Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
DRAFT <br /> <br />OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 20 of 156 <br /> <br /> 1 <br />John Price: Thank you. And with regard to the need, I can’t remember where that was exactly, I 2 <br />didn’t have that written down. I also have an objection on page 11, the first paragraph of the 3 <br />analysis where you state, “based on the plans of the proposed tower and conversations of those 4 <br />associated with it, there will be no environmental hazards.”. That statement is solely based on 5 <br />what someone else told you, correct? 6 <br />David Smith: Correct. 7 <br /> 8 <br />John Price: That’s hearsay and we object to that statement to the extent that it would try to be 9 <br />used as evidence as any kind and with respect to whether there are or not environmental hazards. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Samantha Cabe: And Mr. Price, can I stop you for just one moment? Do we need to be ruling on 12 <br />each of these? 13 <br /> 14 <br />James Bryan: I wouldn’t think so. I think, like we discussed… First of all, it’s already in the record 15 <br />so it could be that he’s asking you to strike that from record but I don’t think that is what we’re 16 <br />doing. I think these are arguments that this is not a competent material or substantial evidence. I 17 <br />think we can take that into consideration and give it it’s due weight in your deliberations. 18 <br /> 19 <br />Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 20 <br /> 21 <br />Laura Goode: And if I may just comment to that objection on his point, experts are allowed to base 22 <br />their opinions on hearsay and that is what he’s done. He’s not said specifically whether people 23 <br />said inaudible. 24 <br /> 25 <br />John Price: It is a recognized exeption to the hearsay when the hearsay is within the specialty and 26 <br />expertise of the witness. In this case the hearsay has nothing to do with his opinion with respect to 27 <br />value of property. This solely goes to the question of environmental hazard, and the exception 28 <br />does not apply. 29 <br /> 30 <br />Samantha Cabe: Thank you. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Barry Katz: Did we hear that according to statutes that we’re not considering health hazards in the 33 <br />substance of this? Isn’t that what you said? Health issues are not a part of this hearing? 34 <br /> 35 <br />James Bryan: So yeah, if that becomes an issue I would advise you to ask the attorney’s to further 36 <br />argue that. There are Federal Laws that apply here that are to only apply to cell towers. I’m not 37 <br />particularly an expert at that. My frank advice is that I don’t think that’s going to be what they’re 38 <br />asking you to base your decision on, either party. 39 <br /> 40 <br />22