BOA minutes 121216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Approved 3113117 say that Mr. Parkers report and testimony would support a finding that the use would maintain the value. And I didn't find that Mr. Ogburn's testimony was convincing that it would diminish it. And always think about power lines when I think about these things. You know, just from the little wooden power poles that are around every neighborhood and how they were probably once subject of similar discussions and now people don't even notice them. This is... It's troubling because I understand that nobody wants a cell tower near their property. Barry Katz: It's painful. Samantha Cabe: But on the other hand, I don't know that they diminish the value. Particularly a property that has so many other benefits to it. And it's unique by the testimony that we heard given. Karen Barrows: Well I think that's part of the point. It is unique. And that's why they don't want to have to see the tower. And also I think the appraiser looked at the comparable(s) that, as was stated already, had towers there in the subdivision already in existence. This is a very different situation. Barry Katz: My understanding of what you're saying is that the comparison were made in subdivisions and this is an entirely different situation. Is that what you're saying, and that the uniqueness of the rural quality is affected by this cell tower? Karen Barrows: Well .... Barry Katz: I can't say that I'm convinced that property values will be diminished when the time comes when property is sold. I just, I'm not convinced that I can say that it would. Because of the factors that that location is so appealing people will want to live there. This is as cold blooded a thing to talk, in a way to talk about an area that's beautiful, it breaks my heart, but the area is so desirable that I think property values will be maintained. This is not an aesthetic issue. This is just a dollars and cents thing. From what I heard there was no compelling evidence to say that property values would not be maintained and just trying to make a statement that going forward I think that the cell tower issue will not be as consequential as other variable to the property there, as far as maintaining value. Is that permissible, for me to state it that way? James Bryan: Well to clarify, you all are relying on the expert opinion that you heard. Whichever expert you choose is the expert opinion that you're relying upon. Only an expert can give an opinion on property value and all evidence must be substantial, competent, and material. This is obviously material. Both were introduced without objection as being competent. And now it's whether it is substantial. Would it persuade the average person to make a certain conclusion? Which is your conclusion to believe Smith or Ogburn. Samantha Cabe: And I believe I called Mr. Smith Mr. Parker earlier, sorry about that. Matt Hughes: So I mean, in my opinion, Mr. Smith presented evidence that properties would not be negatively impacted. I guess in the absence of a positive, even zero is positive I guess you could say. I was just not convinced at all by Mr. Ogburn's testimony regarding how the properties would be negatively impacted. I guess to some extent you could say, I can't remember how the saying goes, there are no knowns and no unknowns and etcetera, etcetera. But, I just. I believe at worst, based on what we've received, that there may be no impact. At worst. OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 152 of 156