Browse
Search
BOA minutes 121216
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Minutes
>
2016
>
BOA minutes 121216
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 9:14:19 AM
Creation date
3/7/2018 9:58:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/12/2016
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
BOA agenda 121216
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Board of Adjustment\Agendas\2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
156
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
Approved 3113117 <br />1 they looked for looked for other places to co- locate, they looked at other opportunities to use other <br />2 alternative technologies, they've looked at that Malot candidate. They're asking you to believe that <br />3 we are here and we have spent years on this process, thousands of dollars in applications fees, in <br />4 environmental assessments. We've done all that for a tower that is not needed and won't solve <br />5 the problem. That's what they're asking of you guys. And I believe that the evidence shows that <br />6 we need that tower, even though we don't have to prove it, and that it will address the problem <br />7 that is identified. In terms of any concerns about timbering, we have shown an alternative <br />8 landscape in the event that that happens, and I believe that the Buckner's' are willing to work to <br />9 make sure there is some type of a buffer that would remain on the property, in the event that that <br />10 did happen, although that's not certain. And finally, I'll just end by saying that the County, Mr. <br />11 Harvey, has gone through the application, determined that we met each of the standards. The <br />12 consultant, Jackie Hicks, with Carolina Telecommunications has determined that we meet all the <br />13 standards and they recommend approval. I would respectfully request that this Board approve as <br />14 well. <br />15 <br />16 Samantha Cabe: And do you have proposed findings to submit? <br />17 <br />18 Laura Goode: I believe I gave those to Mr. Harvey. <br />19 <br />20 Samantha Cabe: Oh, did you hand those out already? Ok, sorry. Thanks. <br />21 <br />22 John Price: I'd like to thank the Board for their time and attentiveness as well. I'll be brief in my <br />23 summation statement. The burden is on TowerCom to establish that this proposed tower will <br />24 maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, unless it was a public necessity it would, <br />25 have been there showing a public necessity in this case. As I read that standard, either maintain <br />26 or enhance and if the value of the contiguous property is diminished in any way that is not a <br />27 maintenance or enhancement of that property value. We have in this case the testimony and <br />28 appraisal report of Mr. Ogburn, who testified this evening, who is a residential appraisal expert, <br />29 unlike David Smith, who is primarily a commercial appraisal expert. Testimony of Evan and Owen <br />30 Gwen, the affidavits of Ben Rudnick and William Hamlin the prospective purchasers of properties <br />31 located within Dove Field. And I would submit that the report prepared by David Smith, which is <br />32 the only evidence provided in support of TowerCom's burden to prove maintenance or <br />33 enhancement of value, that Mr. Smith's report is inadequate in that it relies upon comparisons of <br />34 values without appraising the actual value of any property that's located in the immediate <br />35 contiguous area where this proposed tower's going to be built. I've cited two North Carolina cases <br />36 in the two letters that were submitted as part of opposition number 6 this evening where reports <br />37 almost identical to Mr. Smith's were rejected as being not substantial and not sufficient to meet <br />38 the burden of proof. In those cases it was not a burden of proof of maintain and enhance, it was a <br />39 stronger version a higher version, where they actually had to prove no substantial adverse impact. <br />40 1 would also submit that in Mr. Smith's report, if you read Mr. Smith's report, there are three <br />41 different occasions of that report where he specifically says, "indicates there will be damage to <br />42 property where the tower will be visible from that property ". Yet he doesn't appraise any of the <br />43 properties that will, in fact, have a clear view of this tower. So it's our position that TowerCom has <br />44 failed to meet its burden of proving maintenance and enhancement of value. In addition, although <br />45 there may be a prima facia case for this being in harmony with the surrounding area because of <br />46 the rural buffer definition of what is and is not permitted, and it does permit cell towers, we would <br />47 submit that the testimony of Mr. Owen Gwen, Even Gwen, the Dove Field master plan, maps, and <br />48 photos all support our clients position, which Amber Corbin also agrees with, and the other <br />49 gentlemen who spoke tonight, I can't remember his name, that... <br />50 <br />OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 133 of 156 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.