we let
9 stand in the record and?
10
11 James Bryan: Perhaps the attorney could reconsider and just ask the Board to take that in mind
12 during its deliberations.
13
14 Laura Goode: Yes, I would just respectfully let you use your judgement on it and how you take
15 that.
16
17 Samantha Cabe: Thank you.
18
19 John Price: Have you ever experienced any problems with cell service at your home?
20
21 Evan Gwen: I have experienced problems but I get cell service at my home and I can tell you that
22 1 can complete a cell phone call up and down Mt. Carmel Church and I do so on a daily basis.
23 Calls drop but that happens to me on Franklin Street sometimes as well.
24
25 John Price: I have no further questions of this witness.
26
27 Samantha Cabe: Thank you.
28
29 Evan Gwen: Thank you.
30
31 Matt Hughes: I have a question of Mr. Harvey. Mr. Gwen just mentioned some properties that are
32 not contained within Orange County as possibly being negatively impacted. Particularly Governers
33 Club. That's not something that we should even weigh in this decision, is that right?
34
35 Michael Harvey: I think that you can accept Mr. Gwen's expressed concern, but from my stand
36 point the properties are in Chatham County and since they are not subject Orange County Land
37 Use Policy or Regulatory Standard, unless they're individuals here tonight with evidence
38 demonstrating how it will impact those properties you can only take it as face value.
39
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 74 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Evan Gwen: I guess another concern while I'm here would be that the proximity of the proposed
2 location to the Chatham County line is such that the increase cell service would benefit Chatham
3 County almost as much as it would Orange County and that would be somehting for the Board to
4 take into consideration as well.
5
6 Michael Harvey: Just for the Board's edification, the Aquaduct Conference Center has been
7 mentioned twice. The Aquaduct Conference Center operates under a Class B SUP issued by this
8 body approximately 20 or some odd years ago.
9
10 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. At this time I think, due to our standing rules, this Board must take a
11 vote whether to continue in session or adjourn and set a date for continuation of this hearing.
12
13 (Unknown resident, not sworn): Ms. Counsel woman, I'd just like to pose to at this time ..... there
14 are at least myself, I'm here and I'm not represented by either attorney but it being a public
15 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
16 here, but I think it would be nice for us to at least be heard tonight if there is a reconvene at
17 another time.
18
19 Samantha Cabe: We'll take that into consideration. Thank you sir.
20
21 Barry Katz: Well how many more witnesses do you have?
22
23 John Price: I have two witnesses. I have Mr. Ogburn who will testify regarding the impact on
24 value. And I have Dan Levinson who is an electrical engineer who will testify regarding the cell
25 tower.
26
27 Laura Goode: Just to let the Board know we plan to object to the testimony of the person who's
28 going to testify about the need for the tower pursuant to the North Carolina General Statutes.
29
30 Samantha Cabe: At this time do I have a motion from the Board, let me ask Mr. Bryan here what
31 the correct procedure would be. Should we just have a motion to adjorn or may we discuss?
32
33 James Bryan: You certainly may discuss. I think that what you should consider is practical matters
34 of decision fatigue. Just how tired you all are. I think you need to consider due process
35 consideration so everybody has an opportunity to be heard fully vetter. And keep in mind that you
36 guys are going to, after everybody's done, have to deliberate.
37
38 Samantha Cabe: Do I have a motion from anyone on the Board or discussion about the proposal
39 from the citizen here to hear private citizens brief comments out of order?
40
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 75 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Susan Halkiotis: I'd just make a couple of comments about that. First of all, I probably won't
2 support extending this meeting. If you do consider extending this meeting I would highly
3 recommend, having served on other Boards that went late into the evening, putting a deadline on
4 what your extension is so that it's not overended.
5
6 Matt Hughes: Actually, my comment was that I was going to make a motion that the meeting could
7 extend by no more than 45 minutes, and would give us ample time to hear from the next two
8 witnesses and possibly citizens, if we are efficient and if our Chair intends to keep people on task.
9
10 James Bryan: If I could chime in that you can't put a hard deadline for time. You can't say you've
11 only got ten minutes but it could be a strong advisory...
12
13 Samantha Cabe: We will vote again in 45 minutes, can we say that?
14
15 James Bryan: You can do that. You can also say that we've granted everybody extreme
16 leniencies thus far, we will not in the future. That sort of thing. And come down on relevancy,
17 repetitous, materiality, things like that.
18
19 Samantha Cabe: Does anyone else on the Board have an alternate proposal to Matt? Are you
20 making that as a motion Mr. Hughes?
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
NEV
37
38
39
40
41
42
Matt Hughes: Yes. I move that we extend our meeting 45 minutes and we can revisit that at the
end of that period and that we remind our folks to be efficient in their testimony.
MOTION made by Matt Hughes to extend meeting 45 minutes and then decide at that time to
continue or reconvene. Seconded by Barry Katz.
VOTE: 2 -3 (Susan Halkiotis, Karen Barrows, and Samantha Cabe opposed)
Samantha Cabe: So we'll adjorn this meeting, do we need to set a new time?
James Bryan: The default would be to the next meeting but it's the Boards' preogative if they want
to set something else.
Michael Harvey: Given the holiday schedule there is no way to call a special meeting in my
opinion. Your next scheduled meeting is on January the 9th
Barry Katz: Do we have any applications for the January 9th meeting?
Michael Harvey: There is an application that has been submitted but it is not technically slated for
presentation at that hearing. That is something the Board would have to determine.
Matt Hughes: Really?
OC Board of Adjustment —12/12/16
Page 76 of 156
Approved 3113117
2 Michael Harvey: Yes.
3
4 Samantha Cabe: I believe we have already adjourned.
6 Michael Harvey: There has been no motion of adjourn the meeting as of yet. You all have agreed
7 not to accept any more testimony. Right now the question is are you moving to adjourn to your
8 next regularly scheduled meeting on January 9t" or to a special meeting. My recommendation is
9 that you adjourn to a date time certain on January 9t" so you do not have to re- advertise. My only
10 question for the Board is do you all want to convene the meeting earlier to accommodate
11 additional testimony.
12
13 Susan Halkiotis: I really think we should start earlier.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Samantha Cabe: Does anyone here have a problem with getting here earlier? Say 6:30 p.m.?
Do I have a motion?
MOTION by Barry Katz to adjourn and reconvene the meeting at 6:30pm on January 9th, 2017 at
the same location. Seconded by Matt Hughes.
(Unknown Resident not sworn): Along with that will there be an opportunity for people not
represented by an attorney to speak? Perhaps at the beginning of the meeting? I don't know due
process with this. I'm just wondering how I'm not represented by an attorney, I don't have an
attorney, I assume there are others who have an opinion and don't want to hear the same
question asked 30 times before being able to provide our input. And I'm a resident.
Samantha Cabe: I understand sir, and I apologize for your having to wait and not gettting heard
tonight. Our typical procedure is to have the parties be heard first and then interested parties be
heard after the presentation of evidence. Certainly if the parties agree for you to be heard
beforehand we'll consider that at the next meeting.
Meeting adjorned.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DATE JANUARY 23, 2017
RECONVENED REGULAR MEETING
Samantha Cabe (Chair)
Karen Barrows (Vice- Chair)
Matt Hughes
Barry Katz
Susan Halkiotis
STAFF PRESENT: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor
Elaina Cheek, Board Secretary
James Bryan, Staff Attorney
Anne Marie Tosco, Staff Attorney
Meeting was called to order by Samantha Cabe.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16
Page 77 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Samantha Cabe: Alright, the January 23, 2017 meeting of the Orange County Board of
3 Adjustment will come to order. I apologize for being here a few minutes late. Do we have a new
4 agenda or do we pick up right where we left off?
5
6 Michael Harvey: Well, before we call or reconvene the public hearing we need to make the Board
7 aware of a couple of things.
8
9 Samantha Cabe: Ok.
10
11 Michael Harvey: The first thing is at your place this evening you have your Orange County Board
12 Member Disclosure forms. It's that time of year again. If you could fill that out and get them back
13 to me as quickly as you can Tom Freeman would appreciate it. And I will appreciate you in helping
14 to get Tom Freeman off my case. Second of all, you have before you the Board of Adjustment
15 calendar for the year. This lays out when we're going to be having meetings. Per your rules and
16 procedure in the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance you typically meet the second
17 Monday of the month, unless there's a conflict. There are a couple of conflicts this year where the
18 meetings fall on a public hearing date with the County Commissioners per County Commissioner
19 Policy you are to move to the following Monday so there's no conflicts and the Staff doesn't have
20 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
21 your rules and procedure is acknowledge and adopt the calendar.
22
23 Samantha Cabe: Do I have a motion to adopt the calendar that's been presented to us as our
24 calendar for the upcoming year 2017?
25
26 Motion made by Matt Hughes to adopt the calendar for the upcoming year 2017. Seconded by
27 Barry Katz.
28
29 VOTE: Unanimous
30
31 Samantha Cabe: We adopt the calendar presented by Staff as the Board Of Adjustment calendar
32 for the year 2017.
33
34 Michael Harvey: We currently have no February meetings scheduled, so if you'd like to have a
35 motion to cancel the February regular meeting.
36
37 Motion made by Barry Katz to cancel the February 28th meeting. Seconded by Karen Barrows.
38
39 VOTE: Unanimous
40
41 Samantha Cabe: Alright, no February meeting.
42
43 Michael Harvey: You have a . March meeting. That March meeting is the review of appeal
44 submitted by neighbors of the Barn of Chapel Hill challenging the determination made by Staff
45 concerning the status of the property as a farm. This is slighted to be presented at your March 13th
46 meeting. As you know your regular Chair Samantha Cabe is recused from acting on this particular
47 request Karen Barrows will be serving as Chairperson. The question has come up whether or not
48 this venue, this location, was appropriate to handle the crowd at the meetings. Per the rules and
49 procedure the Chair person of the Board of Adjustment has the ability to move the meeting if they
50 determine it necessary to accommodate crowds, to accommodate any change or potential issue
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 78 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 that may come up. So at this time if the Board would like to have a quick discussion on the need
2 to move or change the meeting venue to a larger facility, preferably the Whitted meeting facility,
3 where the County Commissioners meet. Do you think it's necessary?
4
5 Barry Katz: Well remember last time. It was packed. People were standing. Do you anticipate the
6 same kind of crowd?
7
8 Michael Harvey: I do.
9
10 Barry Katz: Did you get a request for a larger room?
11
12 Michael Harvey: No, but the rules and procedure give the Chair... Yeah, and we wanted to bring it
13 up now since we can actually get ahead of the game.
14
15 Matt Hughes: Is the facility available that day?
16
17 Michael Harvey: We believe it is.
18
19 Matt Hughes: I see no reason not to.
20
21 Barry Katz: Yeah, sure.
22
23 Matt Hughes: Only because it got quite hot the last two times.
24
25 Barry Katz: I remember the facility. Acoustically it's as good or better than here?
26
27 Michael Harvey: I'm not going to say that, but there is an audio system that we'll be taking
28 advantage of. It's a larger space so obviously acoustically...
29
30 Barry Katz: I can remember attending meetings there and having a little challenge.
31
32 Samantha Cabe: I would just suggest if everyone wants to do that we make sure they can actually
33 sit in the actual chairs. The last meeting we had there we were sitting down with sort of, not
34 functional where the screens were.
35
36 Michael Harvey: I agree totally.
37
38 Samantha Cabe: Ok.
39
40 Michael Harvey: So if it's, Ms. Barrows, if you're amendable to it...
41
42 Karen Barrows: Mm -Hmm.
43
44 Michael Harvey: Ok. Then we will work to facilitate that and keep Board members apprised of
45 where we are. The only other item before we reconvene is I have placed an item at your desk. It is
46 a set of three emails that the Planning Staff received on Sunday January the 22nd from Ms. Amber
47 Corbin concerning this project. We will address them at the appropriate time. Madame Chair,
48 thank you.
49
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 79 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. Alright, so we will pick up our hearing. I believe we were hearing
2 evidence from the opposition and, forgive me, do you recall which witness we were hearing from?
3
4 John Price: Yes I think the last witness was Evan Gwen.
5
6 Samantha Cabe: I'm sorry?
7
8 John Price: Evan Gwen.
9
10 Samantha Cabe: Yes.
12 John Price: And we finished with Mr. Gwen.
13
14 Samantha Cabe: Ok.
15
16 Michael Harvey: Madame Chair, if we could have a formal motion to reconvene the public hearing.
17
18 Samantha Cabe: Oh, sure. Can I have a motion to reconvene the public hearing?
19
20 Motion made by Karen Barrows to reconvene the public hearing. Seconded by Matt Hughes.
21
22 VOTE: Unanimous
23
24 Samantha Cabe: Alright, we will reconvene.
25
26 Michael Harvey: And I will ask was there anybody who signed up this evening that was not sworn
27 at the December regular meeting? If I could get those who would like to speak to come forward so
28 we can swear you in at this time. And those who have already been sworn just remember you will
29 need to restate for the record your name, that you were sworn, and that you were sworn at the
30 December meeting.
31
32 Michael Harvey swore in a member of the public.
33
34 Michael Harvey: Again, when you come up to speak just state your name, your address, and that
35 you were sworn for the record.
36
37 Karen Barrows: Before we start I have a question for Mr. Price if that's ok.
38
39 Samantha Cabe: Sure.
40
41 Karen Barrows: Mr. Price, I was reading over some of the material you submitted to Michael or
42 someone after we met last time where you said you thought the meeting was not conducted
43 properly. Do you mind telling the Board what you were thinking about?
44
45 John Price: All I was referring to on that was that I was not allowed to cross - examine the experts
46 for Verizon and TowerCom with respect to the alternatives considered and why certain
47 alternatives were not considered technical issues. And I think the primary objection was that under
48 the North Carolina statutes you're not allowed to require an applicant to disclose confidential
49 information so one of my...
50
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 80 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Laura Goode: It was not confidential. It's proprietary information.
2
3 John Price: Yeah, proprietary, right. And the information I was seeking I didn't believe was
4 confidential. Proprietary, but it went to issues of whether they had considered properly alternatives
5 and taken those into consideration... I have a couple of housekeeping matters, if you don't mind.
6 Mr. Evan Gwen, when he testified regarding certain photographs that were taken of the balloon
7 test and also several maps if we could have those entered into the record.
8
9 Samantha Cabe: All of these were the ones that we saw on the computer but we didn't have
10 physical copies of?
11
12 John Price: Correct. And also, reference was made to the letters that I had... The supplemental
13 submission that I had made by letter of January 3rd and there was a response and I filed a reply
14 on January 7t", and also filed our bonus position to on applicants compliance and I was requested
15 to file with the Board, prepare and file with the Board sending forth our proposed findings of fact.
16 I'll request that those be made part of the record not for evidentiary purposes but really setting
17 forth our legal position.
18
19 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. Are these paper copies of those because we got them via email, 1
20 believe?
21
22 Michael Harvey: Now we're calling the pictures Opposition 5.
23
24 Barry Katz: Is this all going to be number 6?
25
26 Michael Harvey: This is all going to be number 6. So both letters and the findings of the opposites.
27
28 John Price: Mr. Ogburn, would you state your name and you residence please?
29
30 Michael Ogburn: Michael Ogburn, I live at 3236 Trenton Road in Raleigh.
31
32 John Price: What is your occupation?
33
34 Michael Ogburn: I am a real estate appraiser.
35
36 John Price: Are you licensed by the state of North Carolina as a real estate appraiser?
37
38 Michael Ogburn: I have a State Certificate, yes.
39
40 John Price: How long have you been licensed or certified?
41
42 Michael Ogburn: Ever since they started in 1991.
43
44 John Price: How many years have you been involved in performing appraisals?
45
46 Michael Ogburn: Full time for 33, prior to that probably an additional 6 or 7 on a part time basis.
47
48 John Price: How many appraisals over the years would you estimate you performed?
49
50 Michael Ogburn: 10-12,000.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 81 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Price: What percentage of those have been residential properties as opposed to
3 commercial?
4
5 Michael Ogburn: Probably 99 %.
6
7 John Price: You previously testified as an expert appraiser in court proceeds and in ministry and
8 new proceedings including before Board of Adjustment's?
9
10 Michael Ogburn: Yes.
11
12 John Price: Approximately how many times?
13
14 Michael Ogburn: How many times have I testified? 50 -60 times, I would guess.
15
16 John Price: Have you ever been denied qualification as an expert witness?
17
18 Michael Ogburn: No.
19
20 John Price: Have you performed appraisal services for any North Carolina cites or counties?
21
22 Michael Ogburn: Yes. Let's see here, Wake County, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, Currently engaged
23 with Town of Morrisville, Garner, it's not unusual for me to engage municipalities.
24
25 John Price: Have you ever previously testified on the potential impact on the value of residential
26 properties of external influences or a contingent circumstances?
27
28 Michael Ogburn: Yes.
29
30 John Price: Can you give any examples?
31
32 Michael Ogburn: Most recent one was down in Johnston County. They had built a ball field in
33 these peoples back yard and put the light poles right in their back yard, it was brighter than noon
34 in their backyard at nighttime. I understand why they were upset.
35
36 John Price: Are you aware of any conflicts that you- would have with any parties to this
37 proceeding?
38
39 Michael Ogburn: Not that I'm aware of.
40
41 John Price: Do you have a personal stake in the outcome of this proceeding?
42
43 Michael Ogburn: I do not.
44
45 John Price: What I'm going to have marked is Opposition 7 and ask you if that is your CB?
46
47 Michael Ogburn: Yes.
48
49 John Price: Everything stated in your CB is true and correct.
50
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 82 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Michael Ogburn: Yes. As far as I know, yes sir.
2
3 John Price: I'll move for the admission into the record Opposition 7. We ask that Mr. Ogburn be
4 allowed to testify in this proceeding as an expert appraiser and evaluation expert witness.
5
6 Samantha Cabe: Any objection?
7
8 Laura Goode: No.
9
10 John Price: Mr. Ogburn, did you perform an appraisal property owned by Owen and Roxanne
11 Gwen?
12
13 Michael Ogburn: I did.
14 John Price: Would you describe the nature of the engagement, specifically what you were asked
15 to appraise or value?
16
17 Michael Ogburn: Most recently, the question was whether or not a proposed cell tower down the
18 hill from him would have an adverse effect on his property value.
19
20 John Price: And did you prepare the appraisal report that was previously entered into the record in
21 this case that you have before you?
22
23 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir.
24
25 John Price: Did you arrive at an opinion regarding the current value of Mr. and Mrs. Gwen's
26 property?
27
28 Michael Ogburn: I did.
29
30 John Price: And what was that opinion?
31
32 Michael Ogburn: $1,290,000.
33
34 John Price: And did you arrive at opinion as to the value of that property in the event that the
35 TowerCom cell tower was constructed as proposed?
36
37 Michael Ogburn: I did.
38
39 John Price: And what was that value?
40
41 Michael Ogburn: $1,135,200.
42
43 John Price: And what's the difference between the two values?
44
45 Michael Ogburn: A differential of 12 %.
46
47 John Price: What amount?
48
49 Michael Ogburn: $154,800.
50
OC Board of Adjustment- 12/12/16 Page 83 of 156.
Approved 3113117
1 John Price: Would you describe what you did and took into consideration in arriving at your
2 evaluation?
3
4 Michael Ogburn: Yeah, sure. Anytime you're engaged to do an appraisal what you're supposed to
5 do is put yourself into the mindset of a prospective buyer so when I'm looking at the property then
6 I'm supposed to look as if I am a typically motivated buyer. So obviously, in this instance, the first
7 question you have: if I've got two properties, both of them are in my opinion equal, one of them
8 you've got a 200 -foot metal pole and the other one you don't, which one are you going to buy? It
9 seems pretty clear to me that you're going to buy the one that doesn't have the 200 -foot metal
10 pole. So since that seemed to be reasonable and logical then you start looking for data to either
11 support or to dis -sway your preconceived concept as to whether or not it would have an adverse
12 effect. So I ran across an article where they had pulled people about their opinion as to whether or
13 not it would have an adverse effect. Well it did, and as I recall it was somewhere in the
14 neighborhood of about 78% would have a negative view towards being approximate to a cell
15 phone tower. That seems reasonable to me. Then, I found a study that had been published by the
16 Appraisal Journal where they had done a much more humanistic study on the effects and
17 proximity of cell phone towers. And again, their conclusions seemed to mirror what they did. So
18 we understand then if this proximity to view a 200 -foot metal pole is going to affect the opinion of
19 potential buyers. We're going to have a downward shift of the demand curve and from EC 101 first
20 day if your demand curve goes down you've got fewer potential buyers, the price has to come
21 down. That's just a fact. So it seems reasonable then that this is what the effects are going to be.
22 You can argue about how much but it's almost inarguable that it's not going to have an adverse
23 effect on value. So then the next thing was to find instances of proximity to cell phone towers and
24 their effect on value. There's a neighborhood in Holly Springs called Cobble Ridge that had a cell
25 phone tower built on one of the lots in the neighborhood. So the first thing I did was, ok let's look
26 at the map and we'll pick out the houses that are immediately next to that and we're going to
27 compare what those houses sold for versus what the rest of the neighborhood sold for to see if
28 there's an impact. What we found was that these houses that were immediately adjacent to the
29 cell phone tower were approximately 12% smaller than the median house in the neighborhood. So
30 they were less expensive and they were smaller. We also found that they sold for the same price
31 per foot as the rest of them. Well all things being equal, a smaller house is going to sell for more
32 per foot, not the same amount. I'll give you a real quick example I can do in my head. I've got two
33 properties. They're side by side. They both have a $50,000 lot. House A is a 1,000 square feet.
34 That's $50 a square foot. House B is 2,000 square feet. That's $25 a square foot. All things being
35 equal, the smaller the house the more per foot it should sell for. If it's not selling for more per foot
36 then we understand that there is an adverse influence. Additionally, when you look in the MLS you
37 see that the realtors that have those properties listed noted on those properties that were adjacent
38 to the cell phone tower that the cell phone tower was there and that they believe they had already
39 adjusted the price downward to account for that. So we understand that they have been getting
40 some feedback so they were trying to be pro- active in marketing these and saying that, hey we
41 understand it's got a cell phone tower and we've already accounted for it. Yes sir?
42
43 Barry Katz: I have a couple questions. You mentioned this Journal article.
44
45 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir.
46
47 Barry Katz: It seems pretty significant that there might be a Journal article. Is this ...... It would be
48 good to have an opportunity to see this Journal article and actually look at it and see what it is that
49 they're saying. It could be highly significant; not only for this case but for whenever we have to
50 consider this.
OC Board of Adjustment- 12/12/16 Page 84 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Michael Ogburn: Ok. It is readily online. Yes sir.
3
4 Barry Katz: Alright, you'll let us know. And also ......
5
6 John Price: Also a copy is attached to the appraisal report.
7
8 Barry Katz: Oh ok, it is. Then you mentioned you went then to look for the comparables to see
9 adjacent to a cell phone tower and not adjacent, etcetera, but weren't any of the examples
10 included in the Journal article?
11
12 Michael Ogburn: No. The article that was done in the Appraisal Journal was actually a study that
13 was done in New Zealand.
14
15 Barry Katz: Ok, we've heard about that one.
16
17 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir.
18
19 Barry Katz: That's good to know. And just a semantic thing, you mentioned two lots $50,000. You
20 mean that those lots were not just the value of the lot but the value of the lot and the house was
21 $50,000?
22
23 Michael Ogburn: No, no sir. Just the lots are $50,000. On house number one I build a 1,000
24 square foot house. That's going to be $50 a square foot, just for the lot. I haven't done anything
25 else. For house B I've got a 2,000 square foot house. That's going to be $25. Now, I continue
26 on... I've got a two -car garage on each of them. It's $20,000 for the two -car garage. For house A
27 that's $20 a square foot. For house B that's $10 a square foot. I continue... I've got two
28 bathrooms. Each bathroom is $5,000. For house A that's $5 a square foot. For house B it's going
29 to be $10. So we understand that the smaller the house, all things being equal, it has to be
30 greater. If you divide a number by a smaller number it has to be greater.
31
32 Barry Katz: I just don't think that listening to this you're talking about hypothetical houses that, in
33 my experience, it's not a realistic comparable because you're not building the same house, you're
34 not building the same value, you have no idea what goes into this, what the size of these
35 bathrooms are, or any of these things. I mean there's so much that goes into valuing a house.
36
37 Michael Ogburn: If I confine it to a neighborhood, which I did, then we're going to expect that most
38 of these houses are going to have a great deal of conformity. That's why most of these
39 subdivisions have got restrictive covenant to say that you have to build a house to such a size and
40 use perhaps a certain type of architecture, etcetera. So we would anticipate that yes there's going
41 to be variables, but that being said the smaller the house the greater per foot it's going to sell for.
42 It just has to, there's no way around it. Yes ma'am?
43
44 Samantha Cabe: I have a question for you. So would a cell tower have less of an effect? You're
45 study dealt with sort of a cookie cutter neighborhood with same size lots, similar houses, I believe
46 Mr. Owen testified in his testimony at our last hearing that he had a very unique property, he had
47 the highest point east or west of such and such, that it's a custom built home, so let's say that
48 there is no other property, per Mr. Owen's testimony, like this property anywhere in Orange
49 County. So how can you say that someone would go and choose another property? How can you
50 say that the cell phone tower being there outweighs the unique properties that Mr. Owen testified
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 85 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 to? Someone might want to live on the highest peak and I don't remember his sphere but with that
2 view and so on and so forth?
3
4 Michael Ogburn: We understand that somebody that purposely selects a lot on one of the highest
5 points in Orange County is buying it to catch that vista view. Otherwise you're going to build down
6 it on the bottom of the hill. You're going to be on top of the mountain because you want a top of
7 the mountain experience.
8
9 Samantha Cabe: I wouldn't call this a mountain.
10
11 Michael Ogburn: Well, technically it is. I won't argue with you but technically it is a mountain. So
12 you're going to build it up there. Now, let's face it, in excess of $1,000,000 you're talking about
13 something that's relatively rare. So these people that may consider purchasing a like property,
14 their number one competition is not of the houses that are currently on the market. His point of
15 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
16 the right price and adapt it to my taste, so they are marketable. They often have a loss between
17 value in use and value in exchange, they do. But, if I have this period discretionary buyer that's
18 looking for this top of the mountain it is going to affect them the same or greater than somebody
19 that's buying a subdivision house. I would argue it's going to affect them a great deal more. They
20 have the discretionary income to go any doggone place they want to. Why pick one with a 200-
21 foot pole in view? I can't name a single reason.
22
23 Samantha Cabe: Except that it's the highest point in Orange County.
24
25 Michael Ogburn: Well, you can go over to the next ridge, which is Governor's Club, and that's
26 where the build their estate homes up on top of that. Not on golf course, they're up on top of the
27 ridge so you can get that 40 -mile vista. Ok.
28
29 John Price: The property that you're talking about that you studied the sales prices of those
30 properties, that's the same development as David Smith used in his report, is that correct?
31
32 Michael Ogburn: That's correct. Yes, sir. And so the first thing then is, ok let's see what immediate
33 proximity to that cell phone tower is, does it have an affect? And then the next logical thing, to me,
34 would be, ok does it have an affect on that neighborhood versus a near by neighborhood. So
35 when you look in the MLS for the same time frame period new construction the majority of the
36 new construction was in the development immediately west on Holly Springs Road, Sunridge. And
37 so I did a study where I pulled all of the new construction, same time frame from the properties in
38 Sunset Ridge and the ones in Cobble Ridge. And found that the difference between those two
39 neighborhoods was a difference of 1- square foot, on median. But the difference in sales price on a
40 per foot basis was something like 16 -17% difference for the same size house. I looked a little
41 more and it turns out that the lots inside of Sunset Ridge, on average, were selling for more than
42 the ones in Cobble Ridge. So I adjusted down for that and then the differential between those two
43 was 12 %.
44
45 John Price: When you say all things being equal, smaller houses going to sell for larger square
46 foot price, when you say all things being equal does that include lot size?
47
48 Michael Ogburn: So then what we're expecting is that the smaller houses got a similar value site,
49 it's got similar amenities, two car garage, 2 and a half baths, kitchen, HVAC, porch, deck,
50 whatever, the amenities happen to be whatever is standard for that particular market area, so yes
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 86 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 that's what we're trying to do. We understand that if I were in Cobble Ridge and then I went to a
2 higher priced neighborhood, that one that was $600,000, that the amenities that the market would
3 expect in this higher priced neighborhood would not be similar to what my expectations would be
4 in Cobble Ridge. That wouldn't be a fair comparison. But if I compare just that neighborhood, we
5 want to have a reasonable amount of conformity. There's going to be some variances, yes. But
6 we anticipate that most of that's going to be washed out by using a broader study instead of just
7 one particular dwelling.
8
9 Samantha Cabe: I have two questions that are related to Cobble Ridge. First, what is the average
10 lot size in Cobble Ridge that you looked at? Oh it's .23. It looks like less than half -acre lots.
11
12 Michael Ogburn: Yes ma'am, that's correct.
13
14 Samantha Cabe: And the houses that were in direct proximity of the cell tower; how far were
15 they?
16
17 Michael Ogburn: In other words these were the lots next door. Here's cell phone tower 1 and 2,
18 just like that.
19
20 Samantha Cabe: And how far away is the proposed tower in this case from Mr. Owen's
21 residence?
22
23 Michael Ogburn: I don't have... but I would say probably a quarter of a mile.
24
25 Samantha Cabe: And were the cell phone towers in Cobble Ridge closer or further than a quarter
26 of a mile?
27
28 Michael Ogburn: So they would be closer. Right.
29
30 Samantha Cabe: Right. Thank you.
31
32 Michael Ogburn: Yes ma'am. So that's why I include the study of comparing the two
33 neighborhoods to see if that cell phone tower had an impact on all of the properties in that
34 neighborhood, not just the ones that are immediately adjacent. My conclusion,, based on the
35 information I pulled up, was that the entire neighborhood was adversely affected. Even though
36 those that were not immediately adjacent, so what appears to be absolutely true is that the more
37 approximate you are to the cell phone tower the more adversely your value will be affected. It
38 seems to be fairly reasonable to me.
39
40 John Price: Is there a range of impact in terms of the closer to proximity, the more visible?
41
42 Michael Ogburn: So what we would find then if we used those properties that were immediately
43 adjacent to the cell phone tower and then went across the street and compared them to like size
44 houses in Sunset Ridge that differential would have been probably in the 20 plus range. Now, that
45 also seemed to be very consistent with the study that was done in New Zealand where they found
46 a range of 2-21% depending on the proximity to cell phone towers. So that seems then to be
47 supportive of the information that I gathered.
48
49 Barry Katz: You're comparing the two developments, and the development that's not directly
50 associated with the cell tower, can you see the cell tower from that subdivision?
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 87 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Michael Ogburn: Not from most of it. There's a few back up to Holly Springs Road that you would
3 be able to but the majority of the neighborhood is far enough removed that you cannot.
4
5 Barry Katz: Ok.
6
7 John Price: What else, if anything else, did you take into consideration in arriving at the impact on
8 the value of...
9
10 Michael Ogburn: Ok... What seemed to me for this instance could be the most similar was that
11 differential between Sunset Ridge and Cobble Ridge because I'm not immediately adjacent to the
12 cell phone tower. And we found that to be 12 %, so that seems to be a reasonable conclusion. If
13 we're up here...
14
15 Matt Hughes: I'm sorry; I'm trying to check out the source that you have in your report. Apparently
16 it plays music.
17
18 Michael Ogburn: Pardon? It's attached... Ok. So, he's up on top of the hill... I was driving out to
19 Jordan Lake the other day. I was up on top of the hill. The next ridge down I could see the cell
20 phone tower. That was 5 -miles away. I mean, 200 -feet is probably 100 -150 above most trees? It
21 sticks out a long way. They're tall. You can see them a long way if you have the vantage point.
22
23 John Price: With respect to the article in the survey report, attached to your own report?
24
25 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir.
26
27 John Price: Is that the type of information, based on your experience, an expertise real estate
28 evaluation that you and other real estate appraisers would take into consideration in performing
29 this type of appraisal?
30
31 Michael Ogburn: Yes. Now I didn't rely on them, but I certainly believe that they're supportive,
32 those conclusions were similar to the conclusions that I drew from looking at the market place. So
33 it seems reasonable to include them that somebody else found similar data that I did.
34
35 John Price: At my request did you review the impact analysis report prepared by David Smith?
36 Michael Ogburn: I did.
37
38 John Price: As well as the attachments to the report?
39
40 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir.
41
42 John Price: Do you agree or disagree with his opinion that the proposed development will
43 maintain or enhance the value of contiguous properties?
44
45 Michael Ogburn: I do not agree.
46
47 John Price: Aside from what you have already related, has it been in you experience in all the
48 years you've been involved in appraising and valuing properties, has it throughout that experience
49 been your experience that the square foot price of a smaller home, all things relatively being
50 equal, will be larger at a higher sales price?
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 88 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Michael Ogburn: That's correct.
3
4 Samantha Cabe: We've heard that. We got that.
5
6 John Price: In your opinion does the potential value on property value if construction of the cell
7 tower is here vary depending upon the particular nature and character of the surrounding
8 community, home size, lot size, terrain?
9
10 Michael Ogburn: I would believe it would seem reasonable that in a more urban locale you're
11 going to have more towers and all of that, it's going to be part of the infrastructure.... I'm not
12 saying it would have an impact but it would be part of the landscape, as it were. As you get
13 suburban you're going to see very few, and they're mostly going to be centered on major
14 thoroughfares close to some type of commercial development. Then when you get into a more
15 rural locale you don't expect to see them hardly at all, I mean, it's very unusual.
16
17 John Price: Do you know what county Cobble Ridge and Sunset Ridge are located in?
18
19 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir. They're both in Wake County.
20
21 John Price: Are those developments zoned rural buffer?
22
23 Michael Ogburn: No sir.
24
25 John Price: Do you know what zoning category in Wake County would correspond to rural buffer?
26
27 Michael Ogburn: The closest that we have, we don't have a rural buffer, the closest were be
28 R80W, that would be the largest site required to build a single - family dwelling.
29
30 John Price: Are either Cobble Ridge or Sunset Ridge zoned R80W?
31
32 Michael Ogburn: No, sir.
33 John Price: Are you familiar with and have you reviewed the Dove Field LLC property in relation of
34 that property the proposed cell tower?
35
36 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir.
37
38 John Price: Based upon the appraisal you performed for Mr. Gwen, in your experience, do you
39 have an opinion as to whether the values of the Dove Field property, including the home occupied
40 by Evan and Erin Gwen, the 40 -acre home site adjacent to the cell tower location, a 100 -acre
41 home site looking down on the proposed cell tower will or will not be impacted by the
42 construction?
43
44 Michael Ogburn: So we would anticipate that closer proximity will adversely affect the values of
45 those properties also.
46
47 John Price: And with respect to those properties would it also be in your opinion the same as
48 before that the impact will vary depending upon proximity and visibility of the tower somewhere
49 between 12 -20 %?
50
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 89 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Michael Ogburn: Yes. That would seem reasonable.
2
3 John Price: In the event there's timbering around the proposed cell tower make it an even more
4 visible, what impact, if any, would that have on property values?
5
6 Michael Ogburn: Well, again, we would think that that would be adverse. I think the other
7 possibility that timbering around the site may bring in to some of the potential market there. Maybe
8 a concern of EMT? Whether it's real or not real...
9
10 Samantha Cabe: Over What?
11
12 Michael Ogburn: EMT's. Electronic Transmission Magnetics.
13
14 Laura Goode: And at this point in time I would like to object to that as not being grounds for...
15
16 Michael Ogburn: So we understand that.
17
18 Samantha Cabe: Sustained.
19
20 Michael Ogburn: Whether it is real or not, I'm not saying one way or the other, if a portion of the
21 market believes or perceives that there may be a problem then, again, what we've done is we
22 have downward shifted our demand curve and we understand that that has to impact the value.
23
24 John Price: Do you have an opinion as to whether it would be a requirement for the sellers
25 property located in an area where a cell tower is going to be built for that sellers agent to disclose
26 the existence of that proposed cell tower?
27
28 Michael Ogburn: I don't know that it's a requirement.
29
30 Laura Goode: I'm going to object to this.
31
32 Samantha Cabe: That's a legal opinion.
33
34 Michael Ogburn: Yeah. What I would say is just like the listing agents of those properties in
35 Cobble Ridge... Any good real estate agent would certainly disclose it and make everyone aware
36 in advance that, oh there is or there may be a cell phone tower.
37
38 Samantha Cabe: Well if that were the case wouldn't you have to say that every single property
39 there's the chance that there could be a cell phone tower? Because anybody can apply to have a
40 cell phone tower.
41
42 Michael Ogburn: Well, yes, but in this instance there's an application in with the County and that
43 would not be true most other places.
44
45 John Price: I have no further questions for the witness.
46
47 Matt Hughes: I have maybe two questions for you. This report that you submitted... Just going
48 through it there's a few questions I have as I read a good portion of that. And one of the things I'm
49 kind of stuck on is this electromagnetichealth.org whatever it is, I can't tell what kind of group it is,
50 but why did you include that in here? Like for example, there's a survey that it lists but, maybe it's
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 90 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 scientists in me, it was a survey circulating through online email and social networking sites. So
2 it's not a scientific poll.
3
4 Michael Ogburn: I do not believe that it is either. I think it's an opinion poll, much like probably the
5 pre - election polls, and it's probably just as accurate. That said...
6
7 Matt Hughes: Well technically those types of polls people don't seek them out though.
8
9 Michael Ogburn: Ok. Let's...
10
11 Matt Hughes: It's not a random sample...
12
13 Michael Ogburn: That's fine. Let's assume that in fact it is biased, ok, that's fine. Again, somebody
14 took the time to at least do a survey. And I believe, if I recall correctly, their findings were
15 something like it had an impact on 78% of potential buyers. Right, let's say that they missed it by a
16 factor of four. That's still 20 %. We understand that whether you agree with their numbers the
17 conclusion is that people don't want to look on a big metal pole. I don't find that to be difficult to
18 agree with.
19
20 Michael Harvey: Madame Chair, just for the record, we're dealing with Opponents Exhibit 1.
21
22 Samantha Cabe: Ok, thank you.
23
24 Matt Hughes: The other question about this material was regarding inaudible 55:11 and their
25 perceived health affects from this and I was wondering... You said that... How do you account for
26 that when you appraise things, I mean, there's things out there. Let's say vaccines, for example,
27 people believe that vaccines can cause all sorts of diseases or afflictions including the current
28 occupant of the White House but that has no basis. So how does that?
29
30 Michael Ogburn: Ok, again, so...
31
32 Matt Hughes: So how do you account for things that where people are making an opinion of
33 something or it influences them. How do you?
34
35 Michael Ogburn: What is real, for those people, what it really is or what they perceive for it to be.
36 Well in their instance it may be perception, it really doesn't make any difference as long as a
37 portion perceive it might be a problem. We understand if it's one out of ten, if it's one out of a
38 hundred, we're still going to have a downward shift in that demand curve.
39
40 Matt Hughes: Let's say, do you weight that downward shift differently versus someone who just
41 doesn't want to look at a metal pole versus those who think there's some sort of health issue?
42
43 Michael Ogburn: My personal opinion is that it's much more of an eyesore factor than it is
44 because of the EMT's. The only place that I'm aware of where proximity to tall metal poles is a
45 bonus is in New England it appears that snowmobilers like to be next to high power transmission
46 easement so they can zip up and down the hills. But other than that I haven't found anywhere else
47 where they like to be next to big poles.
48
49 Matt Hughes: The other thing was the Journal Article you mentioned.
50
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 91 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir.
2
3 Matt Hughes: It focuses mostly on New Zealand, there's some reference to some other places as
4 well but, work me through how appraisals... How could appraisals be different in another country?
5 Does that make sense?
6
7 Michael Ogburn: Oh yeah, so.
8
9 Matt Hughes: Is there some sort of professional standard no matter where you are, let's say
10 between the United States and Canada and New Zealand would not adhere to those?
11
12 Michael Ogburn: What we would anticipate is the same economic factors are going to be in play in
13 New Zealand as they are in the United States, but what I have generally found to be true
14 regardless of where you live most people are pretty doggone much the same. And if they don't
15 like to look at metal poles in New Zealand they probably don't like to look at them in Orange
16 County either. Ok, so, did I rely on this as a basis for my conclusions? No sir. I believe that it is
17 supportive of those conclusions that I drew, yes sir. What I'm saying is I'm not the only one out
18 there that came to this conclusion. Now, they did a much more thorough study than I did. They
19 don't pay appraisers to do studies... I do a lot of preservation easements on historic properties
20 and that type of thing. The articles that were written for it were 40 and 50 years ago. They're still
21 the only articles out there where they've measured the effects, so this is not unusual for us then to
22 use something that was published in, for appraisers the Journal, and this is a good stay. And there
23 just hasn't been anything else. Oh, these same people did write some others but this was the one.
24
25 Barry Katz: Well as far as the EMF stuff goes, the magnetic field varies with the distance from the
26 source.
27
28 Michael Ogburn: That is what I understand also.
29
30 Barry Katz: To the fourth power, which means if you double the distance there's 10,000 times less
31 influence, and you're talking about a quarter of a mile away. You're getting more from holding your
32 phone to your ear. It's not really relevant to this, in reality. Your point is what people's impressions
33 are.
34
35 Michael Ogburn: That's correct.
36
37 Barry Katz: That's all it is.
38
39 Michael Ogburn: That's all it is.
40
41 Barry Katz: And your opinion about this.
42
43 Michael Ogburn: So again, all I'm saying is if there are people out there that perceive that to be
44 true, I'm not saying it is, but if it is it's going to adverse affect our demand curve.
45
46 Barry Katz: I have a question about demand and your opinion about this.
47
48 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir.
49
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 92 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Barry Katz: If you work at a place and you have an opportunity to buy a house that's an easy drive
2 to your place at work and it's one mile away and you have another opportunity to buy a house
3 that's five miles away or ten miles away, would there be an appeal to buy the house that's one
4 mile away, or not?
5
6 Michael Ogburn: There are more factors, which is why it's location, location, location.
7
8 Barry Katz: Right.
Michael Ogburn: So would being closer to work be nice? Yes sir. But if it's not in the right schools,
if I don't have...
Barry Katz: You've got all these variables. That's exactly right. You've got all these variables. And
what you have here is an unique property that's located in proximity to the University, the hospital,
to Research Triangle Park, to all of these factors that make it an appealing place, while it's still
kind of a wilderness place. It's an extraordinary place and it's location... there may not be a
comparable place around on this side of Raleigh that could compare with the location of this
place.
Michael Ogburn: I would not disagree.
22 Barry Katz: So I just don't know when you put in all the variables and the appeal of this location
23 how significant this pole will be when you have the option of doing two things. Siting your house
24 so you don't see it, or recognizing for nine months out of the year you don't see it. So tell me, how
25 is this that significant?
26
27 Michael Ogburn: Ok. Again, what my opinion would be is that because we're dealing with a
28 market segment that is only a fraction of a percentage, I mean we're talking rare air... In a typical
29 year those properties that will go on the open market and will transact for a greater amount than
30 $1,000,000 will typically be somewhere in the neighborhood of four tenths of one percent of the
31 entire marketplace.
32
33 Barry Katz: Just property, not value of house right? Just property?
34
35 Michael Ogburn: So in other words real property i.e. Improved residential real estate that has a for
36 sale sign that goes in the front yard and is openly transacted in the marketplace for excess of a
37 million you're talking about a fraction of one percent.
38
39 Barry Katz: I'm still not clear. Do you mean this is a property with a house on it?
40
41 Michael Ogburn: Yes sir.
42
43 Barry Katz: That few? Because there are a lot of million dollar houses around here.
44
45 Michael Ogburn: There are a lot of houses that cost a million dollars, how many transacted for a
46 million dollars. What you find is in a typical year it's a fraction of one percent. So you're dealing
47 with a very, very small segment of the market. That's one. Two, people that can afford property
48 like this have the discretionary income where they can make choices, where they... I don't have to
49 settle for this, I can go over here and build one the way I want to, where I want to. That's really the
50 competition for most of these houses.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 ' Page 93 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Barry Katz: We don't want to spend any more time than we have to on this but all I'm saying is as
3 you say location, location, location this is a particularly unique location and we're talking about an
4 opinion about what the value of that property, and how it's affected by that pole.
5
6 Michael Ogburn: That is correct, that's what an appraisal is, an opinion of value. That's correct.
7 Yes sir.
8
9 Barry Katz: Ok, fine.
10
11 Samantha Cabe: Any questions from you Karen? Alright, does that applicant have questions?
12
13 Laura Goode: I have a few questions, thank you... Good evening, I'm Laura Goode.
14
15 Michael Ogburn: I'm sorry, Margo?
16 Laura Goode: Laura Goode.
17
18 Michael Ogburn: Ok. Nice to meet you Mike Ogburn.
19
20 Laura Goode: Ok. So your opinion was that the erection of a cell phone tower adjacent to a
21 subject property would create a loss of twelve percent? Is that correct?
22
23 Michael Ogburn: So what we found was then those properties that were most immediately
24 adjacent to the cell phone tower in Cobble Ridge were twelve percent smaller than the median
25 size of houses sold the same price per foot. Therefore the conclusion would be that there was an
26 adverse effect there and if you do the math it probably works out to be somewhere in the
27 neighborhood about ten percent as compared to the entire neighborhood. If you then compare
28 Cobble Ridge to the neighborhood across the street that does not have the cell phone tower that
29 differential was twelve percent.
30
31 Laura Goode: And you state in your report that as such it would my opinion that the erection of a
32 cell phone tower adjacent to the subject property would create a loss of twelve percent?
33
34 Michael Ogburn: Yes.
35
36 Laura Goode: Ok. But this property, Owen Gwen's property, is not adjacent to the proposed tower
37 property, is that correct?
38
39 Michael Ogburn: Yes.
40
41 Laura Goode: And in fact there are approximately five properties in between Mr. Gwen's property
42 and the subject property, and I'll show you on the map of this.
43
44 Michael Ogburn: Ok.... Yeah, four or five depending on how you count, that's correct.
45
46 Laura Goode: Ok. And I would introduce this into the record. I'm not sure what number we're on.
47
48 Michael Harvey: For applicants exhibits we're Applicant 2.
49
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 94 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Laura Goode: And earlier you testified that Mr. Owen Gwen's property at 1700 Clearwater Lake
2 Road is approximately a quarter mile from the subject tower?
3
4 Michael Ogburn: That would be my supposition, yes.
5
6 Laura Goode: Ok, I'm going to show you a Google Earth image.
7
8 Michael Ogburn: Ok.
9
10 Laura Goode: Showing Mr. Gwen's property at 1700 Clearwater Lake Road and the proposed
11 tower center that we did with latitude and longitude of the tower, and does this show that there's
12 about a half mile between those two sites?
13 Michael Ogburn: Could be, I can't read it it's too small.
14
15 Laura Goode: Ok.
16
17 Michael Ogburn: If you've got a magnifying glass I'd be happy to look at it again, but I'm sorry, the
18 prints too small.
19
20 Laura Goode: Ok, alright fair enough. And I would enter this into the record as Applicants number
21 3. And then also earlier you testified about comparing home sales prices between homes in the
22 Cobble Ridge and Sunset Ridge subdivision?
23
24 Michael Ogburn: Yes.
25
26 Laura Goode: Ok, and the data of those home sales that you used are on pages 43 -48 of your
27 report, is that correct?
28
29 Michael Ogburn: Perhaps... No. I think...
30
31 Laura Goode: 43 -48 is labeled at the top right hand corner of the report.
32
33 Michael Ogburn: Here, it's in the...
34
35 Samantha Cabe: The last five pages of your report.
36
37 Michael Ogburn: The last how many?
38
39 Samantha Cabe: The last five.
40
41 Michael Ogburn: Five, yes.
42
43 Laura Goode: So those are the home sales you used in your comparison?
44
45 Michael Ogburn: I believe that is correct.
46
47 Laura Goode: Alright. And those home sales have not been adjusted for things such as the
48 number of bedrooms?
49
50 Michael Ogburn: That is correct.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 95 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Laura Goode: Number of bathrooms?
3
4 Michael Ogburn: That is correct?
5
6 Laura Goode: Whether there's a garage?
7
8 Michael Ogburn: They all have garages.
9
10 Laura Goode: Or other factors that you discussed in your testimony?
11
12 Michael Ogburn: So, what I did on this was these are the five immediately adjacent properties to
13 the cell phone tower that sold through the open market. There were additional properties that are
14 also adjacent that had not been offered in the open market. They were what we typically call a
15 pre -sale, so there was no interaction on the market place, I did not include those.
16
17 Laura Goode: Understood. I'm just trying to verify that the sales prices that you have, which is the
18 data that you worked with, did not have adjustments to those sales prices for...
19
20 Michael Ogburn: I did not make any adjustments, other than use the raw data. That is correct.
21
22 Laura Goode: Ok.
23
24 Michael Ogburn: Yes ma'am.
25
26 Laura Goode: Alright. And then we've talked about the articles that were contained as part of your
27 report. And the one article from New Zealand, that was an article that was published in 2005?
28
29 Michael Ogburn: That's probably correct, yes.
30
31 Laura Goode: And that was based on data from studies done in 2003?
32
33 Michael Ogburn: That is correct.
34
35 Laura Goode: And that of course was in New Zealand, so this did not deal with properties in the
36 United States?
37
38 Michael Ogburn: No it does not.
39
40 Laura Goode: Ok. And are you aware of any articles that criticized this article?
41
42 Michael Ogburn: I am not.
43
44 Laura Goode: Alright. And you aware of any studies or articles that used data from the United
45 States instead of from other countries?
46
47 Michael Ogburn: I did not find one.
48
OC Board of Adjustment- 12/12/16 Page 96 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Laura Goode: Ok. I'm going to show you an article that is published by the American Bar
2 Association. It's dated May -June issue of 2016. And it's titled probate and property. And the title of
3 the article is, "Cell Phone towers do not affect property values ".
4
5 Michael Ogburn: Ok.
6
7 Laura Goode: Did I read that correctly?
8
9 Michael Ogburn: That's what I see.
10
11 Laura Goode: Ok. And you're not familiar with that article?
12
13 Michael Ogburn: No. I am not. Is this an appraisal organization?
14
15 Laura Goode: It's the American Bar Association, is the publisher.
16
17 Michael Ogburn: Ok. Alright. Well ...............
18
19 Laura Goode: Correct ...... And their credentials ....... Yes. At this time I would enter into the
20 record.
21
22 John Price: I object to... that particular one is written by lawyers and not experts in appraisal by
23 any means, or evaluation of property values.
24
25 Samantha Cabe: Well we'll accept for whatever probative value it is given, we recognize it's not
26 attached to a qualified expert to give their opinion but I think we have a little bit of relaxed rules so
27 we'll accept it but we'll recognize that probative value may be different than an opinion by a
28 qualified expert.
29
30 Laura Goode: Certainly. We were just presenting this to contradict because it directly addresses
31 the New Zealand study that's offered by their expert. And it also uses U.S. data, specifically data
32 in North Carolina.
33
34 Michael Harvey: This is Applicant Exhibit 4.
35
36 Laura Goode: I don't have any additional questions.
37
38 John Price: I just have two additional questions that I'd ask. With respect to the properties
39 between Mr. and Mrs. Gwen's property and the cell tower does most of that property belong to
40 Dove Field?
41
42 Michael Ogburn: That's correct.
43
44 John Price: And was the percentage impact that you applied to the evaluation of Mr. and Mrs.
45 Gwen's property the low range of what you found to be?
46
47 Michael Ogburn: Yes, so in other words it was the differential then between Cobble Ridge and
48 Sunset Ridge, not the differential between those properties adjacent but most immediately
49 adjacent to the cell phone tower. So yes, it was the lower of the two, as were not immediately
50 adjacent to this. We're still going to have it in our horizon but we're not immediately next to it.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 97 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Price: And are you aware of the proximity of the 40 -acre property within Dove Field and the
3 proximity of that to the cell tower?
4
5 Michael Ogburn: She had a nice little map... I think the 40- acres... Without it labeled it's difficult
6 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
7 PIN numbers it would help .....
8
9 John Price: Are you aware of the fact that the 100 -acre piece of property for which the prospective
10 buyer of that property signed an affidavit that was entered into the record?
11
12 Michael Ogburn: I did hear that, yes.
13
14 John Price: Are you aware of the close proximity and elevation of that property to Mr. and Mrs.
15 Gwen's property?
16
17 Michael Ogburn: It's in between the two, yes.
18
19 John Price: Is it a high elevation looking down on the proposed cell tower?
20
21 Michael Ogburn: Yes. It's not as high as Owen's but it's got some nice topo to it, yeah.
22
23 John Price: Ok. I have nothing further.
24
25 Samantha Cabe: Thank you.
26
27 John Price: Thank you.
28
29 Michael Ogburn: Thank you.
30
31 Samantha Cabe: I have one question and you may or may not know this, can you see the Sharon
32 Harris power plant from this property?
33
34 Michael Ogburn: Can you see the Sharon Harris tower? No.
35
36 Samantha Cabe: And a neighbor's saying no, ok.
37
38 Michael Ogburn: No, I don't think so.
39
40 Samantha Cabe: Ok, I'm just curious.
41
42 Michael Ogburn: I suspect on a day when it's not windy you might be able to see the steam but 1
43 truly don't know because I haven't been there on that occasion. I know from a number of the
44 estate sites in the Governors' Club you can see Raleigh, so I'm guessing you got a 30 -mile vista.
45 Something in that range.
46
47 Samantha Cabe: Ok. I was just curious.
48
49 Michael Ogburn: On a clear day you can see forever.
50
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 98 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Samantha Cabe: Alright, thank you sir.
2
3 John Price: I have two other witnesses. If I might, I'd like to put on Mr. Owen Gwen again, very
4 briefly, just to identify one map.
5
6 Samantha Cabe: Ok, and I will, for the record, note that there were some neighbors at the last
7 hearing who asked if it would be possible if you would be willing to yield your time to let them
8 speak and be heard because they waited the entire time last time and didn't get a chance to
9 speak. So if you would just be cognizant of the fact you have other people here wanting to talk.
10
11 John Price: I am very aware of that. We definitely want them to be able to voice their opinion.
12
13 Samantha Cabe: We're still under the same standing rule that we have to adjourn at 10:00, so
14 please keep that in mind. It's 7:48.
15
16 John Price: Yes. Mr. Gwen, you testified previously you own property near the tower?
17
18 Owen Gwen: Yes.
19
20 John Price: Ok. On the Dove Field master plan power point, if you could put that up? Would this
21 be Opposition 8?
22
23 Michael Harvey: Yes sir.
24
25 Elaina Cheek: Sir, can you state your name?
26
27 Owen Gwen: Owen Gwen.
28
29 Elaina Cheek: Owen Gwen?
30
31 Owen Gwen: Mm -Hmm. That is correct.
32
33 John Price: Mr. Gwen, what is showing on the screen I have in front of you has been marked as
34 Opposition number 7. Are you familiar with this?
35
36 Owen Gwen: Yes.
37
38 John Price: Would you describe briefly what it is?
39
40 Owen Gwen: There is a nationally known planner Randall Arndt who has written several books on
41 low impacts and low- density housing developments. And so being in the rural buffer and being
42 part of what's going on in trying to keep the community in the rural setting we went out, he went
43 out and to look at the land and figure out a way lightly find some home sites that were roughly the
44 smallest one being 10 -acre track up to about a hundred acre track to try to keep the density down.
45 We found these locations.
46
47 John Price: Is this the master plan that he prepared?
48
49 Owen Gwen: Yes. He prepared this master plan and it shows in the middle of the Cub Creek line
50 running through the center of my property and that's a proposed wildlife corridor and some other
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 99 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 interesting concepts, there's a couple of ponds and lakes there and you've got numerous springs,
2 and as I testified last time my initial thought was a small reservoir there but because of the impact
3 fees it was $5,000,000 in fees, I couldn't afford the development. So we went to something along
4 these lines. Track label number one is the one adjacent to the cell tower.
5
6 John Price: Is that the 40 -acre home site?
7
8 Owen Gwen: Yeah. It's right next to it. You'd be able to throw a hard boiled egg right into the pole
9 from my property there. So all of these...
10
11 Samantha Cabe: That's Dove Field Property?
12
13 Owen Gwen: Dove Field LLC. All of this is impacted and it flies in the face as far as I'm concerned
14 of my concept of trying to keep the rural buffer intact and keep the idea being in a rural zone.
15 Now, that's the way I see it. And as far as value we talked about there are three properties across
16 the street, Mount Carmel Church Road, there are at least three that I know of for a fact because 1
17 sold one of them as a real estate agent that are over a million dollars in value. These are highly
18 sensitive. It's a highly sensitive neighborhood. It has a certain feature. The pond on the lake in
19 that little L that you can see, that's the Y Camp, there are children playing there all summer, it's
20 just a nice neighborhood thing going on and we want to keep it that way. I certainly don't have to
21 do that. If I see cell towers going up and of course once one's approved you see them in
22 clusters... to me, it just changes the flavor of something that's been in the family for over 50-
23 years.
24
25 John Price: What does yellow represent?
26
27 Owen Gwen: That's the wildlife corridor. Proposed wildlife corridor.
28
29 John Price: And the green? The blue?
30
31 Owen Gwen: On the bottom, that is... the idea there would be to be open space.
32
33 John Price: Ok.
34
35 Owen Gwen: Part of the... we have a lot of deer in the area, a lot of wildlife. That's the facts the
36 way they stand so I know we want to move this along, I appreciate everybody's contribution and
37 help here but you know there's a group here that's getting money, they want to rent it, they're
38 being paid as the attorney's, the whole thing, the only guy in opposition that comes out and writes
39 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.
40 We had this hearing before when they tried to put a cell tower on the other side. It cost me a lot of
41 money. But the County Board here disallowed it, for the same reason. It's an impact. It destroys
42 the view shed. It's, as far as I'm concerned, it's visual pollution. Any other questions?
43
44 Samantha Cabe: I have a quick question. They have the right to cross - examine, but what is that
45 neighborhood that you can see on that map that is kind of in the crook of your property?
46
47 Owen Gwen: That's Nature Trail. It's been there forever. It's a mobile home area.
48
49 Samantha Cabe: That whole big area right there is all mobile homes? All that white that's...
50
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 100 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Approved 3113117
Owen Gwen: And then below that little... Where it says proposed tower all of those properties
there are Governors' Club properties. So it runs... my property runs from Mount Carmel up to the
edge of Governors' Club, with Governors' Club on the bottom on the right and then the bottom
and the middle, and then Nature Trail Trailer Park in between. They have their own...
Samantha Cabe: This is all Nature Trail Trailer Park?
Owen Gwen: Yes it is.
Samantha Cabe: Ok.
Owen Gwen: And that's a discussion that is not appropriate for this meeting but I can tell you
they... I've had the County look at their discharge and it's an interesting concept.
Samantha Cabe: I was just curious as to what it was.
Owen Gwen: Yeah. Yeah.
Samantha Cabe: Thank you.
Owen Gwen: It is what it is. Do you have any questions?
Laura Goode: I don't have any questions.
John Price: Thank you Mr. Owen.
Samantha Cabe: Thank you Mr. Gwen.
Owen Gwen: I appreciate your time, thank you so much.
John Price: And I would move to have admitted into the record Opposition number 7. 1 call Mr.
Ben Levitan...
Michael Harvey: I'm sorry; this is Opposition 8.
John Price: Thank you. (long pause) Mr. Levitan...
Samantha Cabe: Would it not be Opposition 9? Because I think that group of letters was 8, wasn't
it?
Michael Harvey: Let me look ........
John Price: I think that was 6.
Barry Katz: The CD was 7.
Samantha Cabe: Got it, thanks.
John Price: Mr. Levitan, were you previously sworn?
Ben Levitan: Yes I am. My name is Ben Levitan. I live at PO Box 58781 Raleigh, North Carolina.
OC Board of Adjustment —12/12/16
Page 101 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Price: Thank you. I'd like to show you what will be marked as Opposition Exhibit number 9.
3 I'd like to ask you if this is your personal CB?
4
5 Ben Levitan: Yes sir, this is my CB.
6
7 John Price: Did you prepare it?
8
9 Ben Levitan: Yes sir.
10
11 John Price: Is the information contained in your CB true and correct?
12
13 Ben Levitan: Yes I believe it is.
14
15 John Price: I'd offer into the record Opposition Exhibit number 9. If the Board would give me the
16 opportunity I'd like to summarize the CB so we wouldn't have to spend as much time going over it.
17 Mr. Levitan is an engineer with the specialty in telecommunications and cellular technology. He
18 has 30 years experience in the design and development of cell phone networks and systems. He
19 holds 32 patents and patents pending. His patents include technology that prevents texting and
20 driving from the network as opposed to a PAS. He has provided consulting services to many
21 telecommunications companies over the years and served as an engineer for most of the major
22 carriers including Verizon. One of his main roles was in the development of the worldwide
23 standard design for cell phone networks Sprint, Nextel, Alkatell, and Verizon. He was on the
24 industry committee and personally involved in the development of 911 for cell phones. He
25 represented the United States on the U.N.'s International Telecommunications Committee. He's
26 testified as an expert witness on numerous occasions and has been qualified as an expert in
27 federal and state courts approximately 32 times, including North Carolina. Mr. Levitan, are you
28 aware of any conflicts with any of the parties in this matter that you have?
29
30 Ben Levitan: I have no known conflicts sir.
31
32 John Price: Do you have any personal or professional stake in the outcome of this proceeding?
33
34 Ben Levitan: I have no stake in the outcome sir.
35
36 John Price: We would ask that Mr. Levitan be allowed to testify in this matter as an expert witness.
37
38 Samantha Cabe: Do you have any objection Ms. Goode?
39
40 Laura Goode: I'm sorry?
41
42 Samantha Cabe: Do you have any objection to him being declared an expert in? Specifically what
43 area would you like him to be declared as?
44
45 John Price: Engineering with a specialty in telecommunications and cellular technology.
46
47 Laura Goode: Could you be more specific about what type of engineering and what qualifications
48 he has as an engineer?
49
OC Board of Adjustment- 12/12/16 Page 102 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 John Price: Well I think I covered it. He's been involved in developing networks and systems for
2 major providers, including Verizon.
3
4 Laura Goode: I would just ask that you clarify what type of engineer you want him to be titled as.
5
6 John Price: Mr. Levitan?
7
8 Ben Levitan: I'm an electrical engineer and my specialty has been telecommunications. I'm an
9 expert in the systems and methods of cell phone. I'm one of the people who developed 2G, 3G,
10 4G, and LTE as well as you know developing... standing on the standards committees for Verizon
11 itself. So, I represented Verizon at the (inaudible) meetings.
12
13 Samantha Cabe: So I do have a question about you CB, I see that you're degree was obtained in
14 July of 2012 but a lot of this work was done noted prior to that.
15
16 Ben Levitan: Yes ma'am. I was in school in 1980...
17
18 Samantha Cabe: Ok.
19
20 Ben Levitan: If I can explain it. Engineers were in an extremely high demand when I was in my
21 junior year I was recruited.
22
23 Samantha Cabe: In 1980?
24
25 Ben Levitan: In about... In 1981 1 was recruited by six different companies to just come work for
26 them, and I did. I was 20- something. I went to work for Hughes Aircraft doing satellite
27 communication designs for telecommunication. The answer is I never completed my degree.
28
29 Samantha Cabe: Until 2012?
30
31 Ben Levitan: I still have not completed it. I'm in progress now, since 2012.
32
33 Barry Katz: Where were you in school in 1980 when you were recruited out?
34
35 Ben Levitan: The University of Connecticut, Storrs Connecticut. Cold, that's all I remember.
36
37 Barry Katz: Ok... It was cold.
38
39 Samantha Cabe: I'm not ruled, we've not ruled... I don't know if there's any... Does anyone object
40 to him being qualified as an expert?
41
42 Laura Goode: I don't have an objection. I just wanted clarification on what type of engineering
43 experience he had.
44
45 Samantha Cabe: Ok. Alright, proceed.
46
47 John Price: At my request did you have the opportunity to review the TowerCom application, the
48 Special Use Permit?
49
50 Ben Levitan: Yes.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 103 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Approved 3113117
John Price: Including all of the other documents referred to and attached to that application?
Ben Levitan: Yes sir.
John Price: Have you also had an opportunity to review the Orange County Unified Development
Ordinance with respect to Class B Special Use Permits for telecommunication facilities?
Ben Levitan: Yes sir, I have.
John Price: For the purposes of your testimony, Mr. Levitan, I have asked that you accept as a
fact that there is a gap in Verizon's coverage along Mount Carmel Road and there is a need by
Verizon to offload capacity in the UNC Campus area. The needs identified in TowerCom's
application.
Ben Levitan: I accept that.
John Price: Did you prepare a power point presentation for use of conjunction with your
testimony?
Ben Levitan: Yes I did.
John Price: And , I asked that this be marked as Opposition Exhibit number 10... Is that the power
point presentation?
Ben Levitan: Yes sir it is.
John Price: I'd ask to have admitted as part of the record Opposition Exhibit 10.
(Pause)
Samantha Cabe: And before... Well, I'll wait until it is handed out. Mr. Price, if I may ask you
before we get started with this witness, specifically what finding or conclusion is this witness
intended to refute. Because...
John Price: The majority of the ones that are contained in the Opposition... a chart that I was
asked to prepare and submit is part of Opposition Exhibit number 6. He's not here to testify with
regard to property values, or enhancement, or maintenance of property values. He's not here to
testify about harmony, he's not here to testify regarding the public health and safety, he's here to
testify regarding the technical issues of alternatives for...
Samantha Cabe: So specifically I want to ask, and maybe Mr. Harvey can help me with the
specific Unified Development Ordinance reference that I think he's going to refute about the co-
location requirements.
John Price: That's one aspect.
Samantha Cabe: Right but there's... Mr. Harvey, do you know which reference that is?
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16
Page 104 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Michael Harvey: According to what's been submitted my Mr. Price this opposition comes to the
2 findings of section 5.3.2 (a)(2) the general findings of fact of Special Use Permits. The use will, will
3 not maintain, or promote the public health safety general welfare. These will not maintain or
4 enhance the value of contiguous property. The location and character of the use, if developed
5 according to the plan submitted, will not be in harmony with the area in question.
6
7 John Price: I think I designated Mr. Levitan on the right -hand side.
8
9 Michael Harvey: Let me finish .....
10
11 John Price: Ok.
12
13 Michael Harvey: Section 5.10.8 (A) Applicant burdened to establish application meets
14 requirements for approval. Sub section (a)(1)(s) Applicant presented by need an established new
15 alternative site for technologies available. Ben Levitan. Board Of Adjustment should not approve
16 application; the proposed tower's not substantially necessary. 5.10.8 (A)(3)(A) Ben Levitan.
17 Applicant utilized alternatives to new tower including co- location. 5.10.8(B)(1)(A) Ben Levitan.
18 5.10.8(B)(1)(b) Applicant to minimize visual impact to the extent not technologically or
19 commercially impractical, including use to stealth technology. Ben Levitan. 5.10.8(B)(3)(D)(1)
20 Applicant can list all wireless support structures, utility poles, and other structures in the vicinity.
21 Ben Levitan will testify they did not. Applicant to locate site and erect wireless facilities in
22 designated priority locations per 5.10.8(b)(4)(1) and (2). Applicant Ben Levitan will testify,
23 according to this, that they have not complied with this provision. Section 5.10.8(B)(4)(b) sub prin
24 3: Applicant shall not be approved unless applicant demonstrates wireless supports equipment
25 cannot be sited at priority one site because commercial impractical. Ben Levitan. 5.10.8(A)(1)(f)
26 Applicant required to demonstrate structure sited at least visually intrusive effect.
27
28 Samantha Cabe: Alright, thank you.
29
30 Michael Harvey: Thank you.
31
32 John Price: Mr. Levitan, in your opinion, is the proposed the TowerCom 199 -foot monopole cell
33 tower necessary for Verizon telecommunications identified needs, or a public necessity?
34
35 Ben Levitan: Verizon identified two needs to improve coverage along Mount Carmel Church Road
36 and to provide offload for the existing UNC Campus. This tower does neither of those.
37
38 Samantha Cabe: It does neither of those?
39
40 Ben Levitan: It does not fulfill neither of those needs ma'am.
41
42 John Price: This letter of August 11, 2016 to TowerCom's application Mr. David Haughney states
43 the proposed Clearwater Lake new telecommunications tower will provide the needed solution to
44 the coverage gap in the Clearwater Lake area and "will also provide the needed capacity offload
45 solution for the existing UNC Campus Verizon Wireless site ", do you agree?
46
47 Ben Levitan: No sir, I don't.
48
49 John Price: And why not?
50
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 105 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Ben Levitan: Ok, do you want me to show... if you could put up this slide please, it's the first
2 colored slide... We can start with the... Ok, let me stop at this slide first. Wireless demand has just
3 started crazy, we all know that. The largest growth is in video, number one. It's just blowing
4 everything away and it's expected to continue so with that in matter understand Mount Carmel
5 Road does not need improvements for video. I think we got enough people driving and using their
6 devices ..... we certainly don't need to improve video performance on Mount Carmel Road. Ok so
7 that aside let's go to the next slide. Ok the two stated goals like I said, there's one we're going to
8 improve coverage over on Mount Carmel Church Road between the Governors Club area and
9 Chapel Hill. Second stated goal is provide an offload for UNC Campus where, yes, the demand is
10 growing, mostly because young people are sitting around watching videos. Ok so let's go on that
11 slide. And we can just stop briefly... When we have gaps in areas there's a couple things we do.
12 We add an extra cell tower. We can go to the next slide. And so that would be the Mount Carmel
13 area. And when we have incredible demand in one area, what we call a macro cell, a lot of times
14 you'll find that there's a very small area within that macro cell that needs extra capacity so we can
15 put in small cells to cover that. Student union, what do you call it? The gathering area. There's
16 certain areas that you can offload by putting in small cells. Ok go on...
17
18 Samantha Cabe: What do you mean putting in small cells?
19
20 Ben Levitan: Ok... There's basically two types of cell towers that exist. There's what we call macro
21 cell, 191 -foot tower. It puts out... A cell tower's just like a radio station. When you're under the
22 coverage of that cell tower, that radio station, that 191 -foot cell tower, it essentially goes out,
23 technically, out to 25- miles. It could cover everybody in a 25 -mile radius, which is no (inaudible).
24 Generally, in an area like Chapel Hill we're only going to go out of like 2 -miles and if you guys
25 remember your algebra from high school and remember pie r squared you thought you, you
26 thought you'd never use that, you get to use it today. A cell tower that goes out 2- square miles
27 to... it covers 12- square miles. So a typical cell tower in like a suburban area like Chapel
28 Hill /Raleigh, it's going to cover about 12- square miles. Ok so that's a macro cell. This is what
29 we're talking about, small cells, which is something that's new, it's not new, it's something that's
30 rolling out very rapidly. It's rapidly going to take over. A couple years from now you won't see a
31 cell tower, this will not even be an issue anymore. The cell tower's are going from those large cell
32 towers to much small cell towers. These are about the size of a Rubik cube. They're very
33 inexpensive, about $400 a piece, and generally we're putting them on every lamppost in town. So
34 instead of covering 12- square miles you're only covering one block, but it's got tremendous
35 advantages because for number one, those little cell towers provide better coverage for smaller
36 areas, obviously you need a lot more of those, sixty to cover the same area that this cell tower is.
37 Overall, they're a lot cheaper for the companies and greater service. So one of the greatest
38 benefits is 911 service. When you call 911, 1 was one of the people who developed 911, 1 have
39 patents in that area... when you call 911 a tall cell tower and get you to about a half a football
40 field. We can locate you 65% of the time to 150 -feet. That's what we're requiring cell towers to do.
41 These new cell towers, since they're only going to be a block, they're going to be able to locate
42 people to a matter of 50 -feet. And so for a lot of reason, one for financial reasons, one for safety
43 reasons, we're all going to these smaller cells. This is going to be more efficient. And the FCC
44 back 2015 just cracked up the accuracy that we need to provide for 911. And these small cells are
45 lower power. The other big benefit for us, a lot of them are using an unlicensed frequency. Think
46 of them as like Wi -Fi. They're totally unlicensed. So instead of doing all the things we have to do
47 for a tall tower to use the licensed frequency... It just makes life a lot easier. One of the greatest
48 benefits is when you're in a high rise. Instead of having one cell tower outside that power is
49 providing coverage to everybody inside. You can put one of these small cells on every floor of a
50 tall structure. And one of the greatest benefits is if someone calls 911 on the 15th floor you know
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 106 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 exactly where they are. Today you don't know that. So it's the technology that you're going to see
2 pretty much from now on.
3
4 Samantha Cabe: And is it currently available?
5
6 Ben Levitan: Very available. Verizon uses them very broadly themselves. And in fact we're even
7 into the second phase: the advanced small cells. And Verizon themselves have special
8 permission to test these in Oklahoma, Cary, and Raleigh so these are not speculative.
9
10 Samantha Cabe: Ok, thank you.
11
12 Barry Katz: I have two questions. First is, is your initial point that since video is what's increasing
13 the demand...
14
15 Ben Levitan: That's the biggest increase in demand for bandwidth.
16
17 Barry Katz: That this cell tower is not significant in terms of the justification of the safety or
18 imperative need?
19
20 Ben Levitan: That's one factor. I mean, clearly, the stated goals .... I take people on there word,
21 where they say they want to improve coverage on Mount Carmel Church Road. A cell tower like
22 this is going to increase capacity quite a bit. Mount Carmel Church Road, we put up cell towers
23 when there's a demand. Clearly on the UNC Campus there's a demand because more video. 1
24 don't think there's a lot more people using video on Mount Carmel Church Road, so I don't think
25 that's a justification. But this is not my main justification.
26
27 Barry Katz: Ok. And then the micro cells, you call them micro cells, they can go on lampposts,
28 etcetera, which you would find in an urban area but not necessarily out in the country. Would
29 these be cell phone providers specific corporate, I mean would each like AT &T have to put one up
30 and then Verizon put up one?
31
32 Ben Levitan: Yes sir.
33
34 Barry Katz: It'd be duplicating...
35
36 Ben Levitan: Exactly. Think of them of mini cell towers, that's exactly what they are.
37
38 Barry Katz: Ok.
39
40 Ben Levitan: It's the way everything's moving now.
41
42 John Price: I would like to focus on the propagation maps.
43
44 Ben Levitan: Yeah, so let's go to the next one, the color propagation map. And these are... this is
45 what Verizon presented to us. So number one, and this might be a little bit of an eye test for you
46 guys, but number one is Verizon saying, "We're going to provide better coverage for Mount
47 Carmel Church Road from Chapel Hill to the Governors Club area" and that's...
48
49 Samantha Cabe: And these are behind tab number 7 in our applicant's book...
50
OC Board of Adjustment- 12/12/16 Page 107 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Ben Levitan: This is from the application. Ok, and the left is the before of the existing condition
2 and the right is what improvement the tower is going to provide. You can see the yellow line on
3 the left chart, that's Mount Carmel Church Road. And you can see red is really good coverage,
4 green is pretty good coverage, blue and gray that's pretty spotty coverage. That certainly could
5 use some improvement. Alright now, on that same chart look, there's another road to the left, just
6 a black line. That's 15 -501. You can see when you're driving off 15 -501 that's pretty good
7 coverage up and down that road. Ok so, this is what's existing. Go to the right side of the page
8 and what you can see is this is what's going to change. Alright, look at the yellow line. We would
9 like that yellow line, we would like the coverage to look like it does on 15 -501. We still have major
10 gaps. This new cell tower that's been added here provides so good coverage right around the
11 tower itself, but you're driving along Mount Carmel Church Road and you've still got big gaps in
12 service. It's not fulfilling the goal. The way to fulfill the goal here would be to put three 27 -50 -foot
13 towers along this road. Especially where that big blue gap is and that would solve the problem
14 from Mount Carmel Church Road. This tower's obviously not solving the problem. You can see
15 right from their own propagation survey. You're in that spot with still that power. Ok so that's the
16 number one reason I don't think this tower fulfills goal number one. Let's go to goal number two:
17 offload UNC's cell tower. Ok look at the coverage on the left side. We've got this valley of
18 coverage pretty much where Mount Carmel Church Road still is. You can see south of the UNC
19 Campus it's blue, it's gray, it's light blue. Kind of poor coverage there. Look at the right. You still
20 have that valley of coverage. You basically... you can see the lower, you can see where the UNC
21 Campus coverage starts in green. That does not change substantially. I mean, this is a big
22 investment. Putting up a cell tower is a million bucks and it's going to be $20,000 - $30,000 a year
23 to maintain. About $20,000 on leases and electricity is what? $500 a month, by itself. Broadband
24 is going to be about $1,500 a year. If you're going to invest in coverage you're going to make sure
25 it actually fulfills the goal. It does not fulfill either of these goals, and that's my argument here.
26
27 John Price: (Inaudible)
28
29 Ben Levitan: Ok. So that's... I can stop there. And those are my two major points I want to bring
30 out. The technical design to solve these problems is completely different than what's being
31 proposed.
32
33 John Price: Which brings me to my next question, which is in this letter of August 11, 2016, again,
34 Exhibit 4 to the application. Mr. Haughney states, "There are no alternative technologies available
35 which could provide the needed increase to coverage and capacity offload in the Clearwater Lake
36 area without the proposed new telecommunication tower ". Do you agree?
37
38 Ben Levitan: It's absolutely wrong. That's incorrect. You can see from this that it does not solve
39 the problem. The alternatives, I've already stated: For UNC I would put small cells or enhanced
40 coverage within the campus, and for Mount Carmel Church Road you want smaller, targeted cell
41 towers. Cell towers, like I said, is like a radio station. Normally they put up the cell tower and it
42 provides coverage in a circular area around it. So on highways where you have specific problems,
43 like 1 -40, any highway, you don't make a circular cell tower. You put up a cell tower and you focus
44 it to go up and down the road because that's where you need the coverage. If you've got a lawn
45 sprinkler at home you understand this, you've got that strip at the front of your house that you
46 want to cover. You don't put a circular sprinkler on that because that water's going to mostly go
47 out in the street. On that strip you point these little sprinklers that point left and right that are going
48 to cover just the strip. So what's really needed for Mount Carmel Church Road is maybe one or
49 two smaller cell towers. I'd say 27 -foot to 50 -foot maximum and they can be stealth that are just
50 pointed straight up and down that road to provide focused coverage on that. On top of that can be
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 108 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 stealth. The other thing is when you put up smaller cell towers that are below the tree line you're
2 going to get better coverage. Just remember cell tower... a cell phone works best when you've got
3 line of sight from the phone right to the cell tower. When you've got 191 -foot cell tower and then
4 you've got all this foliage growing in the summer below it, it actually interferes with the signal.
5 Especially after heavy rain and you've got these trees full of water that are between your phone
6 sitting in the passenger seat and that cell tower. So the design you want is smaller cells, that are
7 not circular patterns, they're strip patterns, they're focused up and down on the road, and they're
8 below the tree line.
.9
10 John Price: Also in that same letter in Exhibit 4 Mr. Haughney states, "There are evolving
11 morphological applications that include micro cell, small cell, and DAS but those technologies are
12 not appropriate for large covering area situations...
13
14 Samantha Cabe: What are you reading from?
15
16 John Price: Mr. Haughney's August 11, 2016 letter to Mr. Harvey. Exhibit 4 of the application of
17 TowerCom.
18
19 Samantha Cabe: Oh, ok.
20
21 John Price: "Or we've a feasible number of installations that make it impossible to provide
22 seamless high quality service over a large geographic area, such as Clearwater Lake area."
23
24 Ben Levitan: I disagree again. And I think I've laid that out. On top of that, these are not evolving
25 technologies. These are technology that Verizon, themselves, is using today... I'll give you one
26 example, San Antonio, Texas, which is probably relatively the same size as we are. And last year
27 Verizon signed with an agreement with San Antonio to install these small cells on lampposts,
28 utility poles, buildings, all over San Antonio and their stated goal is to have a better visual impact,
29 basically, to be less intrusive and they signed that agreement with the City of San Antonio so that
30 they will pay $1,500 a small cell for the next 25- years. Verizon just signed this, has been doing
31 this for a year in San Antonio...
32
33 Laura Goode: At this point in time I'm going to object to this line of testimony, in terms of it just
34 being discussions about facts not in evidence. There has not been any of this factual... talking
35 about their small cell plans in other cities, and what contracts they have signed has not been
36 provided to us, it's not been provided to the Board.
37
38 Ben Levitan: Alright, well I'm just saying the letter implies that this is kind of voodoo or paper wear
39 technology. It's absolutely incorrect. On top of that, Verizon and Telecom are working on
40 advanced small cell, the next generation small cell. They've got special permission from the FCC
41 to test that in three cities. Oklahoma City, Cary, and Raleigh. So clearly, this is an appropriate
42 technology to use... this is one of the best alternatives you could use. This 191 -foot cell tower is
43 basically, I hate to say it, obsolete technology, or obsoleting technology. We're moving away from
44 this, Verizon's moving away from this.
45
46 John Price: In your opinion, are there existing facilities or alternative existing structures of
47 sufficient height within the Clearwater Lake area that could be used for co- location to provide the
48 proposed telecommunications service needs using available technologies without building a new
49 cell tower?
50
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 109 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Ben Levitan: Absolutely. Worst -case scenario that I can see is you put up a 27 to 30 -foot
2 monopole cell tower and you camouflage it as a tree. That's the most... otherwise I think this
3 probably, I haven't driven the whole area and I haven't done a site survey, but I believe just from
4 my general knowledge there's sufficient buildings, lampposts, utility posts, water towers that you
5 could use. And if you take the search ring 5 -miles there's plenty of existing cell towers already in
6 that search that could be focused towards providing this coverage. I don't see the necessity, I'm
7 talking from a technical point of view, I don't see... If I'm Verizon and I'm asked or one of my guys
8 brought me this design I would tell them no, go back to where from.
9
10 Samantha Cabe: Let me ask you this. Does your opinion take into account that, essentially,
11 Verizon would have to get permission from somebody to put these, whatever kind of cell tower it
12 is, whether it's the tall one, the medium one, or the small cell? Essentially they can't put anything
13 where someone's not willing to lease them the property or allow them to?
14
15 Ben Levitan: Verizon has a department that does nothing but manage landlords. Every cell phone
16 company does. And that's all they do. They go out and.... Yeah, so I mean, this is part of the
17 business. I mean, they're sitting here trying to... just as they have to sit here and get permission
18 from the city to do that, it's part of the business.
19
20 Matt Hughes: So in your expert opinion, why would TowerCom and Verizon want to go this route?
21
22 Ben Levitan: I'm not privy to... Either they've just made a mistake, I don't... For me, looking at
23 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
24 cheaper. I can't speculate.
25
26 Matt Hughes: Were you here at the last hearing?
27
28 Ben Levitan: Oh yes, until 11:35.
29
30 Matt Hughes: So you heard their expert go through what they were considering, why it wasn't
31 appropriate, and...
32
33 Ben Levitan: The bottom line is if you look at this chart, this solution doesn't fix the problem. You
34 want Mount Carmel Church Road to have coverage just like 15 -501. Why would you put this up if
35 it's not going to solve your problem? I heard everything you said but it doesn't solve the problem.
36
37 Matt Hughes: Remind me on this, up here... Where's 15 -501?
38
39 Ben Levitan: You see that? See how nicely that's...
40
41 Matt Hughes: I'm not as familiar with below the UNC Campus area.
42
43 Ben Levitan: I agree with you, of course. That's a heavily trafficked road. And so the coverage is
44 real good. Mount Carmel Church Road I can tell you all the carriers. I researched all the carriers
45 and what their coverage is like on that road. It's all similar, kind of low. But the fact is, the fact that
46 they all have not put in improvements just shows that it's not a priority. It's a low cell phone traffic
47 road. What's there is probably sufficient for everybody. Certainly AT &T said yeah, that's sufficient.
48 Sprint has said the coverage we have there is sufficient.
49
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 110 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 John Price: We spent a lot of time on the coverage of Mount Carmel Road. I'd like to ask you
2 about the capacity offload at UNC Campus. Are there alternative technologies and structure
3 designs that could be used to better address the needs that's been identified for the capacity
4 offload?
5
6 Ben Levitan: Absolutely. And those alternatives are better for the students. Like remember, this
7 cell tower is using licensed frequency and that translates to 18 -year olds phone data. He's going
8 to spend data on this. If you want to provide a benefit to UNC Campus, you're going to put as
9 much on the license spectrum. Ideally, a kid would love to be on Wi -Fi, not a cell. LTE. LTE
10 unlicensed these small cells come in an unlicensed form that basically it wouldn't cost you
11 anything on your data plan. This cell tower is actually going to harm students.
12
13 Matt Hughes: How so?
14
15 Ben Levitan: Ok, you know on most data plans you get Wi -Fi for free?
16
17 Matt Hughes: Mm -Hmm.
18
19 Ben Levitan: This cell tower doesn't provide anything free. You would be paying for data charges.
20 You can hook up to the Internet two different ways: like a Wi -Fi type service, or from a cell tower.
21 When you use your data plan... what Verizon's or ATT is charging you for is use of a cell tower
22 like this. Your phone normally tries to switch you to a cheaper connection, like Wi -Fi, or what
23 we're calling an unlicensed LTE, which is free. There's no.... it's free sir.
24
25 Matt Hughes: Ok. I'm not following. As a student at UNC I'm not following.
26
27 Ben Levitan: Ok. Just think about your data plan. You know that sometimes you get charged for
28 data.
29
30 Matt Hughes: That's right.
31
32 Ben Levitan: Sometimes you don't.
33
34 Matt Hughes: That's right.
35
36 Ben Levitan: When you use this tower you get charged.
37
38 Matt Hughes: That's right.
39
40 Ben Levitan: When you use Wi -Fi you don't get charged.
41
42 Matt Hughes: Right.
43
44 Ben Levitan: The new technology we're talking about, these small cells, you don't get charged.
45
46 Samantha Cabe: So is that actually in use? Because I've never had free non -cell phone service...
47
48 Ben Levitan: Your phone normally tries to push you to Wi -Fi.
49
50 Samantha Cabe: Right, but this isn't Wi -Fi that you're talking about.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 111 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Ben Levitan: I'm just saying Wi -Fi to make it simpler to understand. It's called un- licensed LTE.
3
4 Samantha Cabe: But is it currently in use?
5
6 Ben Levitan: Yes, it is.
7
8 Samantha Cabe: Ok.
9
10 Ben Levitan: Obviously not in UNC. You probably wouldn't know. You wouldn't know. You'd just
11 look at your bill and be like, "I'm over my data plan again ".
12
13 Samantha Cabe: And, oh... How much longer do you anticipate with this witness? There's...
14
15 David Barnes: We've got members that have been here for the whole thing. We'd like to make
16 some brief statements.
17
18 John Price: Yeah, why don't you go ahead?
19
20 Samantha Cabe: Do you want to finish with this witness and then... how much longer do you
21 have?
22
23 Ben Levitan: I'm happy to stand aside and let them go.
24
25 John Price: Not very long, but I'll...
26
27 David Barnes: Inaudible.
28
29 Samantha Cabe: Ok. That's all you had to say. Alright. Thank you for deferring to them.
30
31 David Barnes: My name is David Barnes. I was sworn in. I live at 1725 Mount Carmel Church
32 Road. I am within, probably, 400 -yards of the cell tower site. It is directly in my vision. I go out my
33 back door, my garage door, look to the left, and it would be sticking me in the eye. Now, I know
34 some of the Buckner family members, I hope they make a million dollars already. I also
35 understand there's a high probability that in the next few years there is going to be logging in that
36 area. There needs to be logging time port, in terms of the life of the plants. But that means I will
37 have nothing in between me and the tower. Other than this 40 -foot buffer, which is going to be a
38 zero buffer as far as I'm concerned. I have not heard this gentleman's ideas about these other
39 towers or... I was wondering too, why does it need to be 200 -feet? Is there other technology,
40 asked you guys to look into potential other technologies? Because this will be a visual ugliness of
41 200 -foot tower for my house. And I cannot sit here and argue about whether my home values are
42 going to go up or down, I can't argue that. But it will be an ugly factor. And yes, there needs to be
43 improvement. I don't even own a cell phone but trust me... My wife, my kids, and everybody that
44 ever comes to my house will sit there and complain about it. So something needs to be done in
45 that Mount Carmel, but I am very, very close to this tower. Another thing I would ask you, I know
46 the applicant is a cell phone company. But I was wondering, is it appropriate for you guys to ask
47 the land owners of this property whether they can connect to maybe a larger buffer, or whatever?
48 And my other concern is the new road and access that is not even coming from the Buckner
49 property. It's coming from a Buckner family member in an adjacent property. One that's directly
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 112 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 between me and the tower. Those are my statements, if you would just kind of listen to that and
2 put that in your system. Thank you for listening to me.
3
4 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Barnes, can I ask you a quick question?
5
6 David Barnes: And I can point out my house.
7
8 Samantha Cabe: Yeah, that's what I was going to ask you.
9
10 David Barnes: Not a problem. My house is this one, right here. You want me to circle it?
11
12 Samantha Cabe: Yes, please. And I'll share with everyone else just so we can get a visual.
13
14 David Barnes: Ok. That is my house. I think the tower. That's my house. I am within one, two,
15 maybe three houses or closer.
16
17 Samantha Cabe: Ok. Alright, thank you.
18
19 David Barnes: Ok, thank you.
20
21 John Duncan Williams Jr: Can I speak as well? Thank you for your time. My name is John Duncan
22 Williams Junior. I live at 112 Hunters Ridge Road.
23
24 Samantha Cabe: Can you tell me your name again?
25
26 John Duncan Williams Jr: John Duncan Williams Junior. I go by Dunc. D- U -N -C. Please refer to
27 me by my first name, I'm pretty casual.
28
29 Samantha Cabe: And have you been sworn?
30
31 John Duncan Williams Jr: Yes. I was sworn prior.
32
33 Samantha Cabe: You were sworn Friday?
34
35 John Duncan Williams Jr: Prior. I also have a strong accent... After attending the 12/12/2016
36 meeting I heard concerns with proposed related to health, property values, and the environment. 1
37 will address the first two of those from my own personal opinion, my non - professional, non -work
38 opinion. Regarding health: I understand the Board is not allowed to consider health concerns
39 related to a cell tower directly, because the FCC deems cell towers not harmful to our health.
40 However, because one of the witnesses at the 12/12 meeting and then an appraisal witness this
41 evening brought up the issue of health concerns related to a cell phone tower, and I did, I typed a
42 direct quote at the time from the 12/12 meeting, I'm sure it's in the Minutes, of the witness who
43 spoke to it at that time. And also, since it is possible some of the opposition to the tower is driven,
44 at least in part, by the potential health concerns I'm going to briefly respond for those of us who do
45 not see any link between cell towers and health effects. Based on the recommendations from
46 well- recognized sources, such as the American Cancer Society, The World Health Organization,
47 and Health Canada, because some refuting parties believe that these are U.S. sources promoting
48 that cell towers are not linked to health concerns. Health Canada as well, to name a few, a
49 growing body of evidence does not support the belief that cell towers are harmful to our health.
50 Not only do these sources suggest a type of radiation, RF, which is admitted by the cell towers, is
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 113 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 not harmful to humans. They also point to what one of the Council County members said earlier,
2 that even if it were harmful other sources such as the Wi -Fi in this room, the cell phones in this
3 room, the microwaves in the rooms over, and TV's and radios expose us to much higher levels of
4 RF radiation than even homes in the near vicinity. As a father of two very young children living in
5 the area I wouldn't support it if I thought it was hazardous to the health of my children and my
6 neighbors. Now, speaking to the concerns of health hazards of not approving the cell tower: the
7 reason I came to this meeting was because the Friday night before the last meeting on December
8 the 9t", three nights before the meeting, I had a potential emergency and I needed to call 911 for
9 my home. There were, over a 20- minute period, my cell phone dropped a call four times, I
10 attempted many more times to call 911, and I'm very fortunate one, the emergency was ok, and
11 two, the 911 operator was able to continue returning the call to my phone until we were able to get
12 through and pair a conversation together. My point is the lack of cell coverage could've harmed,
13 not only my young children, but also my neighbors. I consider it a blessing that this situation did
14 not harm anyone, however, if it's not my situation it would be another, another, another. Now, it
15 could be argued that I need a home cell phone booster. I have one. It was on that night, flashing
16 that it worked, and it didn't work. Cell phone boosters, in my opinion, are not reliable where I live
17 and I see this as a benefit. One could also argue I need a landline. Based on my demographics,
18 we do not have landlines. If I get one, it's the new folks across the street and they're not going to
19 get one either so if we fail to allow this cell tower to come into the area I see it as us, as a
20 community, choosing to continue propagating with unnecessary risks for our residents to
21 accessing emergency services. Now, two, the property value piece: I've heard the detailed
22 accounts from appraisers from both sides. I'm aware there are the studies from the mid 2000's in
23 New Zealand, and I think both sides have vetted those as well as you probably need to. I have not
24 heard introduced the 2016 U.S. based peer reviewed research article, which I would consider to
25 be a more legitimate source. An article about the cell service needs of western Kentucky, which
26 used property analysis and weighted samples for determining how housing values are affected in
27 western Kentucky, over a much larger sample and a longer time frame than some of the studies
28 we've heard presented here. Those findings can be debated, I think the concern that seems to be
29 the case is what are property value between 1,000 -feet directly from the radius of the cell tower up
30 to potentially 4,000 -feet. I think considering those findings, which I'm not getting into, and I'm
31 listing only my personal opinion here, with the findings that are being presented are directly
32 related to houses very close to the cell tower. After skimming TowerCom's Special Use Permit
33 application I counted no more than 42 different property holding entities within .a 1,000 -foot radius
34 of the proposed tower. So in that application there's well more than 42 entities that own property
35 within 1,000 -feet but it's only 42 different at most. And I did that on my cell phone sitting at this
36 meeting so it's not an exact science there but, if the tower cannot only benefit Verizon customers
37 as well as potentially other customers, as we heard from testimony that can be debated, and if
38 there are no adverse health effects caused by the tower I hope the opposition, by few, does not
39 prevent the Board from approving what I believe can benefit many. The second piece of property
40 values, and my final point is: Basically I'm going to get to eyeball a home, three years ago, where
41 we are. Cell phone coverage was a big reason I would've bought. My wife talked me into buying it
42 despite the fact that I thought cell coverage wasn't because I talked to Verizon and they said
43 they'd give me a home booster. I work from home a lot and I have some letters here in support of
44 the cell phone tower. And I also have links to these different sources that I can also provide from
45 my Google document. But in responding to the last witness who, and I quoted, said, "That the
46 increase, mostly because young people are sitting around watching videos" I personally can attest
47 that I work from home and the ability to have calls. It's not acceptable. I have to go other places to
48 do my own work and I didn't even ask someone who also wrote a letter, but ironically a couple
49 that just moved in across the street, both who work in healthcare IT as consultants, are very
50 concerned that they've moved in and bought a house where cell phone coverage is not reliable
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 114 of 156
Approved 3113117
and their citation is Time Magazine reported a June 2 "a 2015 that 76% of home buyers consider
2 cell coverage important in their home buying decision. So, I am justifying this that I am not alone
3 in being concerned that the broader housing property value, if we take it as a whole for Orange
4 County, will be positively affected by increasing cell phone coverage. So I appreciate your time,
5 and I wish you well on your decision - making. I'll leave these letters with you as well.
6
7 Samantha Cabe: Alright, what was your third?
8
9 John Duncan Williams Jr: My third was the aesthetics. I can't professionally... I can't cordially
10 respond to the aesthetic concerns I've heard and so I've decided it's not important for me to
11 respond to those at this time.
12
13 Samantha Cabe: Thank you.
14
15 John Duncan Williams Jr: Sure. Can I give you all these letters? Ok.
16
17 Barry Katz: That letter for citation was Blomquist, did you say?
18
19 John Duncan Williams Jr: Yeah. Let me tell you. I had it in Google document on my phone. I have
20 the link to it. Actually, I usually embed them so if it was email, but I can tell you a link or honestly,
21 would you like to take a picture or write it down right here? So this would be like a general internet
22 search. In reviewing the health literature, I'm glad in the last meeting I heard the Board say we're
23 not acknowledging that, because I spent a good bit of time looking at that, and I have several
24 different pieces I would pull into it, but I think where I'm concerned is there are these sites that 1
25 find are making money off of the alarmist mentality that there are health concerns related to it by
26 selling anti -EMF radiation or anti -RF radiation things and then publishing reports and then these
27 reports I have found sited on more than one website. I don't feel a need to get into that. American
28 Cancer Society is one enough, but you add the World Health Organization and Health Canada,
29 which is the state run Canadian source. I feel like I had those three and I could provide the
30 citations. They're also publically available. I mean, I found them on my cell phone. Again, sitting in
31 this meeting the last time. So ok, is that it?
32
33 Barry Katz: Have a good evening.
34
35 Samantha Cabe: Thank you.
36
37 Barry Katz: I've got a question for Mr. Harvey. You can shake your head, you don't have to... on
38 these 50 -foot towers, or whatever they are, the short towers, do they need Special Use Permits
39 for those as well as the same as these 199 -foot towers?
40
41 Michael Harvey: No sir.
42
43 Barry Katz: Ok.
44
45 Ben Levitan: I think we found our location for our first lamppost mounted small cell in Chapel Hill.
46
47 John Price: Mr. Levitan, your opinion is that the search ring identified by TowerCom the area
48 where a wireless support structure must be located to meet Verizon's service needs? The search
49 ring identified by Verizon. Is that the area where a wireless support structure or structures must be
50 located to meet the service needs?
OC Board of Adjustment- 12/12/16 Page 115 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Ben Levitan: I don't believe so. I think there's plenty of alternatives. There are existing towers
3 already in that area, there are plenty of alternatives.
4
5 John Price: TowerCom's experts testify...
6
7 Samantha Cabe: Ok, hang on one second. If we could look at the map that had the actual search
8 ring, can you tell me which tab it is?
9
10 Laura Goode: Sure. That's Exhibit or tab 5.
11
12 Samantha Cabe: And is the search ring the red? Are you sure that's it?
13
14 Laura Goode: I have it labeled as Exhibit 5.
15
16 Samantha Cabe: Is this it?
17
18 Laura Goode: Correct,
19
20 Samantha Cabe: And so the search ring is red?
21
22 Laura Goode: Yes ma'am.
23
24 Samantha Cabe: So would you look at that picture and tell me if there's an existing? Because you
25 just said, "No, there's plenty of existing towers there" but I want you to look at what the search ring
26 actually was. Because I'm not sure... It's in their application.
27
28 John Price: This is their search ring .....
29
30 Samantha Cabe: We're talking about the search ring.
31
32 Ben Levitan: They're saying this is the only place you could...
33
34 Samantha Cabe: This was their search ring based on whatever their reasons for doing it that are
35 proprietary.
36
37 Ben Levitan: There's certainly a ton of infrastructure in here that... Where's Mount Carmel Church
38 Road? There it is. There's plenty of infrastructure, like water towers, buildings...
39
40 Samantha Cabe: You know that sir? Can you see water towers on there? I mean, I'm just... 1
41 appreciate what you're saying but also, I felt like what you just said was a little off the cuff without
42 actually looking at the search ring.
43
44 Ben Levitan: I'm looking now and there's gotta be lampposts in here, I see buildings, I see
45 structures, I see what looks like barn and utilities and things like that.
46
47 Matt Hughes: Well it just seemed like, for example I believe when they presented the search ring
48 that their database or whatever has an inventory of structures that could meet this need and there
49 didn't seem to be one within that search ring.
50
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 116 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Ben Levitan: I did a search of cell towers within 5 -miles of this cell tower, I found about 14 existing
2 structures. Like I said, a cell tower can go out 22 -miles and you can focus it. So I don't see why
3 you couldn't co- locate on any of those existing towers. Why does it have to be a new tower built in
4 this location?
5
6 Michael Harvey: I think just for clarification purposes the engineer can't quote a section of the
7 Unified Development Ordinance requiring a 5 -mile search ring. The Unified Development
8 Ordinance requires a 2 -mile search ring.
9
10 John Price: I think...
11
12 Michael Harvey: So I think we need to stick with the facts of the Unified Development Ordinance
13 under which this application's being reviewed.
14
15 John Price: I think he misunderstood.
16
17 Ben Levitan: I .........
18
19 Samantha Cabe: I just wanted to make sure... we can move on, I just felt like you were making
20 statements about what was and wasn't there without actually looking at it or knowing what the
21 search ring was.
22
23 John Price: As I understand your testimony Mr. Levitan is that the tower being proposed within
24 that search ring will not satisfy the needs identified, is that correct?
25
26 Ben Levitan: It still doesn't identify... yeah. If you put the cell tower here, with this technology, it's
27 not going to solve the problem. Period.
28
29 John Price: Let me restate my question. This search ring TowerCom identified as the search ring,
30 the area of where a wireless support structure must be located to meet their service needs.
31
32 Ben Levitan: It's not going to meet their service needs.
33
34 John Price: But what would be the appropriate search ring on a search rings in order to satisfy the
35 needs that they've identified?
36
37 Ben Levitan: Well it looks like up and down Mount Carmel Road is where you need to...
38
39 John Price: Well that is within that search ring exactly.
40
41 Ben Levitan: Yeah,
42
43 John Price: How about the UNC Campus?
44
45 Ben Levitan: The search ring has to be around UNC if you're trying to find a place to provide
46 coverage for UNC. That's stands to reason. Ideally, you'd want to be in the middle of UNC. 1
47 would put a point right at the place where you're using the most, put a circle around that, it's going
48 to end up inside the UNC Campus. Why would you come from outside the UNC Campus to cover
49 inside the UNC Campus?
50
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 117 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Matt Hughes: Maybe I'm a layman but I'm willing to look at being devils advocate here.
2
3 Ben Levitan: That's ok, yeah.
4
5 Matt Hughes: Maybe, I mean, I could conceivably see how it could help the capacity at UNC
6 because let's say there's folks who live in this area where they'd like to put this cell tower and
7 they're getting service in some way shape or form from the tower that's at UNC and if they had
8 one closer to them then that could help UNC, and if they had one closer to them then that could
9 help where the tower is. I mean, is that an incorrect assumption on my part?
10
11 Ben Levitan: No, no, I see what you're saying. And you are technically right. You see where the
12 big red blotches are on this?
13
14 Matt Hughes: Mm -Hmm.
15
16 Ben Levitan: The big is the center of every... that's the strongest signal. UNC is at the top of this
17 graph. If you want to cover UNC why be 5 -miles away? I mean, if you're going to use a cell tower
18 that's 5 -miles away I've identified 14 other cell towers that you could use that are existing. So the
19 search ring to provide additional coverage at UNC has to be within UNC.
20
21 Samantha Cabe: I... Well, I'm not going to go down that path.
22
23 Ben Levitan: I mean, you can ask me anything you want.
24
25 Samantha Cabe: Yeah, can you hand that back? I believe they're stated objected was not to
26 provide more coverage for UNC because we can see that it is coverage but rather to offload some
27 of their coverage onto a different cell tower so that they can provide better service there.
28
29 Ben Levitan: Offload is done and you know...
30
31 Samantha Cabe: It just means that people who would live closer to this particular tower that
32 they're wanting to place there would use that tower instead of the UNC tower, freeing up stuff
33 there. Right?
34
35 Ben Levitan: It's not the way you design it. When you have... You identify where your high- density
36 is, like for example UNC, high- density is going to be the stadiums on any given Saturday, right?
37 That's when the biggest density is. I'll bet you there's a number of what we call DAS.
38
39 Samantha Cabe: I understand what you're saying.
40
41 Ben Levitan: You know what I'm saying. And what you do is you look for where your worse
42 problem is and that's where you put the fix. You don't put the fix 5 -miles away.
43
44 John Price: There was also testimony by TowerCom that...
45
46 Samantha Cabe: Hey, hold on one second, Mr. Harvey...
47
48 Michael Harvey: No, I thought Mr. Price was finished. I apologize.
49
50 Samantha Cabe: Ok.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 118 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Price: There has also been testimony by TowerCom's experts that the Mellot site is not
3 appropriate because of terrain obstructions.
4
5 Ben Levitan: This one really confused me. If you'll go forward please to that, there we go, thank
6 you. Alright, the top... You see the circle towards the top. That's this hill that we're talking about.
7 This hill, if you are at the Mellot site... You can see where the Mellot site is on the far right. The
8 Mellot site, if it's pointed to UNC yeah, that hill may block the signal a bit, ok... the thing is this
9 Mellot site, that hill will block it but look... the new proposed UNC site is off the map below it. That
10 hill is also in line of site between this new tower and UNC. So...
11
12 Samantha Cabe: I think the point was in their prior testimony was that the new proposed site was
13 higher itself so the signal went up over the hill, whereas the Mellot site was lower, if I'm
14 remembering correctly. Would that make a difference if that was?
15
16 Ben Levitan: It does to a level, but you've got to understand that hill is there so everything behind
17 the hill, I don't care how high this cell tower is, everything behind the hill is in a shadow. Ok? So
18 both these sites, in fact the Mellot site is actually off to the right, you can see it's further off to the
19 right so it kind of gives you a better line of sight around that hill. This new site is more in line with
20 that hill. So no matter what, if you're behind the hill you're not going to get coverage from this new
21 cell tower. This, you know... it's desirable....... How about the top of that hill for one?
22
23 John Price: In your opinion, based on your experience and expertise, are the alternatives you
24 have outlined for meeting the identified telecommunication service needs more in line with today's
25 technology?
26
27 Ben Levitan: Absolutely. We're rapidly, and Verizon is one of the leaders in this, rapidly going
28 away from what we call those macro cells and going to smaller cells. It's financially, for Verizon, it
29 makes more sense. For public safety it makes a lot more sense. And for the customer experience
30 it makes a lot more sense.
31
32 John Price: In your opinion are the alternatives you've identified all commercial and feasible?
33
34 Ben Levitan: Verizon just signed a 25 -year contract in San Antonio. I suspect they do think it's
35 commercially viable.
36
37 John Price: I believe those are all the questions I have at this time.
38
39 Laura Goode: I have one question... Could you go back to the propagation maps that you just...
40 thank you. Yes, that's fine, thank you. So you were talking earlier about these circles that were on
41 these propagation maps, is that right?
42
43 Ben Levitan: Yes.
44
45 'Laura Goode: Ok, as identified as coverage gap areas?
46
47 Ben Levitan: Yeah, there are coverage gaps there. Anything white. These are your maps, so
48 don't want to re- explain what you know better.
49
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 119 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Laura Goode: Absolutely, so the maps we provided. But those circles were not placed on those
2 maps by Verizon.
3
4 Ben Levitan: No, I apologize. Everything in color was what came out of the application. The circles
5 and explanations I did put there myself and I do apologize for not explaining that but I did that, you
6 understand why I did that.
7
8 Laura Goode: I don't have any further questions.
9
10 Barry Katz: I have a question. TowerCom and Verizon are two separate businesses, correct?
11
12 Laura Goode: Correct. TowerCom is a tower building company and so they're building it to
13 Verizon's needs.
14
15 Barry Katz: Right, so you 'contracted TowerCom to build yours?
16
17 Laura Goode: Correct.
18
19 Barry Katz: Before I came to this meeting one of the questions that I had in my mind, not knowing
20 an answer at all, was were there alternatives to building this 199 -foot tower that would be
21 effective? What we're hearing is that Verizon has considered this kind of question in way in a
22 different context for other purposes and everything and it may be apples and oranges, I don't
23 know. But, do you have a witness or somebody that could explain to us why, in this circumstance,
24 putting this tower in would be better than existing alternatives that would not require this
25 approach?
26
27 Laura Goode: Sure, so I think there's two ways to answer that question. Yes, we do have a
28 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
29 hearing from you and we can just address it in a couple short questions if that's what you would
30 like to hear, but in terms of looking at other structures within the search area North Carolina
31 General Statutes says that the applicant only has to prove an inability to co- locate within their
32 search area, which is identified in Exhibit 5, or tab 5 of the application.
33
34 Samantha Cabe: And what does that Statute reference, do you have that?
35
36 Laura Goode: Sure, it is... yes, I have it right here. That is North Carolina General Statutes 153A-
37 349.52 and we have provided an inability to co- locate statement because the first thing that
38 Verizon tries to do when they have a search ring, they want to go out and find an existing
39 structure, like a water tower, a building, anything that they can co- locate on because it is so much
40 less expensive and so less time consuming to co- locate. And so there is a signed statement from
41 John Yeagley, who testified at the last hearing about this. His statement, his inability co- locate
42 statement is tab 21 and he testified to the fact that he went out in that search area and there were
43 no structures within the search area to co- locate. Now, in terms of your second question, we do
44 have a witness who could explain why small cells or other technologies would not work for this
45 network agenda.
46
47 Barry Katz: Is this germane? Am I asking a question that's pertinent to this because what I just
48 heard was we're talking about within that circle and everything and the Statute says such and
49 such and it may not be even relevant.
50
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 120 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Michael Harvey: Well before we go on to the applicant's witness I'd like our telecommunications
2 consultant to reiterate the testimony that was offered at the December hearing, concerning not
3 only our ordinance but state law requirements, with respect to processing location for
4 telecommunication towers. If it pleases the Board.
5
6 Samantha Cabe: Ok. Would you state your name and that you've sworn for the record?
7
8 Rusty Monroe: Yeah, I was sworn in last time.
9
10 Samantha Cabe: And your name? Just for the transcript.
11
12 Rusty Monroe: Rusty Monroe.
13
14 Samantha Cabe: Thank you.
15
16 Rusty Monroe: I commend the opposition on their choice of experts whose reputation precedes
17 him. Well known. The problem or the issue really is what the state law allows. I understand the
18 desire and in point of fact I might, in certain circumstances, agree that the state law prohibits the
19 community from requiring the company to investigate the feasibility of attaching to anything other
20 than existing or previously approved wireless support structures. And that's in 352... it's going to
21 be 153A- 349.52(c)(2).
22
23 Samantha Cabe: (c)(2) you said?
24
25 Rusty Monroe: The other thing that I wanted to point out, and by the way as I said I might prefer it
26 differently, I totally disagree with state law on a personal basis, but the law is what the law is. The
27 issue of them providing, the company providing, proof to counter this; the County does not have
28 the authority to, under the same provision effectively, to require that kind of evidence or proof. 1
29 might like it personally, I might prefer it personally, but if you don't like it talk to your legislatures.
30
31 John Price: May I ask a question?
32
33 Rusty Monroe: Yes.
34
35 John Price: I don't know if you're finished or not, but what is the definition of a wireless support
36 structure?
37
38 Rusty Monroe: I'd have to look it up on the County Ordinance to see what their definition is.
39
40 John Price: I believe that the County Ordinance is broad enough to encompass any structure that
41 will support the wireless facility necessary in order to satisfy the need.
42
43 Samantha Cabe: Is it any support structure or previously approved wireless support structure?
44
45
46 Rusty Monroe: That's the issue, is no existing or previously approved wireless support structure...
47 As I said, I happen to personally disagree with that.
48
49 Jackie Hicks: And I think where we have some issues is the Unified Development Ordinance
50 doesn't necessarily coincide with the state law.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 121 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 John Price: Then this is a matter of legal interpretation, but I would put to you the case law has
3 normally sided on the favor of state law trumping local law, especially in North Carolina.
4
5 Rusty Monroe: I'm not an attorney. I'm not trying to practice law. I just know a lot of case law on
6 this issue.
7
8 John Price: I think in our filing, a simple note on filing I made, I include all those citations. Including
9 how the state defines a wireless support structure, not just the County. And I don't have it in front
10 of me or I'd recite it to you.
11
12 Samantha Cabe: I didn't bring my computer in to access that .....
13
14 (General conversation amongst multiple people)
15
16 Rusty Monroe: I was just given a copy of the Ordinance and it says it defines a
17 telecommunications facility wireless support structure: A new or existing structure, such as a
18 monopole, lattice, or guide tower that is designed to support or capable of supporting wireless
19 facilities. A utility pole is not a wireless support structure.
20
21 John Price: I think that is clear a utility pole is not, but transmission power lines, water towers,
22 buildings.
23
24 Michael Harvey: Madame Chair, I'm going to testify for the record as the Zoning Enforcement
25 Officer Current Planning Supervisor to Orange County. There are no water towers in this area
26 under the County's jurisdiction.
27
28 John Price: I understand. I'm just trying to tell you what the alternatives are. They include
29 buildings, transmission towers...
30
31 Jackie Hicks: Can I say one thing? I understand in the state law it also says that the County can't
32 try to design the applicant's network and I think what you're trying to do...
33
34 Samantha Cabe: Ma'am?
35
36 Jackie Hicks: Oh, I'm sorry.
37
38 Samantha Cabe: No, no, that's ok, no, no, you're fine, but state your name for the record.
39
40 Jackie Hicks: Jackie Hicks. Sorry. I was sworn in at the last meeting.
41
42 Samantha Cabe: And what is your position, just so everyone...
43
44 Rusty Monroe: She's the owner of the firm.
45
46 Samantha Cabe: You're the new Rusty Monroe?
47
48 Jackie Hicks: We are together. We're both consultants. And the County can't design Verizon's
49 network, so by saying you could do this and you could do that, the County can't do that.
50
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 122 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 John Price: Well I think what the County does require is that the tower that's built will satisfy the
2 needs identified.
3
4 Rusty Monroe: That it satisfy the needs of...
5
6 Barry Katz: Identified.
7
8 John Price: Identified.
9
10 Rusty Monroe: That's true.
11
12 John Price: And my client has just told me, Mr. Harvey, I don't know, that there's a water tower in
13 Governors Club.
14
15 Michael Harvey: That's in Chatham County sir, that's not in Orange County's planning jurisdiction.
16
17 John Price: I didn't know that.
18
19 Rusty Monroe: And I know in talking with the company's attorney, processing this application, 1
20 specifically asked the question, "What is the greatest priority for this site, is it a need ?" and he said
21 capacity is number one, coverage is, I believe the word he used is, "incidental ". I believe that's the
22 word. It's not this gentleman, it's his partner.
23
24 Barry Katz: And this capacity, this is primarily for offloading from UNC?
25
26 Rusty Monroe: I do not recall the specifics of that. I believe... I don't recall the specifics so I'd
27 rather not answer incorrectly.
28
29 Laura Goode: If I could just remind the Board, there is a network objective statement that is in tab
30 4 of the application that states the network objective.
31
32 Rusty Monroe: Please understand I'm not speaking for or against this, I just want you making an
33 informed decision.
34
35 Laura Goode: And then the first paragraph of Exhibit or tab 4, it talks about the network objective
36 and starting on the second sentence it says, Verizon's wireless objecting in connection with the
37 proposed site is to improve coverage along Mount Carmel Church Road between the Governors
38 Club area and Chapel Hill, we call it the Clearwater Lake area, as well as to provide capacity for
39 the existing UNC Campus Verizon Wireless site.
40
41 John Price: It's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the
42 expert for TowerCom with respect to co- location was referring to there were no other structures on
43 which they could co- locate the antenna equipment that would be on this tower. It was not talking
44 about DAS or small cells, or micro cells, or any technological alternative.
45
46 Laura Goode: So we had two experts. We had one expert that talked about inability to do- locate
47 on existing structures, and we had another expert that testified and drafted a statement that's
48 contained in this notebook testifying and stating that other technologies, such as DAS and other
49 facilities will not meet the network objectives of this site and he testified at the hearing last time
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 123 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Approved 3113117
that they are using small cell facilities at UNC to try to address those capacity issues, and it's not
sufficient, and this site is needed for that.
Samantha Cabe: Alright. Do you have any? Let's see, where were we before we interjected with
Mr. Monroe... Did you have any further questions for? You were finished with Mr. Levitan?
John Price: Yes.
Samantha Cabe: Did you have any other witnesses?
John Price: No, I don't.
Samantha Cabe: And did you... We were going to... Do you still...
John Price: I did want to raise one other thing, especially in light of the last statement that was
made...
Samantha Cabe: If you're going to make argument can you wait until the end?
John Price: No, no, it's not argument.
Samantha Cabe: Ok.
John Price: We support the introduction into the record of Amber Corbin's witness statement that
she submitted, along with documents she submitted, especially in light of the last statement that
was made by the other member of the public.
Samantha Cabe: From Mr. Williams?
John Price: That's correct.
Samantha Cabe: I think we typically...
Michael Harvey: We typically, I was going to handle that when everybody finished with the experts
and the public and we'll be entering the record at that point in time.
Samantha Cabe: We'll include those.
John Price: Ok, thank you.
Samantha Cabe: Who requested to hear... Barry, you requested to hear, do you still want to hear
their expert to answer your question about the small cell?
Barry Katz: Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as the way the rules work that's not pertinent to this
hearing, is it?
Samantha Cabe: In fact, if we asked them to give us that information that could be a basis for
appeal if we rule in the Opponents favor if we ask them to provide that information.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 124 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Michael Harvey: In my humble opinion, potentially yes. I will also tell you as I have told you before,
2 admitting other iterations from any other meetings the Board needs to ask the questions it feels
3 are necessary and vital in order to make an informed decision regardless if it's of Mr. Price or the
4 applicant. We are here to provide you with as much feedback as what state and law and Unified
5 Development Ordinance requires.
6
7 Barry Katz: But is it pertinent to...
8
9 Michael Harvey: I believe that some of the information that you are potentially looking for, I don't
10 want to read your mind or put words in your mouth could potentially be viable to the discussion,
11 yes. And I certainly don't want to deny this good an opportunity to get those questions answered
12 for you.
13
14 Barry Katz: Please, if you have a response...
15
16 Laura Goode: Can I just ask what the specific question, because I want to... if you just have a
17 specific question I can call him up right here to answer that question.
18
19 Barry Katz: Ok, it had to deal with whether there was alternative technologies, and then we had a
20 suggestion of these small towers along, let's say, Mount Carmel Church Road as a very
21 productive potential option. So if you wouldn't mind addressing that.
22
23 David Haughney: Hello, I'm David Haughney. I was sworn in the last time. I work for Verizon. And
24 my work address is 3020 Hammond Road, in Raleigh. And then the question... Do you want to
25 restate or be specific about?
26
27 Barry Katz: My question had to do with whether there were alternatives to building a 199 -foot
28 tower to achieve the goals that Verizon had. And Mr. Levitan had suggested that there might be
29 small towers along Mount Carmel Church Road that would, in fact, achieve a greater coverage,
30 etcetera. So what is your opinion?
31
32 David Haughney: The design that we propose is the optimal and feasible, and commercially
33 practical solution for this very large, weak coverage area. There is approximately 4 -miles between
34 sites in this area, and the sites that are surrounding it that have been mentioned, we're on most of
35 them. There's none in this search ring, or at the epicenter of this 4 -mile coverage hole. Verizon
36 Wireless uses, we are the leader in the advancement of wireless technology as they stated many
37 times, and we used micro cells and small cells and DAS where they're appropriate. We are using
38 them to solve our capacity issues at UNC Campus. They're part of the solution. This is also an
39 enterable part of the solution, is to design this tower as it's been proposed in this area to provide
40 seamless coverage in capacity of, not only, Mount Carmel Church Road but the entire
41 surrounding area. And it would be completely infeasible and impractical to try and solve that large
42 cover gap with an innumerable amount of small cells at very low height that only covers as far as
43 you see. If we put a transmitting device on a 30 -foot pole on Mount Carmel Road it would only
44 cover as far as you see it. And this terrain, with the foliage, and the hills, they minute you turn off
45 the road you would drop. So this entire 4 -mile square area we'd be talking about... It's not
46 practical, not feasible, no other commercial company as proposed such a thing.
47
48 Karen Barrows: Can I ask you David, so the opponents are saying there's still a large area of
49 Mount Carmel that is not going to get ideal service. So you're saying they will?
50
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 125 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 David Haughney: Yes, it will. And the plots show that. I disagree with his interpretation of it. As
2 you can see on the plots, we don't have them pulled up right now but...
3
4 Samantha Cabe: It's on tab 7.
5
6 David Haughney: Green and blue colors cover the entirety of Mount Carmel Church Road now, as
7 compared to without the site you see a lot of gray, black, and white, which are no service and
8 dropped calls. No service, and very poor service. And contrary to one thing they were saying, it is
9 all green and blue now on Mount Carmel. They conveniently drew a yellow line along that road,
10 which covered up the colors. That yellow line that was on their plot was not mine; they added that.
11 It covers up the colors on Mount Carmel. If you look at the plot without the yellow line you will see
12 that green and blue, it's complete coverage up and down the road. They only provide the only
13 connections we need to those surrounding sites.
14
15 Barry Katz: So you're saying that actually smaller towers won't give you the same effective
16 coverage that this large tower will?
17
18 David Haughney: Not at all. They cover very small footprints.
19
20 Barry Katz: I understand, but it would mean not putting in one but... In your research you weren't
21 calculating how many small towers it would take to give the coverage that this large tower did and
22 what the cost benefits would be, etcetera? Was that part of your consideration? Or was your
23 consideration merely what will you get out of this 199 -foot tower?
24
25 David Haughney: It's always a part of our consideration because we do deploy those
26 technologies, and it's just not practical and feasible, and it's not applied anywhere. There's no
27 example of a small cell or DAS network that's been spoken up to cover a huge, 4- square mile,
28 rural, sparse suburban, and that's what this area is.
29
30 Samantha Cabe: Are those types of technologies typically used in more urban areas or higher
31 density areas like UNC where you're using them?
32
33 David Haughney: Yes ma'am, we are using there and other places, airports, malls, arenas, we
34 have an installation inside the game dome, we have another DAS installation inside Keenan
35 Stadium, to handle that huge amount of capacity of a converging area. It's just not practical for
36 this kind of large, open, rural, and kind of light suburban mix area. And that's why another provider
37 in the past has proposed a similar solution and it's come to my attention, I don't know if it's been
38 submitted but, another service provider is interested in... has noted interest in signing on to this
39 tower. But no service provider has... in the record whatsoever has proposed what they're talking
40 about for this area.
41
42 Matt Hughes: And I believe most of what you just mentioned you covered in our previous...
43
44 David Haughney: It is sir, I believe that most of what we're talking about is covered in both the
45 written and previous statements. Yes sir.
46
47 Barry Katz: I understand. I've got a question for Mr. Harvey. The Mount Carmel Church Road, part
48 of it, certainly the area where the cell tower would be, is in the rural buffer?
49
50 Michael Harvey: Yes sir.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 126 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Barry Katz: How much of Mount Carmel Church Road is in the rural buffer that we're talking about
3 as far as providing cell service with this tower? Can you make a statement about that?
4
5 Michael Harvey: I don't know if I can make a statement of that. What I'll remind the Board is that
6 there's a portion of Mount Carmel Church Road located within the extra - territorial jurisdiction
7 boundary of the Town of Chapel Hill going up to Old Lystra.
8
9 Barry Katz: Old Lystra?
10
11 Michael Harvey: And then you have approximately three, three and a half, or four miles or so,
12 three miles going towards the Chatham County line that is obviously all rural buffer.
13
14 Barry Katz: It's all rural buffer?
15
16 Michael Harvey: Yes sir.
17
18 Barry Katz: My point was to consider whether or not there would be an increase in residential
19 density in that area that would be justified as one thing or another but there is not, as long as the
20 buffer exists.
21
22 Michael Harvey: I can only answer that question based on the Ordinance, as it currently exists.
23 Density in this portion of the rural buffer is essentially one dwelling unit for every 2 -acres of
24 property per the current Orange County Unified Development Ordinance and the joint planning
25 land use plan and joint planning land use plan agreement adopted and enforced by the Towns of
26 Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County in a cooperative venture.
27
28 John Price: I have just a couple of questions for Mr. Haughney. Mr. Haughney, am 1
29 understanding you correctly that you're not saying that small cell towers along Mount Carmel
30 Road would not solve every problem along Mount Carmel Road? I'm not talking about small cells
31 now. I'm talking about small cell towers along Mount Carmel Road. Would that provide all of the
32 coverage necessary?
33
34 David Haughney: No, it would not.
35
36 John Price: Along Mount Carmel Road, not the offload capacity of UNC, I'm just talking about
37 Mount Carmel Road.
38
39 David Haughney: No sir, it would not meet our objectives and goals of standards.
40
41 John Price: Along Mount Carmel Road?
42
43 David Haughney: No sir. It's not a practical, feasible solution that we would pursue.
44
45 John Price: And you're saying that this 199 -foot monopole tower, where you proposed to build it,
46 is going to... and that's the only way to solve your offload capacity at UNC Campus and in
47 between, is that correct?
48
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 127 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Approved 3113117
David Haughney: I feel that I've already testified that we do have other solutions for UNC
Campus, including some of the technologies that you mentioned. It's an integral part of the
solution.
John Price: So you don't need the tower...
David Haughney: This tower is an integral part of that solution. It is going to be necessary yes.
John Price: So are you saying that the tower is not needed for the offload capacity at UNC
Campus?
Samantha Cabe: I think he's testified earlier that it's all part of a plan with the tower and the small
cells, as what I've heard him say at least three or four times. That it's all part of their plan to solve
these two problems that they've identified. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I've heard him
say three or four times at this point, that the tower and the small cells are part of their plan. Am
wrong? Did you hear that?
(General multiple comments)
Samantha Cabe: And I'm just trying to cut to the chase and not keep repeating the same things.
John Price: Well it seemed to be... there's a contradiction here between on the one hand saying
that...
Samantha Cabe: Do you have any further questions for him?
John Price: Yes, yes. The proposed tower, as I understand the statements that have been made
into the record, TowerCom says in support of this proposed tower is that this proposed tower will
satisfy the needs, all the needs that you've identified. Is that correct?
David Haughney: Yes sir.
John Price: The tower by itself will do that?
David Haughney: Yes sir, it would. This is needed for identified service needs. I believe I already
explained that it's not the one and only solution for the UNC Campus area, obviously.
John Price: I think we're just disagreeing with the definition of service needs ....
Ben Levitan: If you look at Mount Carmel Church Road...
Samantha Cabe: Ok, hang on one second. We're getting a little back and forth here. We've
already addressed you, you've testified, we've cross - examined you, do you have any further
questions for Mr. Haughney.
John Price: I have not further questions for Mr. Haughney.
Samantha Cabe: Alright. Does the Board have any questions for Mr. Haughney? Alright, thank
you. Are there any other members of the public who would like to be heard? Either in support of or
opposition?
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 128 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Karen Barrows: Can we take a short break?
3
4 Samantha Cabe: Alright, we're going to take a short recess to go to the restroom and then we'll
5 hear our closing arguments, if you want to do closing arguments. Is there any more evidence for
6 either?
7
8 Laura Goode: I'm just going to enter some documentary evidence to rebut some of the statements
9 that were made by the opponent.
10
11 Samantha Cabe: Ok, we'll address that when we get back. Thank you.
12
13 Break
14
15 Samantha Cabe: Ok are we ready to get started? Alright and before we do get started I have the
16 opponents position on applicant's compliance with the County Unified Development Ordinance
17 requirements where they've set out their proposed findings I believe on all of your requirements.
18 Does the applicant have an opposing document like this?
19
20 Laura Goode: I do, and if I could...
21
22 Samantha Cabe: Just so I could have them both so we can all have them both.
23
24 (General multiple comments)
25
26 Samantha Cabe: Before we get started with closing we do have Board member Katz has a
27 clarification problem regarding the statement submitted by Amber Corbin that we had allowed into
28 the record earlier in the proceeding.
29
30 Barry Katz: There seemed to be an ambiguity in communications from Ms. Corbin about whether
31 or not the right of way road had to pass through her property or was adjacent to her property. And
32 my first impression was that she actually had property adjacent to that access road and then she
33 implies that she has to approve right of way and she's absolutely denying right of way, so it would
34 be important to know, in fact, whether she has any kind of leverage in this situation.
Michael Harvey: Well I don't know if I'm going to be able to answer your question from a leverage
stand point, what I will tell you is that based on the information that I have at my disposal sitting
here, this is a private road. The property goes to the center line of the private road. You have
three emails from Ms. Corbin that we handed you. One dated January the 22nd of 2017, 2:48 PM.
Essentially making several arguments that there's a public safety issue, I know that's not your
question but just to summarize the information to the proposed use of the driveway along that
property is contrary to not in harmony with the area that the tower's proposed to be located. And
then finally I think your question; TowerCom does not have legal access of my property... private
property access to the proposed tower. The argument being made is that this is private access
easement, which she is a co -owner of that easement. The easement was granted for a very
specific purpose. The second email is same day with a time stamp of 2:58 PM that shows or
provides a summary of various emails between TowerCom enterprises, Staff, and Ms. Corbin on
access management issues where obviously they have an opinion and she has an opinion that
differs. It is her research in that they don't have a right to use her portion of the right of way for
access.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 129 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Approved 3113117
Barry Katz: Ok.
Michael Harvey: I'll let TowerCom speak to that but the emails are pretty... Emails are what they
are. They assert they have the right, she asserts they don't. That's going into being a legal
question, but you are correct, as a private road she essentially has half the right of way. And what
she's' arguing in these emails that we have put into the record is essentially in order for
TowerCom to use it there has to be a modification to the existing agreement, which hasn't
occurred, and she's not amenable to allow that to happen.
John Price: It also states that it's an eyesore and will adversely impact her property.
Barry Katz: I understand that, but... do you have a comment about this?
Laura Goode: Yes, and I believe I already spoke to this at the previous hearing that there had
been a concern raised to TowerCom about this access road in terms of whether there was
access. Respectfully, I would put to you that whether TowerCom has legal access to this property
or not is not an issue that this Board has to determine in terms of whether to approve the Special
Use Permit. But, nevertheless, has obtained a legal opinion. Their attorney has reviewed that
document that she has provided and has the legal opinion that they do have legal access to that
road and, as Mr. Harvey stated, any dispute about that is a civil matter between those two parties
that would be outside of the scope of this hearing.
James Bryan: Madame Chair, if I could just have a second, I'm trying to find out... we do have a
standard for access. I don't recall what exactly it is. It you give me a minute I could probably find it.
Samantha Cabe: Sure.
(Inaudible exchange amongst Board members)
Laura Goode: You know, if while they're looking for that provision we could go ahead and enter
some of this into the record to kind of speed things along.
Samantha Cabe: Sure.
Laura Goode: Ok. The first thing I would enter into the record since there was testimony from Mr.
Gwen and his son about the impact to wildlife and the natural area, I have... The first document is
the NEPO report that TowerCom obtained, which is required for all FCC license organizations,
and so this report basically details how it will not impact a critical wildlife habitat, will not adversely
impact a list of endangered or threatened species, will not be a negative impact to migratory birds,
all of that information is contained in this report. And I would ask that it be entered into the record.
Samantha Cabe: What number are we on?
Michael Harvey: 6.
Samantha Cabe: Ok. That's Applicant number 6.
Michael Harvey: Correct.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16
Page 130 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Laura Goode: To supplement that document I would also move into the record the biological
2 assessment that was further done as part of this, just again detailing how the proposed facility will
3 not negatively impact, and identify wildlife, critical habitat, or species in the area.
4
5 Samantha Cabe: And that will Applicant number 7.
6
7 Laura Goode: And additionally, as part of the neighbor process there is a review by the state
8 historic preservation office. We have this letter from the state historic preservation office stating
9 that it will not affect any historic properties in the area. I'll ask that that be moved into the record
10 as well. And then as a further supplemental piece of evidence to contradict claims that the tower's
11 not needed, the tower height is not needed, things of that nature that have been argued, We have
12 a letter from T- Mobile who states that they too have a need for a facility in this area that this tower
13 would meet their needs, specifically at a proposed height of 180 -feet due to the topography
14 changes in the area. And then I did, just for housekeeping purposes I meant to do this later time
15 but we ran over, I wanted to make sure that the application that's been entered into the record is
16 the application that has supplemental evidence items A through I, just to double check on that.
17
18 Samantha Cabe: Mine does.
19
20 Laura Goode: Ok. Thank you.
21
22 Samantha Cabe: Thank you.
23
24 James Bryan: Madame Chair, if I could briefly .....
25
26 Samantha Cabe: Sure.
27
28 James Bryan: So, in your agenda packets its 155, and it's a table that Michael put together and
29 that cites access standards of the Unified Development Ordinance it's 5.10.8(b)(4)(d) d is access
30 and it's got four subparts. So part one is: at a wireless telecommunication support structure site an
31 access road, turn around space, and parking shall be provided to assure adequate emergency
32 service access. Two: maximum use of existing use, whether public or private, shall remain to the
33 extent practical. Three: road construction shall, at all times, minimize ground disturbance and the
34 cutting of vegetation. Four: road grates shall closely follow natural contours to ensure minimal
35 visual disturbance and reduce soil erosion. Those are the four standards that this Board has
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
regarding access.
Samantha Cabe: And that is the four standards that the applicant has to show in their application
so that doesn't necessarily address the legal access, but they've addressed that what they're
planning for their road will have the turnaround, will have the width, will do all of those things, but
does not have to address whether or not they can legally put the road where they're saying they're
going to put it. Is that? I didn't hear anything in our standards that addressing whether or not they
have to have a legal easement before they came to us.
James Bryan: Right, so there's two parts I'm supposed to
cannot vary from the plan, unless they come back to thi s
amendment. What you can do, I think if it shows access it's
be a condition. Some evidence... I don't know what they can
at subsequent meetings.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16
go by. The plan must identify. They
Board and ask for a change, an
applied that it has to be legal, it can
prove today or what they can prove
Page 131 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Approved 3113117
Samantha Cabe: Ok.
Karen Barrows: So can I just ask, we have this letter from Patricia Williams saying they give
permission for the use of the road.
(Inaudible exchange amongst Board members)
James Bryan: And if I may also, so there's one about soil erosion, stuff like that. That's about
something else. The other one is safety, and I believe this is already forward off to the fire
marshal, and the sheriff, and stuff like that. That's normally what you would have plans and
responses so you would assume that's fine, as long as they've got access to it.
Samantha Cabe: Thank you.
(Inaudible exchange amongst Board members)
Samantha Cabe: Alright, would you like to make your... does either party want to make sort of a
closing statement or argument before we begin deliberations?
Laura Goode: Yes. Thank you for your time, and all of your consideration, I will just make a couple
of points that I wanted to highlight for you before you make your deliberations. The first is to
address a couple of things in terms of real estate impact. For differing expert opinions, using
differing... Well one person has cited the real estate impact or the article on property values from
New Zealand that was from 2005, and did not address properties in the United States, the
testimony provided by David Smith, which accompanied his real estate impact study that was
prepared and submitted as part of the application used not only analysis of the Cobble Ridge and
Sunset Ridge neighborhoods that Mr. Ogburn looked at, he also made adjustments for those
sales prices based on differences in the homes, in terms of better things about them that Mr.
Ogburn did not make. He also did a match pair analysis, which he testified to as the standard for
accessing real estate impact values, and that was done in Orange County for a tower, with
properties zoned rural buffer, which is the same zoning classification as the subject property and
surrounding properties and found that no impact to property value occurred as a result of that
proximity of that tower. Also, introduced tonight as part of rebuttal of the article that was attached
to Mr. Ogburn's study there was an updated study or an article published from the American Bar
Association talking about, and looking at, real estate impact studies in North America. Not only in
North America, but specifically in Chatham County, North Carolina and cited one of the studies
done by Mr. Smith, our expert, that was corroborated by another expert in North Carolina, Tom
Keith and Associates. And they cited that as some of the evidence that cell phone towers do not
negatively impact property values. That same article, I would ask that you read it and consider it.
They called into question the validity of that New Zealand study for a number of reasons. And
finally, talked about how there was an actual case study where a cell phone tower company had
applied for a Special Use Permit, just like in this situation, they got their approval, it was appealed,
and the appeals process took approximately three or four years. During that time period they were
able to erect a temporary tower. And they were able to study what the impact of that temporary
tower, through duration of that appeal, what that impact was to property values. And they found
that there was no negative effect to property values from that. That was a recent case in the
United States. Now, you've also heard a lot of testimony about what the need for this tower is,
what the purpose is, whether other technologies can adequately address the need that has been
identified by Verizon. And what this really all boils down to is what the opponents are asking me to
determine is that Verizon and TowerCom and all of the witnesses have come here to testify is that
OC Board of Adjustment —12/12/16 Page 132 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 they looked for looked for other places to co- locate, they looked at other opportunities to use other
2 alternative technologies, they've looked at that Malot candidate. They're asking you to believe that
3 we are here and we have spent years on this process, thousands of dollars in applications fees, in
4 environmental assessments. We've done all that for a tower that is not needed and won't solve
5 the problem. That's what they're asking of you guys. And I believe that the evidence shows that
6 we need that tower, even though we don't have to prove it, and that it will address the problem
7 that is identified. In terms of any concerns about timbering, we have shown an alternative
8 landscape in the event that that happens, and I believe that the Buckner's' are willing to work to
9 make sure there is some type of a buffer that would remain on the property, in the event that that
10 did happen, although that's not certain. And finally, I'll just end by saying that the County, Mr.
11 Harvey, has gone through the application, determined that we met each of the standards. The
12 consultant, Jackie Hicks, with Carolina Telecommunications has determined that we meet all the
13 standards and they recommend approval. I would respectfully request that this Board approve as
14 well.
15
16 Samantha Cabe: And do you have proposed findings to submit?
17
18 Laura Goode: I believe I gave those to Mr. Harvey.
19
20 Samantha Cabe: Oh, did you hand those out already? Ok, sorry. Thanks.
21
22 John Price: I'd like to thank the Board for their time and attentiveness as well. I'll be brief in my
23 summation statement. The burden is on TowerCom to establish that this proposed tower will
24 maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, unless it was a public necessity it would,
25 have been there showing a public necessity in this case. As I read that standard, either maintain
26 or enhance and if the value of the contiguous property is diminished in any way that is not a
27 maintenance or enhancement of that property value. We have in this case the testimony and
28 appraisal report of Mr. Ogburn, who testified this evening, who is a residential appraisal expert,
29 unlike David Smith, who is primarily a commercial appraisal expert. Testimony of Evan and Owen
30 Gwen, the affidavits of Ben Rudnick and William Hamlin the prospective purchasers of properties
31 located within Dove Field. And I would submit that the report prepared by David Smith, which is
32 the only evidence provided in support of TowerCom's burden to prove maintenance or
33 enhancement of value, that Mr. Smith's report is inadequate in that it relies upon comparisons of
34 values without appraising the actual value of any property that's located in the immediate
35 contiguous area where this proposed tower's going to be built. I've cited two North Carolina cases
36 in the two letters that were submitted as part of opposition number 6 this evening where reports
37 almost identical to Mr. Smith's were rejected as being not substantial and not sufficient to meet
38 the burden of proof. In those cases it was not a burden of proof of maintain and enhance, it was a
39 stronger version a higher version, where they actually had to prove no substantial adverse impact.
40 1 would also submit that in Mr. Smith's report, if you read Mr. Smith's report, there are three
41 different occasions of that report where he specifically says, "indicates there will be damage to
42 property where the tower will be visible from that property ". Yet he doesn't appraise any of the
43 properties that will, in fact, have a clear view of this tower. So it's our position that TowerCom has
44 failed to meet its burden of proving maintenance and enhancement of value. In addition, although
45 there may be a prima facia case for this being in harmony with the surrounding area because of
46 the rural buffer definition of what is and is not permitted, and it does permit cell towers, we would
47 submit that the testimony of Mr. Owen Gwen, Even Gwen, the Dove Field master plan, maps, and
48 photos all support our clients position, which Amber Corbin also agrees with, and the other
49 gentlemen who spoke tonight, I can't remember his name, that...
50
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 133 of 156
Approved 3113117
Samantha Cabe: Mr. Barnes.
3 John Price: That having a 199 -foot tower in this type of community, given the nature of the
4 community, and use being made of the property of the community is clearly not in harmony with
5 that property. We also submit, and it's set forth in our proposed findings of fact, that as supported
6 by the testimony of Mr. Levitan that TowerCom did not adequately consider alternatives, co-
1 location alternatives, as well as technology alternatives that would satisfy the needs that they've
8 identified. Mr. Levitan also testified that contrary to the testimony of TowerCom's experts this one
9 single tower will not satisfy either one of the needs identified by TowerCom and Verizon. Yet there
10 are other alternatives, which are not visually intrusive, that are the least adverse visual effect, and
11 those alternatives include the smaller cell towers, small cells, the micro cells, the DAS systems
12 that, according to Mr. Levitan, can in fact be used both along the Mount Carmel Road and also at
13 the UNC Campus, in order to satisfy the capacity overload need and the lack of coverage along
14 the Mount Carmel. In this case, there has been no attempt to utilize any stealth technology or
15 camouflage techniques whatsoever. Testimony has been, not the testimony, the evidence they
16 shared that it's the intent of Buckner Family Trust to timber the property. We don't know whether
17 that's going to incorporate all of the timber on the property, all the trees being depicted on the
18 map. If that is what's intended then as soon as that is done it's going to dramatically increase the
19 visual impact of the property in this area of that cell tower. Also, as Mr. Levitan testified, building
20 this type of cell tower will not even... that all likelihood will not be occurring within another year or
21 two. It's our position the Board should not be allowing construction of this 200 -foot cell tower with
22 other technologies and new technologies are here, additional technologies are coming along,
23 which will easily satisfy all of these needs that have been identified in this case. Without the
24 necessity of building that 200 -foot eyesore, which for those people who live in the area, it may not
25 seem that way to others who don't live there, but I can assure you and I'm sure you all know
26 this... When you own property, when you bought that property you didn't expect there to be a 200-
27 foot tower visible from your home. No one would anticipate that, would expect that. And that's
28 exactly what's going to happen if the Board approves this application, and common sense tells
29 everyone that there is going to be an adverse impact on these properties. It's amazing to me that
30 any expert could take the position that it will not have an adverse impact. I don't know anything
31 about this article that appeared in the lawyers publication, I do know that lawyers don't voluntarily
32 go out and write articles, unless they're being paid by someone. And I would suggest that in all
33 likelihood these lawyers are representing either those that who construct cell towers or that
34 provide them to the cell services. They're certainly not experts. So it's our position and our request
35 that the application for the Special Use Permit be denied on its face.
36
37 Samantha Cabe: Alright, any questions from the Board before we close the public hearing and
38 enter deliberations? Oh, actually... It's 10 o' clock, do we have a motion to extend the hearing to
39 deliberate and render a decision?
40
41 Motion made by Barry Katz to extend hearing 30 minutes to include deliberations. Seconded by
42 Karen Barrows.
43 VOTE: Unanimous
44
45 Samantha Cabe: So currently this meeting will be extended to 10:30 pm. Now do I have a motion
46 to close the hearing and begin deliberations?
47
48 Matt Hughes: Ms. Goode, something that the opposing council mentioned was camouflage things.
49 Like I know it could be in this big binder of why that's not possible or if it was considered. But I do
50 know there are cell towers I've noticed in the area of 15 -501 in Durham, for example, near the
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 134 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Home Depot where's there's a cell tower that is camouflaged as a tree. You wouldn't notice it at
2 first until you realize it's a really tall tree and the other trees aren't so tall. Was that something that
3 was considered?
4
5 Laura Goode: So there was a statement in here, and I apologize; my brain is a little bit fried at this
6 point in time. I'm not sure exactly which tab this is in. I believe it is either in tab 4... And tab 27
7 also talks about the inability to flush mount antennas. Essentially, there's two different ways to
8 approach this. So first, in terms of stealthing there's other ways of stealthing than just the tree that
9 you've seen, the mono -pine as what we may refer to it as. We can also do slick poles, church
10 bells, church steeples, things of that nature. The problem with that is it limits, significantly, the
11 number of antennas and radios and types of either... You know, whether you can do fiber at the
12 site. So those are types of stealthing would not work to meet the network objective for this site as
13 stated in these statements because we need a certain number or antennas, a certain number of
14 radios, the fiber line, in order to make it perform and meet that network objective that we're trying
15 to meet. And you start to do stealth, I'm not talking about mono -pine, the other types of stealth
16 technology, it reduces the ability to use that technology. And that's why that's not feasible. In
17 terms of mono -pine, it was not something that was considered for this site. Typically, again, what
18 you run into with mono -pines is when the tower is going to be significantly taller that the existing
19 tree cover what you end up getting is a visual of a really tall pipe cleaner instead of a tree that
20 blends in with its surroundings. So typically we try to do mono -pine designs where you've got
21 trees where the tower is more similar to the height to the tree levels so that's it's not 100 -feet over
22 the trees, it's more like 30 -feet over the trees, if that makes sense. So does that answer your
23 question?
24
25 Matt Hughes: That does. And it's something that came to mind earlier and I just completely forgot
26 to ask it. So that satisfies my answer.
27
28 Samantha Cabe: And I have a question that may be for our attorney. I'll just pick someone... If we
29 made all the findings to say that we must grant this Special Use Permit, could we impose a
30 condition that as a condition of the issuance of the permit that TowerCom obtained a contract or
31 an agreement with the Buckner's' that they will not timber a certain area around the tower? That
32 they will leave intact the trees in a certain perimeter? As a condition of granting the permit. If we
33 make all of the findings.
34
35 James Bryan: Right, so I would recommend no. I would only recommend that you only make
36 conditions if there is a lacking of finding. If they can't meet the requirement. But if they've already
37 offered evidence that is substantial, competent material that they can meet the evidence with the
38 plan presented then there's no need for the condition. If they're agreeable to it that's another
39 matter. The other issue that I would say that it would meet a certain level of specificity, what
40 exactly.
41
42 Samantha Cabe: Like with the 40 -feet?
43
44 James Bryan: Yeah I'm not sure. Michael probably could help. You could say like our Type C,
45 whatever. But I think the factors are the width of it, 40 -feet, and then the type of tree so not those
46 you know small bushes. And then I imagine there's got to be another fact about density, but 1
47 don't...
48
49 Samantha Cabe: Ok.
50
OC Board of Adjustment- 12/12/16 Page 135 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Approved 3113117
Michael Harvey: Ordinance requires a Type C land use buffer per section 6.8.7 of the Unified
Development Ordinance. You're looking at having to comply with the minimum amount of
plantings for every 100 -foot of linear distance that makes up this buffer. I'm not going to sit here,
and it's in my Staff report twice, and tell you that a 40 -foot wide buffer is going to shield a 199 -foot
tall telecommunication tower. That's already identified as... You're not going to be able to shield
that if the site is totally timbered. What the Ordinance requires is what the Ordinance requires.
Samantha Cabe: And they're entitled to do it however they are proposing in their plan? We can't
have a condition that they do it a certain way?
Michael Harvey: Well, I will point out to the Board, and I think that Ms. Goode and her submittal for
your all's consideration this evening alters my condition to as currently with, so if I can call your
attention to page 162.
Samantha Cabe: Of our Agenda?
Michael Harvey: Agenda packet. We have recommended the imposition of 17 conditions. In the
instance that this Board makes a determination the applicant has met their burden then you can
issue the permit.
tower, as detailed
improved site pla
nI'll go over these incredibly briefly. Number one is it can only be 199 -foot tall
in the application package. Number two; existing vegetation as detailed on the
as acted uaon this Board shall be maintained as indicated in the applicaiton.
22 think you'll see what Ms. Goode has
23 maintained in the event in the event
24 Unified Development Ordinance.
asked you all to modify my condition to say that it will be
it's removed it'll have to comply with the provision of the
25
26 Samantha Cabe: So we can choose to not modify that condition? I just want to be sure that we're
27 not imposing something... If we get through the findings of fact, I know we're talking hypothetical
28 now but if we find that they've met all of the required findings and we get to the conditions I just
29 want to make sure that if we decide to impose such a condition as number two, as you have it
30 drafted here, that we're not imposing a condition that we cannot legally impose.
31
32 Michael Harvey: I'm going to let James weigh in on that before I answer.
33
34 James Bryan: And Laura might be in a good position because she's offered an alternative. She
35 might be able to explain why she's offered that alternative, what the distinction is.
36
37 Laura Goode: Sure. So we're only leasing a 100 by 100 -foot piece of this property. And so in
38 terms of the way I look at it is the Special Use Permit is for our use of that property and our use of
39 that leased area and our easement area and any conditions y'all put on that, that's on us. But
40 we're not leasing the rest of the property so we would just ask that you not put the burden on the
41 property owner, that is not part of the Special Use Permit, that they can't do any timbering to their
42 property because we have gotten them to agree to grant us an easement around the perimeter of
43 the property so that if they ever do timber. I mean, it's not certain. I think it's just been discussed.
44 But if it ever is then we would have the room around the facility to install that landscape buffer that
45 is required by the Unified Development Ordinance on sites where there is an existing vegetation.
46 And that's how we would meet that. So that's why I wanted to take that, "We shall maintain the
47 natural vegetation and perpetuity" because we've provided for that alternative. Also, again, the
48 property owners have graciously agreed since there are concerns about the potential for timbering
49 that they would consent to maintaining a 25 -foot wide buffer around the perimeter of the property
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 136 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Approved 3113117
if it's ever timbered. In addition to, we have to still install that landscaping if they timber that area
around our facility.
James Bryan: If I may... I don't know what Michael requires or what the Unified Development
Ordinance requires about whether it's the parcel that's applying for this Special Use Permit and is
required to be buffer or if it's their leased area. Whatever the Unified Development Ordinance
says, whatever Michael's interpretation of the UDO. However, and so... there is the case law
about harmony with the area, and what it says is that if it's in the Unified Development Ordinance
it's the prima facia argument you already made that it is sufficient. So if you have this in an area
where the BOCC have said an Special Use Permit is possible that's a prima facia case that it is in
harmony with the area. So likewise, the BOCC brought in to our Unified Development Ordinance
the Type C buffer. That's the prima facia of arguments that it is sufficient. Where that goes, that's
Michael's... Whatever the Unified Development Ordinance says has to be addressed.
Matt Hughes: So you're saying a way, or the way, to interpret the question of in harmony with the
area is because the Unified Development Ordinance allows for the construction of a
telecommunication structure within the rural buffer that that means that it would be... because
that's a permissible use it would be in harmony with the area?
James Bryan: Yeah.
Matt Hughes: Ok.
Laura Goode: Could I just? Sorry. Could I just add one more thing that I just thought of? Just to
say it another way. Say this property didn't have any type of timber on it whatsoever, no natural
vegetation. Because we're allowed to build it here with Special Use Permit all we would be
required to do is to install this vegetation. So instead of removing the vegetation that's there and
installing it immediately we're just going to clear as much space as we need to and leave those
trees. Now, what the property owners do with the rest of the land that's not under our lease
control, we don't really have control of that. But we would be held to the same standard if they
remove that vegetation. We would still have to include that Type C buffer around the perimeter of
the facility, which we have an easement for and we would do immediately, if that ever happens.
So we would be meeting the standards, regardless of anything that happens to the rest of the
property.
Samantha Cabe: Mr. Harvey, do you have anything to add before we close?
Michael Harvey: No. I sit at the pleasure of the Board.
Samantha Cabe: Alright. Any other questions before we close the hearing and go into
deliberation?
Matt Hughes: I have one more question for James. I'm just reading the standards. Could you job
my memory what public necessity means?
James Bryan: I don't know what public necessity means.
Matt Hughes: Or Michael if you...
Michael Harvey: Well, what I will you it's my humble opinion this is not a public necessity.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16
Page 137 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Approved 3113117
Matt Hughes: Alright. I was just curious. It says unless, I was just...
Michael Harvey: A public necessity is a land use that is essential to provide for the public safety
and general welfare. It could be argued that a school, in my humble opinion, is a public necessity.
We have had a major gas line company argue that it didn't have to provide an impact analysis
because it is providing a public necessity as dictated by the state utilities commission.
Telecommunication facilities are, in my humble opinion, not a public necessity which is why the
applicant was obligated to provide an impact assessment demonstrating this would not have an
impact on the value of adjacent property. The unfortunate part of my answer to you is you know it
when you see it. And that's ......
Matt Hughes: Thank you.
Samantha Cabe: So I don't have a copy of TowerCom's proposed findings. I can share with Barry.
know you handed them out but mine was either buried or...
James Bryan: Can I give a little bit more on public necessity? I think you need to look to the UDO
..... so we don't define it. It is not you know it when you see it. That cannot be your standard. Your
standard can be either case law, and I don't know of any, and then the dictionary, just go to the
dictionary and say this is what public necessity is. So it's the normal meaning of the words, that's
what you're supposed to give it.
Samantha Cabe: Thank you. Alright. Any other questions before we close the public hearing.
Alright do I have a motion to close the hearing and begin deliberations?
Motion made by Barry Katz to close hearing and begin deliberation. Seconded by Matt Hughes.
VOTE: Unanimous
Samantha Cabe: Alright. This Board will move now into the deliberation phase. Before we get to
the standards that are actually in Opposition, TowerCom's proposal and the Opponents Proposal,
why don't we go through the general submittal requirements and make a decision on those
because I don't believe we've received any objection to the general submittal requirements under
the Unified Development Ordinance for section 2 and all of it's subparts, which are reflected on
pages 145 and 146. Do we have a motion to adopt the recommendations of Staff as to the
general submittal requirements application components and notification components set forth on
page 145 and 146 of the Agenda.
Motion made by Matt Hughes to adopt the recommendations of Staff as to the general submittal
requirements application components and notification components set forth on page 145 and 146
of the Agenda. Seconded by Barry Katz.
VOTE: Unanimous
Samantha Cabe: And none of those appeared in either of the proposed findings for either party.
So getting to page 147 the use specific submittal requirements for telecom facilities. I'm just going
to go down. There does not appear to be any conflicting proposals with regard to sections 5.10.8
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.
James Bryan: And Chair, I think there's one on page 148.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 138 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Samantha Cabe: Page 148. Oh, ok.
3
4 James Bryan: The second one, (a)(1)(f).
5
6 Samantha Cabe: Alright. So with regard with the finding set forth on page 147 there appears to be
7 no opposition to those findings. Do I have a motion to approve the recommendations of Staff for
8 those use specifics submittal requirements set forth on page 147?
9
10 Motion made by Karen Barrows to approve the recommendations of Staff for those use specifics
11 submittal requirements set forth on page 147. Seconded by Barry Katz.
12
13 VOTE: Unanimous
14
15 Samantha Cabe: And the motion would be from Ms. Barrows and the second from Mr. Katz.
16 Alright, on page 148 we do have an objection to the third one down, I believe. Second one down.
17 A statement indicating how the proposed tower will minimize visual intrusiveness to surrounding
18 properties in the area. The abstract attachment 5, the application packets tabs 8 and 13, and
19 narrative tab 1 include the evidence that support the Staff recommendation of a finding of yes. So.
20
21 James Bryan: If I may? It's Opponents page 5, his last one there. The last item is the one that
22 correlates.
23
24 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. And the opponent proposes that the correspondence between
25 council for opponents and council for TowerCom on plans timbering, not disclosed anywhere in
26 the application, have a potentially dramatic impact on visibility of proposed tower and impact on
27 property values. Testimony of Owen and Evan Gwen and Mike Ogburn would support a finding of
28 no. Does anyone on the Board have a motion with regard to what they believe the finding should
29 be, and the basis for that finding?
30
31 Barry Katz: What I hear is that the timbering is not really germane to this application. Because it
32 has to do with property that's not being asked for right of way or for the use of this cell company.
33 So whatever happens with the timbering potential application has no bearing on whether the
34 approval or disapprove of this finding. Does anyone have anything else to say about that?
35
36 Matt Hughes: I agree with your assessment Barry.
37
38 Barry Katz: Yeah, that's what my understanding was, of what we heard. So I would propose that
39 we accept the Planning Department's Staff yes on 5.10.8(a)(1)(f).
40
41 Samantha Cabe: And as a basis for that finding of yes, what would you propose the supporting
42 evidence would be?
43
44 Barry Katz: That it's a rumor that deals with property that's not being applied for or influenced by
45 the application for the tower.
46
47 Samantha Cabe: Anyone, anything further? Do I have a motion?
48
49 James Bryan: If I may? Just for clarification, are you saying that the evidence presented by the
50 opposition is speculative in nature?
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 139 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Barry Katz: First it was speculative, and second; most of that property is not pertinent to the
3 application from the cell tower, from TowerCom or Verizon. So it's not germane to this hearing.
4
5 Samantha Cabe: And while I understand the concern over whether or not the property may or not
6 be timbered, I understand why that's a concern of this whole community, but I did not hear in this
7 hearing any evidence, even under our relaxed rules, that someone said this property that, "I am
8 the Buckner's and I have personal knowledge of our intent to timber, or not" or anything close to in
9 relationship with the Buckner's in knowledge of their intent. So it's really difficult I think to find a
10 finding about timbering when it's just been based upon rumors or maybe it will, maybe it won't. I
11 do think that there is the requirement if we get there of having the 40 -foot buffer. I would like to
12 impose the condition they would have to remain but I also understand we can't impose a condition
13 upon someone that doesn't have the authority to control the property we're talking about. So 1
14 would support a finding of yes for this particular finding because I do think that they have met the
15 standards of how they would propose to minimize the visual intrusiveness to surrounding
16 properties in the area. That they've met our standard of proposing a Class C buffer. Do I have a
17 motion?
18
19 Barry Katz: I move that we accept Staff's finding of yes.
20
21 Samantha Cabe: Alright and find that they have met that specific submittal requirement? Ok. So
22 with regard to including the second statement down on page 148 of the abstract do I have a
23 motion for the Board to adopt the recommendations of Staff on these Use Specific submittal
24 requirements, including the one we just deliberated?
25
26 Motion made by Barry Katz to adopt the recommendations of Staff on the Use Specific submittal
27 requirements. Seconded by Karen Barrows.
28
29 VOTE: Unanimous.
30
31 Samantha Cabe: And I believe that was the only one on that page that was opposed with
32 opposition to. Alright, on page 149 of the Use Specific submittal requirements, Mr. Bryan have you
33 identified which ones of these?
34
35 James Bryan: Yeah, I found the second to last one (s). And that's on page 4 of the opponent
36 proposal, the second one there.
37
38 Samantha Cabe: Ok. And this is one we'll probably have a lot of... So we must find that a written
39 affidavit... That there must have been submitted a written affidavit stating why the proposed site is
40 necessary for their communication service. So is this just the requirement that the submitted the
41 affidavit, not whether or not it establishes the need and no alternative?
42
43 James Bryan: That is correct. So the Unified Development Ordinance is big, cumbersome, and
44 confusing but it has... You can break it up into. I'm sorry, if I can... It's like a triangle and the
45 bottom is you've got submittal requirements and they've got general submittal requires. That's
46 every single Special Use Permit is going to give you a site plan, stuff like that. And then they have
47 uses, specific submittal requirements. So a daycare is going to tell you about buses, towers are
48 going to tell you about your fall zones, and then you're going to have standards of evaluation,
49 general, and then use specific. And then you're going to have the big three: welfare, property
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 140 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 value, and harmony for the area. So the submittal requirement should correlate some standard of
2 evaluation. So...
3
4 Samantha Cabe: So in this particular finding that is in the submittal requirements on page 149 that
5 finding only relates to whether or not the statement was submitted. Not whether it actually meets
6 one of the big three? But just that we received that affidavit in the application package? Am I?
7
8 James Bryan: I would agree with that.
9
10 Samantha Cabe: So with regard to finding the second from the bottom on page 149 with
11 5.10.8(a)(1)(s) the opponent is asking that we find no with regard to that. But I believe, as a
12 submittal requirement we are determining whether or not a written affidavit stating why the
13 proposed site is necessary was received, not necessarily that we're evaluating the substance of
14 that affidavit at this point. So behind application tabs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 21 and Narrative tab 1 Staff
15 has indicated that those are the documents that were received with the application.
16
17 James Bryan: If I may? So the... In your chart it says about the affidavit. There is more text from
18 the Unified Development Ordinance. If you'd like I could read that entirely so that you could
19 determine for yourself what standard would be applied.
20
21 Samantha Cabe: Sure, that might be helpful.
22
23 James Bryan: Your written affidavit stating why, "the proposed site is necessary for the
24 communication service" for example, for coverage, capacity, offloading, etcetera. And a statement
25 that there are no existing alternative sites within the provided search ring and there are no
26 alternative technologies available, which would provide the proposed telecommunication service
27 need without the tower.
28
29 Samantha Cabe: Do I have a motion as to whether or not they have met the standard of providing
30 such statements?
31
32 Motion made by Karen Barrows that applicant has complied with the submittal requirement of
33 providing the documents that Mr. Bryan read into the record. Seconded by Matt Hughes.
34
35 VOTE: Unanimous.
36
37 Matt Hughes: It's 10:30.
38
39 Samantha Cabe: Alright. Do I have a motion to extend the meeting an additional 30 minutes?
40
41 Motion made by Barry Katz to extend meeting an additional 30- minutes. Seconded by Matt
42 Hughes.
43
44 VOTE: Unanimous.
45
46 Samantha Cabe: Alright, the meeting is extended to 11:00 pm. So the Board has found the
47 second finding from the bottom on page 149 that the Applicant has met that specific submittal
48 requirement with regard to the other submittal requirements listed on page 149. Do I have a
49 motion that the Board find in the affirmative that they have met those obligations based upon the
50 recommendations of Staff in the noted documents in the application?
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 141 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Approved 3113117
Motion made by Barry Katz to accept Staff's recommendations on page 149 of specific submittal
requirements. Seconded by Karen Barrows.
VOTE: Unanimous
Samantha Cabe: On page 150. Are there any of those Unified Development Ordinance Submittal
requirements that the Opponent contends have not been met?
James Bryan: Yeah, I found the Applicant is supplementing the first one. The opponent has an
alternative for the fifth one.
Samantha Cabe: The first one and the... Alright, so the Opponent has submitted a supplement
with regard to application for the co- location of antennas.
James Bryan: The Applicant. (long pause) It looks like they're saying. They're adding letters
dated December 12th between Carolina Telecommunications Services LLC, Michael Harvey ......
Samantha Cabe: And was that submitted at some point?
James Bryan: I don't know. The December 12th one from Carolina Telecommunications.
Laura Goode: It was introduced into the record in the first hearing.
Jackie Hicks: Yes.
Samantha Cabe: On December the 12th? At our prior hearing? Oh yes, ok. Additional affidavit
number 4. Do you know about that? Ok. Staff has recommended a finding of yes, that they have
met that submittal requirement pending condition of numbers 8 and 9 in the abstract, which are on
pages 163. Do I have a motion to find that the Applicant has met their burden of submitting the
submittal requirement under 5.8.10(a)(2), which relates to applications for the co- location of
antennas?
Motion made by Barry Katz that the Applicant has successfully complied with the co- location
requirement obligation in 5.8.10(a)(2). Seconded by Matt Hughes.
VOTE: Unanimous
Samantha Cabe: Ok, motion carries. And then the fifth one down, that the Applicant has provided
evidence that the Applicant has investigate the possibilities of placing the proposed equipment on
an existing wireless support structure, and the Opponent has proposed that... I'm not sure, do you
see that they? I'm not seeing where they opposed that one or had an alternate finding, they
certainly argued it but.
James Bryan: So it's on page 5 1 believe, the second line of page 5 5.10.8(b)(3)(d).
Samantha Cabe: Ok and the Opponent has asked us to find no with the regard to that arguing that
there is no listing in the application of other structures capable of handling wireless equipment
such as electrical transmission towers, water towers, buildings, or other structures. The testimony
of Ben Levitan, the opponents expert on such structures and the use thereof to satisfy identified
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 142 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 needs are the evidence that they propose support the finding of no. And they have also set forth
2 the General Statute that we discussed earlier I believe.
3
4 James Bryan: And Madam Chair, if you'd like I've got the Unified Development Ordinance, which
5 is a little lengthy.
6
7 Samantha Cabe: Sure, if you would read the Unified Development Ordinance for us?
8
9 James Bryan: And so Michael's just does it to (b)(3)(d) the opponent specifying (d) subsection for
10 that so... Evidence that the Applicant has investigated the possibilities of placing the proposed
11 equipment on existing wireless support structure. Such evidence shall consist of the listing of all
12 wireless telecommunications support structure within a 2 -mile radius of the proposed wireless
13 support structure site and a listing of all wireless support structure, utility poles, and other
14 structures in the vicinity in the proposed vicinity that are technically feasible for utilization by the
15 Applicant to fill all or a substantial portion of the telecommunication service need identified by the
16 Applicant pursuant to section 5.10.8(a)(1)(s). Documents shall be submitted at the time of
17 application filing that indicates the Applicant's ability or inability to co- locate on the identified
18 towers and reasons why.
20 Samantha Cabe: Alright, and Staff's recommendation of finding that the Applicant has complied
21 with that provision of the Unified Development Ordinance are the application package tabs 4, 5, 6,
22 7, and 21 and Narrative tab 1. So that would include the network objective statement, Mr.
23 Haughney, who we also heard testimony from, the search ring photographs are tab 5, the 4G
24 capacity trigger sectors behind tab 6, and the... I can't remember what you call these but the
25 maps that show change in coverage with the proposed tower behind tab 7, and then 21, which is
26 a letter from Chase Real Estate Services. It has a copy of the Unified Development Ordinance
27 that Mr. Bryan just read. So the letter behind tab 21 states, "No tower or other suitable facility
28 exists within the area where the equipment is to be placed on the tower will function in its intended
29 manner. There is one wireless telecommunication support structure within a 2 -mile radius of the
30 proposed site" and that was their search ring that they spoke about in the paragraph above the,
31 "This wireless telecommunication support structure is not within the search area for the tower.
32 Verizon Wireless is already co- located on this wireless telecommunication support structure
33 shown as the Farrington Mill Site in the map of existing Verizon Wireless sites. There are no
34 wireless telecommunications support structures within the search area and no alternative
35 structures of sufficient height within the search area feasible for co- location. Therefore, a new
36 telecommunication tower is required. Please refer to the search ring map attached here too as
37 Exhibit 5. Please also refer to the map of existing Verizon Wireless site attached here too as
38 Exhibit 6 ". So that is the statement that the Applicant contends is evidence that they have
39 investigated the possibilities of placing the proposed equipment. And our Ordinance says that they
40 shall provide those lists. This letter behind number 22 states that they are providing this
41 information but that they are also submitting that they. It remains their position that the North
42 Carolina General Statutes control the review of this application but they're submitting the
43 information requested pursuant to the Unified Development Ordinance in the interest of time. So it
44 sounds like they're arguing that the Statute may not require this such specifics but they provided
45 us with this letter. Does anyone have any discussion or?
46
47 Barry Katz: I proposed that we accept the Staff's recommendation on 5.8.10(3)(d) based on the
48 evidence that the Applicant provided so listed.
49
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 143 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Approved 3113117
Samantha Cabe: I have amendment to that motion. I would move to amend that motion to also
include, based upon not only the evidence listed by Staff that we approve. That we find yes, that
that submittal requirement has been met based upon the Staff's list of supporting evidence but
also on the testimony that we heard at both hearings from Mr. Haughney.
Motion made by Barry Katz to accept Staff's recommendation on 5.8.10(3)(d) based on the
evidence that the Applicant so listed and also on Mr. Haughney's testimonies. Seconded by Karen
Barrows.
VOTE: Unanimous
Samantha Cabe: So the two items on 150 that had some dispute have now been approved by the
Board. Do I have a motion to approve all findings? To accept Staff recommendations on all
findings listed on page 150?
Motion made by Karen Barrows to accept Staff's recommendation on all finding on page 150.
Seconded by. Matt Hughes.
VOTE: Unanimous,
Samantha Cabe: Alright. Moving to page 151. Mr. Bryan did you find?
James Bryan: I didn't find any on 151, 2, or 3.
Samantha Cabe: Did you want to talk about (inaudible)?
(General inaudible conversation amongst the Board).
Samantha Cabe: Are there any items listed on page 151, 152, or 153 that a Board member would
like to discuss before we consider accepting Staff recommendations or making those specific
findings? Alright, do I have a motion to accept Staff Recommendations with regard to the
submittal requirements and the Special Use Permit specific standards that are set forth on pages
151, 152, and 153 of the abstract?
Motion made by Barry Katz to accept Staff Recommendations with regard to the submittal
requirements and the Special Use Permit specific standards that are set forth on pages 151, 152,
and 153 of the abstract. Seconded by Matt Hughes,
VOTE: Unanimous
Samantha Cabe: Alright, those are accepted. Page 154, continuation Use Specific Standards for
telecommunications facilities. Mr. Bryan did you identify those? My brain is broken down at this
point.
James Bryan: Yeah so one, two, and the last one.
Samantha Cabe: So let's start with number one.
James Bryan: And that's going to be on page 4 of the opposition's sheet. The last item there,
5.10.8(b)(1)(a).
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 144 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Samantha Cabe: Alright. The Use Specific Standards for telecommunications facilities, we must
3 make a finding that the overall policy and desire goals of promoting and encouraging alternatives
4 to constructing new wireless support structure would be met. And I know that there's more specific
5 language in the Unified Development Ordinance. I think that's a paraphrasing. The Opponent...
6 You said it's on page 4 or page 5?
7
8 Matt Hughes: Four.
James Bryan: Four, the last item.
Samantha Cabe: Oh. The Opponents argue that we should find that this Use Specific Standard
has not been met based upon the testimony of the opponents expert, Ben Levitan, on
commercially practical co- location of wireless equipment on existing structures capable of locating
equipment to satisfy identified needs, failure of application to even consider non -tower structures.
And if Mr. Bryan, could you just read the section of the Unified Development Ordinance that
addresses that Use Specific standard so we know exactly what we are looking for?
19 James Bryan: Yeah and if I may preface with... So I'm going to read (b) and then (1) and then (a).
20 They all sort of flow together. It's going to mention that it's a submittal requirement but also reads
21 as an evaluation and I think the Board needs to make a call on that. I think we're possible err on
22 the side of making a decision of whether it meets it or not... In addition to the general submittal
23 requirements detailed herein and these specific submittal requirements for all Special Use Permit
24 applications details within section 2.7 of these Ordinance Applicant's shall be required to adhere
25 to the following. One; the over policy and desired goals for the Special Use Permits for wireless
26 telecommunication support structures shall be promoting and encouraging, wherever possible, the
27 following: A.) Alternatives to constructing new wireless support structures including but not limited
28 to the co- location of wireless telecommunication equipment and mitigated the visual affect of a
29 wireless telecommunication support structure to an extent not commercially impractical. And if 1
30 may? Because it's got the extent commercially impractical I think that's a clear standard of
31 evaluation. We call this a middle requirement but it doesn't sound like it, it sounds .....
32
33 Samantha Cabe: Alright. Is there any discussion on that? I think we need to make a finding that
34 they have or they have not submitted evidence before us that would support a finding that there
35 are not wireless telecommunication towers or alternative structures that are commercially feasible
36 to meet their objectives for co- location within their search area, leaving no alternative to
37 constructing a new tower. So we would either find that they have or they have not met that
38 burden.
39
40 Matt Hughes: How is this? This requirement seems duplicative to what we approved.
41
42 James Bryan: Oh yeah. So there's lots of overlap with this.
43
44 Matt Hughes: I just don't want to seem like I'm going crazy.
45
46 James Bryan: No, you're not. You're going to see it again with the standards evaluation, and then
47 all those standards of evaluation. Remember those big three, the public health, safety, welfare,
48 property values, stuff like that. Those usually encompass all the other ones. So if you've got
49 something that says, I'm sorry I can't think of any examples but the buffers. That might fall into
50 property values. So there is a lot of duplication. Here in particular, but always.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 145 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Approved 3113117
Barry Katz: Well I propose that we submit Staff's recommendation and approve that the Applicant
has met this particular standard.
Samantha Cabe: Ok, and the Staff's proposed finding is that there are currently no wireless
telecommunication towers or alternative structures of sufficient height for co- location in search
area, leaving no alternative to constructing a new tower. Is that the proposed finding?
Barry Katz: That's the proposed finding. Ok. Sure, that is my proposed finding.
Motion made by Barry Katz to accept Staff's recommendation and approve that the Applicant has
met the burden under 5.10.8 (b) (1) (a) Seconded by Matt Hughes.
VOTE: Unanimous
Samantha Cabe: Same analysis under the next section. That the Applicant has met the burden of
showing that its plan to build the tower is promoting and encouraging placement to minimize
adverse aesthetic impacts. Staff's proposed finding is that it will be under 200 -feet and will be
made of material intended to blend with the sky, will be located at the rear of the large property,
it's set back 1,000 -feet from the adjacent public right of way, will be located on a densely wooded
property, in a not densely populated area that is separated from large residential developments.
The Opponent argues that we should find no in regard to that finding and is that in the same?
James Bryan: That's in page 5. The first one.
Samantha Cabe: The Opponent proposes that the Applicant doesn't utilize any stealth technology
or camouflage techniques and cites the testimony of Ben Levitan on commercially practical use of
alternative structures and technologies avoiding necessity for having to erect the tower. Is there
any?
Barry Katz: Well we heard expert witness opposing Mr. Levitan's observation for this particular
site. Mr. Levitan made very good points but as we see, well, as was proposed by the Applicant,
there really was no practical way aside from building this 199 -foot tower.
Karen Barrows: Well I think we heard Mr. Gwen. We heard the expert. And we've heard neighbors
that have said, aesthetically, they don't think it's positioned to minimize visibility.
Samantha Cabe: We did hear that the testimony how it is not aesthetically pleasing that will not be
aesthetically pleasing we also heard testimony regarding the infeasibility of the stealth technology
for this particular tower and the problems with the mono -pine, that it would look even worse.
Matt Hughes: I think it is what it is and they're doing what's possible given the specifications of the
cell tower and how much you would possibly camouflage it.
Samantha Cabe: Let's see if TowerCom addressed this in their... This is TowerCom's sort of
response but they didn't address this one on theirs. Mr. Bryan, could you read the section of the
Unified Development Ordinance to be 5.10.8 (b)(1)(b)?
James Bryan: Yes ma'am. Would you like the (B) and the (1) again for a refresher?
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16
Page 146 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Samantha Cabe: You can summarize the (B) and the (1) that you've already read in the. The Big
2 (B) 1.
3
4 James Bryan: Alright. It's that the Applicants shall be required to adhere to the following overall
5 policies and desired goals; Promoting and encouraging wherever possible the following: B) the
6 placement, height, and quantity of wireless telecommunication towers and equipment in such a
7 manner including but not limited to the use of stealth technology or camouflage techniques to
8 minimize adverse aesthetics and visual impacts on the land, property, buildings, and other
9 facilities adjacent to surrounding and in generally the same area as the requested location as
10 such wireless telecommunication support structure, which shall mean using the least visually and
11 physically intrusive facility that is not technologically or commercially impractical under the facts
12 and circumstances. Again, I would urge the Board that it's also past the circumstances it talks
13 about commercial technology that so applied as a standard.
14
15 Barry Katz: Ms. Goode addressed this issue tonight, in that in order for it to be commercially
16 practical there was no way on a 199 -foot tower that you could make this tower any prettier than it
17 is. But they made an application, we'll see whether it's a valid application, but they've made an
18 application to put this tower up and I can't imagine this tower could be rejected because there is
19 no way to make this thing prettier than it is.
20
21 Samantha Cabe: I think we would reject it if there was a way to make it prettier and they didn't do
22 it. Or if it was commercially feasible and they didn't do it.
23
24 Barry Katz: Right.
25
26 Samantha Cabe: I would say we heard testimony or there's evidence within the application that
27 the stealth technology, mono -pine, just were not feasible. That they did consider it and it was not
28 technologically feasible or commercially practical to implement either of those technologies and
29 standard does say that they must do it wherever possible, and technologically feasible and
30 commercially practical. Does anyone have a motion for me whether to find that they have met this
31 burden or not?
32
33 Motion made by Barry Katz to adopt staff's recommendation in regards to 5.10.8 (13)(1)(b) based
34 upon the Applicants presentation that it considered stealth technology and it was not logically
35 feasible or commercially practical. Seconded by Matt Hughes.
36.
37 VOTE: Unanimous
38
39 Samantha Cabe: We will find that the Applicant has met that burden. Going down to the last item
40 on this page. Location of wireless support structures 5.10.8(B)(4)(b). The... If you could help...
41
42 James Bryan: That's on, you're like where the abundance one...
43
44 Samantha Cabe: Yes, on page 5, the third one down. Is that it?
45
46 James Bryan: It's the third and the fourth one so. And Michael 's stops at (13)(4)(b).
47
48 Samantha Cabe: Which includes all the little subsections?
49
50 James Bryan: Yeah, and he split it up into (13)(1)(2) and then (13)(3).
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 147 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Samantha Cabe: Alright. And if you could just read that section of the Unified Development
3 Ordinance so we know exactly what we're deciding here?
4
5 James Bryan: Sure. So the little (b) is location of wireless support structures, and then (i) has
6 applicants for facilities shall locate site and erect site facilities according to the following priorities,
7 in the following order: A) on existing County owned facilities without increasing the height of the
8 tower or structure. B) On existing facilities without increasing the height of the tower or structure.
9 C) On County owned properties or facilities. D) On properties and areas zoned for commercial or
10 industrial use E) on properties and areas zoned agricultural residential, AR. F) on properties and
11 areas zoned for residential use. The second one (i) is: If an applicant proposes to place
12 telecommunications equipment at a location that is not on a preferred priority one site then the
13 applicant must provide a detailed explanation as to why a higher priority site is not proposed. The
14 explanation shall be in the form of a written report, demonstrate the applicant's review of the
15 above locations in order of priority and the reasons for the site selection. The explanation shall, at
16 a minimum, include the information required by section 5.10.8(B)(3)(t).
17
18 Samantha Cabe: So this is the... The staff recommends that the Applicant has met this specific
19 standard based upon application package tab 30 and 31, and Narrative tab 1. This would also, 1
20 believe, include that letter. The letter stating that there were no, in tab 21. That there were no
21 facilities existing in the area where the equipment could be placed on the tower, and they went
22 through the one wireless telecommunication support structure within a 2 -mile radius at the
23 proposed site even though that site was not in their search ring. They did identify that and explain
24 why that particular site was not available, but I believe there's also the letter stating that there
25 were no co- location sites within their search ring. I believe we talked about in our hearing the
26 Statute that says that we cannot require them to co- locate on a telephone pole or... and our
27 Statute specifically says that... Or our Unified Development Ordinance says that a telephone pole
28 is not a wireless support structure. And I believe the opponents position is that they didn't provide
29 a specific list of things that were there and that they turned down. But I'm not sure if they're saying
30 that there weren't any that you could provide a list of the negative, but their list was saying there
31 were not any that met the standard. And staff has proposed that we find, that the
32 telecommunication structure is located on property zoned rural buffer i.e., property zoned for
33 residential use. Facility siting is not possible at the locations identified in the subsection as there
34 are no existing mono -pole, lattice, or guide wireless telecommunications structures within one half
35 mile of the proposed wireless support structure. Do I have a motion with regard to whether we
36 should find yes or no that they have met this requirement?
37
38 Motion made by Karen Barrows to adopt Staff's recommendation in regard to 5.10.8(B)(4)(b)
39 based the evidence in the application package. Seconded by Barry Katz.
40
41 VOTE: Unanimous
42
43 Samantha Cabe: That motions carries. On to page 155. Are there any of page 155 Mr. Bryan?
44
45 James Bryan: I didn't find any.
46
47 Samantha Cabe: That is where the access provision is located. Does anyone have a motion with
48 regard to the findings on page 155, or would anyone like to discuss any of those? It would be a
49 finding that they've met their use specific requirements for fall zone setbacks, access, landscape,
50 and buffer type C land use buffer.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 148 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Karen Barrows: Can I just ask? And we did say that Ms. Corbin still has concerns that ......
3
4 Barry Katz: That's (inaudible)
5
6 Motion made by Barry Katz of finding that the Applicant has met its responsibilities under the
7 Unified Development Ordinance provision set forth on page 155. Seconded by Karen Barrows.
8
9 VOTE: Unanimous
10
11 Motion made by Barry Katz to extend meeting another 20- minutes. Seconded by Samantha
12 Cabe.
13
14 VOTE: Unanimous
15
16 Samantha Cabe: Alright. Page 156 of the abstract includes use specific standards
17 5.10.8(13)(4)(f)(g)(h)(i)(m)(j). Are any of those?
18
19 James Bryan: I didn't find any the general standards on 160.
20
21 Samantha Cabe: Alright, so we can consider the use specific standards. Do I have a motion to
22 adopt Staff recommendations with regard to use specific standards set forth on pages 155, 156,
23 157, 158, and 159? Or if there's any discussion we can...
24
25 Karen Barrows: Didn't we just do 155?
26
27 Barry Katz: Yeah, just 156 through 159.
28
29 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 156 through 159. Is there a motion to accept Staff with regard to use specific
30 standards?
31
32 Motion made by to adopt Staff recommendations with regard to Use Specific Standards on pages
33 156, 157, 158, and, 159 based on the comments in our records that the use and evidence.
34 Seconded by Karen Barrows.
35
36 VOTE: Unanimous
37
38 Samantha Cabe: And now, the ultimate questions. The general standards, with regard. Let's do
39 these one at a time. We are required to find that the use will or will not maintain or promote the
40 public's health, safety, and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and
41 operated according to the plan as submitted. Is there any discussion as to whether the Applicant
42 has met this burden? I will read to you the Opponents position on that. The Opponent states that
43 petitions in opposition to the application for telecommunications facility Special Use Permit made
44 part of the record, these are the supports for finding no, and testimony of Evan Gwen regarding
45 potential adverse impact on wildlife and plant life along adjacent wildlife corridor, as well as
46 unknown long term health hazards. Without necessarily finding that they have met that burden 1
47 will say that I do believe we've received into evidence impact statements on the environment and
48 the wildlife, as well as the Statute prohibits us from finding that there's a health hazard with regard
49 to the EMT's related to the cell tower. But otherwise, does anyone have a motion or want to
50 discuss whether the Applicant has met their burden?
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 149 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Approved 3113117
Karen Barrows: I think the use will maintain, promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
Samantha Cabe: And specifically what evidence that we heard makes you believe that it will
maintain or promote the health and general welfare?
Karen Barrows: We heard Dunc say that he thinks would allow for better communication for
emergencies. We have speculative heard there might be some adverse health effects .....
Barry Katz: We have the impact statements also that was submitted by the Applicant. We have
these environmental statements that support the fact that there will be no long -term adverse
effects to putting this in. Those were the basis for why we had this proposed, uh .... proposal that
we accept this.
Samantha Cabe: Do I have a? Is there a motion to find that the Special Use Permit would, that the
use will maintain and promote the public, health, safety, and general welfare if located where
proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted?
Motion made by Karen Barrows that the use will maintain and promote the public, health, safety,
and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan
as submitted. Seconded by Barry Katz.
VOTE: Unanimous
Samantha Cabe: So the second question. The use will or will not maintain or enhance the value of
contiguous property, unless the use is a public necessity, which I think we've talked about that it's
not, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of the contiguous property. So
Mr. Bryan, is there any case law or is there any more detail in the Unified Development Ordinance
about what it means to maintain the value, does it just mean to not cause it to decrease?
James Bryan: That would be my assumption, just by the plain meaning of the words. If you're
looking at not the negative, zero, or positive.
Samantha Cabe: The Opponent ..... the opponent asks us to find that the Applicant has not met
their burden to prove that they've met this standard based upon the testimony and appraisal
report of Mike Ogburn who is a residential appraisal expert, the testimony of Evan and Owen
Gwen, affidavits of Ben Rudnik and William Anylne, letters between council for opponents and
TowerCom regarding timbering of Buckner Family Farm Trust property, inadequacies of applicant
expert report on this issue, and failure of the applicant to establish a public necessity for the tower.
Karen Barrows: I think the opponents established the project would not maintain or enhance the
value of contiguous properties ......
Samantha Cabe: You believe that the opponents have. That their evidence.
Karen Barrows: They had the appraiser who was pretty clear ....
Samantha Cabe: So are making a motion that the Board finds that the Applicant has not met the
requirement that the use will maintain or enhance the value.of the contiguous property?
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 150 of 156
Approved 3113117
1
2 Karen Barrows: Well, it might be premature to say that ....
3
4 Samantha Cabe: Ok.
5
6 Matt Hughes: Well, and I'm not sure if this was ever. I guess this was entered into the record and 1
7 know the opposing council was calling to question who pay for it and whatnot, and in my opinion
8 calling into question the American Bar Association and folks who write for the publication, just
9 doing a quick Google search of two or three folks who wrote them, the article that appeared in this
10 publication. I know these are attorney's who, seemingly, were experts in real estate and in land
11 use and so I wouldn't necessarily discount that. That's not like some company hired them to write
12 this, necessarily. I'm not an expert on how these things come about but there definitely seems to
13 me to be conflicting evidence as to whether or not a tower could enhance the value of, or at least
14 diminish the value of, contiguous property. The expert, Mr. Ogburn, gave us a report that included
15 a Journal article that included a study that was done in New Zealand and I would've felt better
16 about that article if it was in... If that study had been conducted in the United States. In part
17 because of land use policies and practices that are more in line with that you see in the United
18 States.
19
20 Samantha Cabe: And it was twelve years old.
21
22 Matt Hughes: And it was twelve years old. So I don't think I can say that it will necessarily
23 negatively affect the contiguous property. The other thing is that Mr. Ogburn did present us with a
24 study that he did that, Samantha pointed out, was largely conducted using homes that were very
25 similar and it seems like the homes in this area are unique and I. You know, there could be other
26 factors that could possibly drive whether or not that property has diminished or enhanced value.
27 And I believe also the American Bar Association did point out something that was in Chatham
28 County, and also in Holly Springs, where there was some dispute as to whether or not a cell tower
29 would diminish the value of property. I think it's, maybe in some ways it's beauty is in the eye of
30 the beholder. I think a lot of people may look for good cell reception when they purchase a home,
31 maybe some don't. But I'm not convinced that the tower itself will diminish the value of the
32 property, just based on what I've heard tonight and what I heard last month.
33
34 Barry Katz: Well I listened to the testimony of the appraisers and I did not find the testimony all
35 that convincing on either side. Not at all. I mean really, I was troubled by it all. I didn't find the
36 Opponents evaluation to be convincing to me at all. And again, there are multiple factors that add
37 to maintaining or enhancing value of property. We're here in 2017 and we're still. We're at this
38 point where cell towers. They're not like part of the landscape. And this is why we're having this
39 meeting and why we're having such difficulty. I just don't know whether or not, based on the
40 testimony I heard I couldn't make a decision that a cell tower would diminish the property values. 1
41 have to say that I can't say that it would. And that's painful for me to say but I believe that so. 1
42 didn't hear any persuasive evidence that it was going to diminish property values.
43
44 Samantha Cabe: And I think this is the hardest one for me because our reality is now that cell
45 towers are a necessity in somebody's back yard in order to provide cell service in rural areas that
46 somebody in a rural area has to have a cell tower in their yard, and it's hard to weigh the effect on
47 the property values of the way it looks with the benefit that you get from having the good cell
48 service in those areas. And I don't know. I don't think either of our experts really spoke to the
49 weighing of those two issues. Probably because there's not really a good way to weigh that. But 1
50 would tend to agree that if we define maintain in the absence of a negative I did not find. I would
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 151 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Approved 3113117
say that Mr. Parkers report and testimony would support a finding that the use would maintain the
value. And I didn't find that Mr. Ogburn's testimony was convincing that it would diminish it. And
always think about power lines when I think about these things. You know, just from the little
wooden power poles that are around every neighborhood and how they were probably once
subject of similar discussions and now people don't even notice them. This is... It's troubling
because I understand that nobody wants a cell tower near their property.
Barry Katz: It's painful.
Samantha Cabe: But on the other hand, I don't know that they diminish the value. Particularly a
property that has so many other benefits to it. And it's unique by the testimony that we heard
given.
Karen Barrows: Well I think that's part of the point. It is unique. And that's why they don't want to
have to see the tower. And also I think the appraiser looked at the comparable(s) that, as was
stated already, had towers there in the subdivision already in existence. This is a very different
situation.
Barry Katz: My understanding of what you're saying is that the comparison were made in
subdivisions and this is an entirely different situation. Is that what you're saying, and that the
uniqueness of the rural quality is affected by this cell tower?
Karen Barrows: Well ....
Barry Katz: I can't say that I'm convinced that property values will be diminished when the time
comes when property is sold. I just, I'm not convinced that I can say that it would. Because of the
factors that that location is so appealing people will want to live there. This is as cold blooded a
thing to talk, in a way to talk about an area that's beautiful, it breaks my heart, but the area is so
desirable that I think property values will be maintained. This is not an aesthetic issue. This is just
a dollars and cents thing. From what I heard there was no compelling evidence to say that
property values would not be maintained and just trying to make a statement that going forward I
think that the cell tower issue will not be as consequential as other variable to the property there,
as far as maintaining value. Is that permissible, for me to state it that way?
James Bryan: Well to clarify, you all are relying on the expert opinion that you heard. Whichever
expert you choose is the expert opinion that you're relying upon. Only an expert can give an
opinion on property value and all evidence must be substantial, competent, and material. This is
obviously material. Both were introduced without objection as being competent. And now it's
whether it is substantial. Would it persuade the average person to make a certain conclusion?
Which is your conclusion to believe Smith or Ogburn.
Samantha Cabe: And I believe I called Mr. Smith Mr. Parker earlier, sorry about that.
Matt Hughes: So I mean, in my opinion, Mr. Smith presented evidence that properties would not
be negatively impacted. I guess in the absence of a positive, even zero is positive I guess you
could say. I was just not convinced at all by Mr. Ogburn's testimony regarding how the properties
would be negatively impacted. I guess to some extent you could say, I can't remember how the
saying goes, there are no knowns and no unknowns and etcetera, etcetera. But, I just. I believe at
worst, based on what we've received, that there may be no impact. At worst.
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 152 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Samantha Cabe: I'm just looking back at Mr. Parkers report.
2
3 Matt Hughes: Mr. Smith?
4
5 Samantha Cabe: Mr. Smith, sorry... I guess one difference in the expert opinions; Mr. Smith's
6 report did include a subdivision that's within Orange County, in the rural buffer. So it was more
7 similar. Even though it's still not exactly like this property. I don't think we're going to find a direct
8 comparison with this particular property. But it is within Orange County so it has a lot of the same
9 factors in determining value as far as location and amenities and that kind of thing. I don't know
0 if... I'm happy to discuss this more. If anybody has a motion either way?
Matt Hughes: I move that the use will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. That
we accept the Staff recommendation.
Samantha Cabe: And just for clarification, what is the finding based upon?
Matt Hughes: That the finding is based upon the Application package as well as... The finding's
based on the above findings, Applicant's Narrative and Staff report, as well as the testimony of the
experts.
21 James Bryan: To clarify, part of it Samantha's point about Mr. Smith's including the property in
22 Orange County versus Wake County?
23
24 Matt Hughes: That's right.
25
26 Motion made by Matt Hughes to adopt Staff recommendation in regard that the use will maintain
27 or enhance the value of contiguous property, based upon Applicant's Narrative and Staff's report
28 as well as the testimony of the experts, and the expert Mr. Smith's inclusion of the Orange County
29 properties. Seconded by Barry Katz.
30
31 VOTE: 3- 1(Barrows)
32
33 Karen Barrows: I'm opposed for the reasons I have stated ....
34
35 Samantha Cabe: So that's three for yes, and one for no... The third and final finding is that the
36 location and character of the use is developed according to the plan submitted will or will not be in
37 harmony with the area in which it is to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for
38 the physical development of the County as embodied in these regulations, or the comprehensive
39 plan or portion thereof adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. So this is the. Would this,
40 if developed, this plan be in harmony with the area?
41
42 Barry Katz: Am I right, Mr. Harvey, that the submittal and the recommendations we would get to
43 the point that the submission getting as far as a Special Use Permit implies that this application is
44 in harmony? I know I heard something along those lines so please clarify that.
45
46 James Bryan: Yeah so that the BOCC has allowed an Special Use Permit as a use in this area is
47 the prime facie case that it is in harmony.
48
49 Barry Katz: That's what I heard.
50
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 153 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 James Bryan: So it's an implication that they've... If you've heard anything contrary to that you
2 could still find an opposing end to that. Also, remember that this standard is more than just in
3 harmony. It's also and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the
4 County as embodied in these regulations or the comprehensive plan or portion thereof.
5
6 Samantha Cabe: So essentially, the fact that the County Commissioners have allowed this to be
7 an approved use that's the Prima facie case that it's in harmony but we could find that something
8 makes this out of harmony?
9
10 James Bryan: Oh definitely, yeah. The one inclusion is that you can't say no matter what you
11 showed me you wouldn't be in harmony. That you can't do. But if you had opposing evidence that
12 was substantial, competent material you could definitely that this is not in harmony or not with the
13 comprehensive plan.
14
15 Samantha Cabe: And the opponents position, with regard to finding that the Applicant has not met
16 this burden, is the testimony of Owen Gwen and Even Gwen, Dove Field property maps, photos
17 regarding visibility of the tower, and petitions in opposition to the new tower. Also, Dove Field
18 master plan map and testimony of Erin Gwen with regard to the tower. TowerCom contends the
19 supporting evidence for voting yes is the application package inclusive or but not limited to the
20 Narrative of tab 1, the impact analysis of tab 32 and 35 G, the site plan of tab 8, tabs 13, 33, and
21 35B, the balloon test results, which is abstract attachment 5, the location and character of the
22 proposed wireless telecommunication facility if developed according to the plan submitted will be
23 in harmony with the area in which it is to be located. Subject property and majority of surrounding
24 properties in the area are all zoned rural buffer or existing commercial. Five new free standing
25 telecommunication towers over 75 -feet high and under 200 -feet in high are permitted in the rural
26 buffer and EC5 districts as a Class B Special Use. It goes on to say the proposed tower will be
27 under the 200 -feet limitation in height and will be a monopole type design without lattice or guide
28 wires and will be made of galvanized steel to blend with the changing color of the sky. The tower
29 will not lit or marked. The proposed tower will be located toward the rear of the large, over 18-
30 acre, property set back over 1,000 -feet from the adjacent Mount Carmel Church Road public right
31 of way. The subject property upon which the tower will be located is currently densely wooded. As
32 much as the existing vegetation as possible will be maintained around the access road and tower.
33 They go on to talk about the landscape buffer and that the facility will be unmanned and will not be
34 an employment center requiring only periodic maintenance on a monthly basis on average.
35 Therefore, traffic in the area should not be impacted. The subject property is in a largely rural area
36 with surrounding properties that are also densely wooded and not densely populated, and
37 separated from large, residential developments. They contend that they are in compliance with the
38 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to their Narrative in tab 1. And propose the finding, that based on
39 the above findings, Applicant's Narrative and Staff's report, the location and nature of the use if
40 developed according to the plan submitted will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be
41 located. And the use in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the County as
42 embodied by these regulations and Comprehensive Plan... I think this Board is in a position of,
43 essentially, we can't say that. The County Commissioners have determined that the erection -of
44 this type of tower is a permitted use with a Special B Use Permit in a rural buffer zone. And
45 showing other than it's not in harmony regardless of what they do we have to find that it is in
46 harmony. And I think probably every neighbor in here would say there's nothing you could do to
47 make it in harmony. Because nobody wants it in their yard. But I don't know. We're not permitted
48 to make that finding. We have to be specific about why it's not in harmony. Because the County's
49 determined this is appropriate use in a rural buffer zoned area.
50
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 154 of 156
Approved 3113117
1 Barry Katz: They should've used a different word beside harmony.
2
3 Samantha Cabe: Is that from the statute or our Unified Development Ordinance?
4
5 James Bryan: Statute or case law, I cannot remember.
6
7 Barry Katz: This is a legal issue, essentially. Not a purely aesthetic issue in our opinions. We have
8 to have some material basis for making an aesthetic judgment.
9
10 James Bryan: Ok so, the Board definitely has discretion, but like everything else it must be based
11 upon substantial, competent, and material evidence.
12
13 Matt Hughes: So my thing is, I think we can look at harmony... Me, not being a lawyer, not know
14 case law. I think most people would read harmony and make the assumption it means, does it fit?
15 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
16 for us tonight that harmony has already been, in a way, established because the County
17 Commissioners, through the Unified Development Ordinance, have said this is an acceptable use
18 within the rural buffer, which I assume in order for them to have reached that conclusion they
19 would also have had to consult with the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Since they help
20 maintain the rural buffer through their joint planning jurisdiction. And so, therefore, I feel that
21 particularly how our local leaders tend to make policy that everything is thought out to the enth
22 degree, and that to get all of those jurisdictions onboard with allowing something like this within
23 the rural buffer had to jump through several hoops, in terms or whether or not this could be an
24 acceptable use in the rural buffer. Especially since the rural buffer is viewed to be very sacred to a
25 lot of people, for very understafidable reasons. But because it is allowed by the County
26 Commissioners for the rural buffer and it's not disallowed I believe it is in harmony with the rules.
27 And of course, like anything, if folks are really not happy about it or don't like those uses then you
28 have County Commissioners who can make those changes. But, based on the rules that we have
29 today in front of us, I think it is in harmony with the area.
30
31 Barry Katz: I agree with Matt, based on the constraints that we have as a Board. Not merely as
32 casual residents of the County or people that might frequent Mount Carmel Church Road, and
33 experience, etcetera. I don't see how we could reject this. Based on this standard. I don't see that
34 we have the evidence to reject this.
35
36 Samantha Cabe: Alright. Is there a motion to find that the location and character. Well I'll tell you
37 what; I'll just make the motion. I move that this board find that the location and character of the
38 use, if developed according with the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is
39 to be located, and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the
40 county as embodied in these regulations or the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof adopted by
41 the BOCC. That finding would be based upon the evidence submitted in the application package,
42 including Narrative at tab 1, the impact analysis in tab 32, the site plan at tab 8, the balloon test
43 results at abstract attachment 5, as well as the fact that the prima facie case has been established
44 for the use being in harmony and there's not been sufficient evidence to refute that prima facie
45 case. I move that the Board find that the Applicant has met this burden.
46
47
48 Motion made by Samantha Cabe to find that the location and character of the use, if developed
49 according with the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located, and
50 the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development of the county as embodied in
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 155 of 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Approved 3113117
these regulations or the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof adopted by the BOCC. That
finding would be based upon the evidence submitted in the application package, including
Narrative at tab 1, the impact analysis in tab 32, the site plan at tab 8, the balloon test results at
abstract attachment 5, as well as the fact that the prima facie case has been established for the
use being in harmony and there's not been sufficient evidence to refute that prima facie case. And
that the Applicant has met this burden. Seconded by Matt Hughes.
VOTE: 3 to 1 (Barrows against) Barrows indicated she did not believe the applicant demonstrated
full compliance.
Samantha Cabe: So the Staff is recommending that the ultimate issuance of the Unified
Development Ordinance be subject to conditions that are set forth on pages 162 and 163 of the
packet. Any Discussion?
Barry Katz: Didn't the applicant disagree with one of these ......
Matt Hughes: The buffer condition about trees .....
Samantha Cabe: I think we have the ability to modify or not. Having said that I think we have
recommendations from staff and I am not sure I have heard compelling reasons to deviate .....
Barry Katz: Yeah but can we really ... I mean the buffer standard is what the Ordinance says.
Susan Halkiotis: I think the conditions are reasonable.
Matt Hughes: I ..... hang on .... I think the conditions address some of the concerns we have
heard.
Samantha Cabe: Do I have a motion?
Motion made by Barry Katz to approve the permit and impose the conditions recommended by
staff. Seconded by Matt Hughes.
VOTE: Unanimous.
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Barry Katz to adjourn. Seconded by Karen Barrows
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16
NAME OF CHAIR, CHAIR
Page 156 of 156