Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />Approved 3113117 <br />Karen Barrows: I think the use will maintain, promote the public health, safety, and general <br />welfare. <br />Samantha Cabe: And specifically what evidence that we heard makes you believe that it will <br />maintain or promote the health and general welfare? <br />Karen Barrows: We heard Dunc say that he thinks would allow for better communication for <br />emergencies. We have speculative heard there might be some adverse health effects ..... <br />Barry Katz: We have the impact statements also that was submitted by the Applicant. We have <br />these environmental statements that support the fact that there will be no long -term adverse <br />effects to putting this in. Those were the basis for why we had this proposed, uh .... proposal that <br />we accept this. <br />Samantha Cabe: Do I have a? Is there a motion to find that the Special Use Permit would, that the <br />use will maintain and promote the public, health, safety, and general welfare if located where <br />proposed and developed and operated according to the plan as submitted? <br />Motion made by Karen Barrows that the use will maintain and promote the public, health, safety, <br />and general welfare if located where proposed and developed and operated according to the plan <br />as submitted. Seconded by Barry Katz. <br />VOTE: Unanimous <br />Samantha Cabe: So the second question. The use will or will not maintain or enhance the value of <br />contiguous property, unless the use is a public necessity, which I think we've talked about that it's <br />not, in which case the use need not maintain or enhance the value of the contiguous property. So <br />Mr. Bryan, is there any case law or is there any more detail in the Unified Development Ordinance <br />about what it means to maintain the value, does it just mean to not cause it to decrease? <br />James Bryan: That would be my assumption, just by the plain meaning of the words. If you're <br />looking at not the negative, zero, or positive. <br />Samantha Cabe: The Opponent ..... the opponent asks us to find that the Applicant has not met <br />their burden to prove that they've met this standard based upon the testimony and appraisal <br />report of Mike Ogburn who is a residential appraisal expert, the testimony of Evan and Owen <br />Gwen, affidavits of Ben Rudnik and William Anylne, letters between council for opponents and <br />TowerCom regarding timbering of Buckner Family Farm Trust property, inadequacies of applicant <br />expert report on this issue, and failure of the applicant to establish a public necessity for the tower. <br />Karen Barrows: I think the opponents established the project would not maintain or enhance the <br />value of contiguous properties ...... <br />Samantha Cabe: You believe that the opponents have. That their evidence. <br />Karen Barrows: They had the appraiser who was pretty clear .... <br />Samantha Cabe: So are making a motion that the Board finds that the Applicant has not met the <br />requirement that the use will maintain or enhance the value.of the contiguous property? <br />OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 150 of 156 <br />