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