Browse
Search
BOA agenda 031317
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Agendas
>
2017
>
BOA agenda 031317
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2018 4:35:07 PM
Creation date
3/6/2018 4:26:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/13/2017
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
BOA minutes 031317
(Message)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Board of Adjustment\Minutes\2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
192
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
DRAFT <br /> <br />OC Board of Adjustment – 11/9/15 Page 97 of 156 <br /> <br />Laura Goode: Ok. I’m going to show you an article that is published by the American Bar 1 <br />Association. It’s dated May-June issue of 2016. And it’s titled probate and property. And the title of 2 <br />the article is, “Cell Phone towers do not affect property values”. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Michael Ogburn: Ok. 5 <br /> 6 <br />Laura Goode: Did I read that correctly? 7 <br /> 8 <br />Michael Ogburn: That’s what I see. 9 <br /> 10 <br />Laura Goode: Ok. And you’re not familiar with that article? 11 <br /> 12 <br />Michael Ogburn: No. I am not. Is this an appraisal organization? 13 <br /> 14 <br />Laura Goode: It’s the American Bar Association, is the publisher. 15 <br /> 16 <br />Michael Ogburn: Ok. Alright. Well …………… 17 <br /> 18 <br />Laura Goode: Correct …… And their credentials ……. Yes. At this time I would enter into the 19 <br />record. 20 <br /> 21 <br />John Price: I object to… that particular one is written by lawyers and not experts in appraisal by 22 <br />any means, or evaluation of property values. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Samantha Cabe: Well we’ll accept for whatever probative value it is given, we recognize it’s not 25 <br />attached to a qualified expert to give their opinion but I think we have a little bit of relaxed rules so 26 <br />we’ll accept it but we’ll recognize that probative value may be different than an opinion by a 27 <br />qualified expert. 28 <br /> 29 <br />Laura Goode: Certainly. We were just presenting this to contradict because it directly addresses 30 <br />the New Zealand study that’s offered by their expert. And it also uses U.S. data, specifically data 31 <br />in North Carolina. 32 <br /> 33 <br />Michael Harvey: This is Applicant Exhibit 4. 34 <br /> 35 <br />Laura Goode: I don’t have any additional questions. 36 <br /> 37 <br />John Price: I just have two additional questions that I’d ask. With respect to the properties 38 <br />between Mr. and Mrs. Gwen’s property and the cell tower does most of that property belong to 39 <br />Dove Field? 40 <br /> 41 <br />Michael Ogburn: That’s correct. 42 <br /> 43 <br />John Price: And was the percentage impact that you applied to the evaluation of Mr. and Mrs. 44 <br />Gwen’s property the low range of what you found to be? 45 <br /> 46 <br />Michael Ogburn: Yes, so in other words it was the differential then between Cobble Ridge and 47 <br />Sunset Ridge, not the differential between those properties adjacent but most immediately 48 <br />adjacent to the cell phone tower. So yes, it was the lower of the two, as were not immediately 49 <br />adjacent to this. We’re still going to have it in our horizon but we’re not immediately next to it. 50 <br />99
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.