BOA agenda 031317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 151 of 156 1 Karen Barrows: Well, it might be premature to say that …. 2 3 Samantha Cabe: Ok. 4 5 Matt Hughes: Well, and I’m not sure if this was ever. I guess this was entered into the record and I 6 know the opposing council was calling to question who pay for it and whatnot, and in my opinion 7 calling into question the American Bar Association and folks who write for the publication, just 8 doing a quick Google search of two or three folks who wrote them, the article that appeared in this 9 publication. I know these are attorney’s who, seemingly, were experts in real estate and in land 10 use and so I wouldn’t necessarily discount that. That’s not like some company hired them to write 11 this, necessarily. I’m not an expert on how these things come about but there definitely seems to 12 me to be conflicting evidence as to whether or not a tower could enhance the value of, or at least 13 diminish the value of, contiguous property. The expert, Mr. Ogburn, gave us a report that included 14 a Journal article that included a study that was done in New Zealand and I would’ve felt better 15 about that article if it was in… If that study had been conducted in the United States. In part 16 because of land use policies and practices that are more in line with that you see in the United 17 States. 18 19 Samantha Cabe: And it was twelve years old. 20 21 Matt Hughes: And it was twelve years old. So I don’t think I can say that it will necessarily 22 negatively affect the contiguous property. The other thing is that Mr. Ogburn did present us with a 23 study that he did that, Samantha pointed out, was largely conducted using homes that were very 24 similar and it seems like the homes in this area are unique and I. You know, there could be other 25 factors that could possibly drive whether or not that property has diminished or enhanced value. 26 And I believe also the American Bar Association did point out something that was in Chatham 27 County, and also in Holly Springs, where there was some dispute as to whether or not a cell tower 28 would diminish the value of property. I think it’s, maybe in some ways it’s beauty is in the eye of 29 the beholder. I think a lot of people may look for good cell reception when they purchase a home, 30 maybe some don’t. But I’m not convinced that the tower itself will diminish the value of the 31 property, just based on what I’ve heard tonight and what I heard last month. 32 33 Barry Katz: Well I listened to the testimony of the appraisers and I did not find the testimony all 34 that convincing on either side. Not at all. I mean really, I was troubled by it all. I didn’t find the 35 Opponents evaluation to be convincing to me at all. And again, there are multiple factors that add 36 to maintaining or enhancing value of property. We’re here in 2017 and we’re still. We’re at this 37 point where cell towers. They’re not like part of the landscape. And this is why we’re having this 38 meeting and why we’re having such difficulty. I just don’t know whether or not, based on the 39 testimony I heard I couldn’t make a decision that a cell tower would diminish the property values. I 40 have to say that I can’t say that it would. And that’s painful for me to say but I believe that so. I 41 didn’t hear any persuasive evidence that it was going to diminish property values. 42 43 Samantha Cabe: And I think this is the hardest one for me because our reality is now that cell 44 towers are a necessity in somebody’s back yard in order to provide cell service in rural areas that 45 somebody in a rural area has to have a cell tower in their yard, and it’s hard to weigh the effect on 46 the property values of the way it looks with the benefit that you get from having the good cell 47 service in those areas. And I don’t know. I don’t think either of our experts really spoke to the 48 weighing of those two issues. Probably because there’s not really a good way to weigh that. But I 49 would tend to agree that if we define maintain in the absence of a negative I did not find. I would 50 153