Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
<br />This item was transcribed verbatim per the Clerk to the Board. <br />Geof Gledhill: Before Craig Benedict goes any farther, I want to remind the Board that <br />this is aquasi-judicial public hearing, in part. Mr. Benedict was sworn the last time he presented <br />evidence, and he is still under oath. The same would be true with any other witnesses that <br />testified. If there is anybody who is going to speak tonight who has not already been sworn in, <br />they will need to be sworn in as part of this public hearing. <br />Chair Carey: We'll recognize that fact when we get to the audience for speakers. <br />Craig Benedict: Good evening, Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director. I <br />have been sworn. This item is a two-part item. First, it is the Piedmont Electric Membership <br />Corporation Planned Development rezoning or atlas amendment. That is the legislative part of <br />the hearing as was referenced by the attorney. The second part of it is a special use permit, <br />Class A, where there are special use conditions attached to the item. That is the quasi-judicial <br />part of the hearing where sworn testimony can be taken. The original public hearing on this item <br />was a joint public hearing with our Planning Board on October 3~d. That was somewhat of a <br />special public hearing in order to hear this item for Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation. <br />This item was referred to our Planning Board, and on November 1St, the Planning Board heard <br />this item and took additional written testimony from Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation. <br />also want to announce tonight that we have our County's consultant, Rusty Monroe, who <br />represents the County for applications far telecommunication towers. He is here in the back <br />row, and he's available also to answer any questions as the Board may have. He also was <br />available to our Planning Board during that meeting and did provide some additional testimony. <br />We have the applicant here tonight, Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation, and <br />their appraiser, Mr. Misenheimer, may provide additional testimony tonight. <br />The Planning Board deliberated on the information provided at the public hearing, the <br />information within the application, and found that the rezoning, the atlas amendment, was in <br />order and recommended approval. They reviewed the findings of fact within the special use <br />permit and found that they did generally meet the conditions, the general conditions of health, <br />safety, and welfare; maintenance of property values; and specific conditions. Based an the <br />testimony that has been provided to date in both verbal and written farm, we submit to you <br />tonight the complete application with a recommendation that the application be approved to <br />include first a decision on the atlas amendment to rezone to Planned Development Office <br />Institutional, and if so inclined to approve that part of the application process, to proceed to <br />special use permit Class A and include the resolution of various conditions far the Class A <br />special use permit shaven an pages 7-17. Those are the items that we would expect if you do <br />proceed to the special use permit part of the process included in the resolution of approval. <br />What staff also recommends is that, given na more additional testimony tonight, the public <br />hearing remains open to this meeting, and that after public comment is made that the Board <br />close the hearing and deliberate upon the findings. That is all of my testimony and presentation <br />for tonight. <br />Chair Carey: Are there questions from members of the Board for Mr. Benedict? <br />Hearing none, I will call on the only person who has signed up to speak on this item, and that is <br />Mr. Mike Parker. Were you sworn at the last meeting? <br />Mike Parker: I was. <br />Chair Carey: Then you can proceed to speak. <br />Mike Parker: I'm Mike Parker, I'm general counsel for Piedmont Electric, and I signed <br />up to speak only to make one point, which Mr. Benedict has already touched on. On the <br />agenda action item abstract that you have on the second page, one of the things, if you'll look at <br />the third page, number six, one of the issues that was raised at the joint meeting on October 3~d <br />was that the tower was a public safety necessity, public need necessity. As I understand it, this <br />is an either/ar standard. Either it needs to be a public safety or public need necessity, ar you <br />have to have a finding that it will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property. We <br />