Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 3113117 <br />1 <br />2 John Price: Thank you. And with regard to the need, I can't remember where that was exactly, 1 <br />3 didn't have that written down. I also have an objection on page 11, the first paragraph of the <br />4 analysis where you state, "based on the plans of the proposed tower and conversations of those <br />5 associated with it, there will be no environmental hazards. ". That statement is solely based on <br />6 what someone else told you, correct? <br />7 David Smith: Correct. <br />8 <br />9 John Price: That's hearsay and we object to that statement to the extent that it would try to be <br />10 used as evidence as any kind and with respect to whether there are or not environmental hazards. <br />11 <br />12 Samantha Cabe: And Mr. Price, can I stop you for just one moment? Do we need to be ruling on <br />13 each of these? <br />14 <br />15 James Bryan: I wouldn't think so. I think, like we discussed... First of all, it's already in the record <br />16 so it could be that he's asking you to strike that from record but I don't think that is what we're <br />17 doing. I think these are arguments that this is not a competent material or substantial evidence. 1 <br />18 think we can take that into consideration and give it it's due weight in your deliberations. <br />19 <br />20 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. <br />21 <br />22 Laura Goode: And if I may just comment to that objection on his point, experts are allowed to base <br />23 their opinions on hearsay and that is what he's done. He's not said specifically whether people <br />24 said inaudible. <br />25 <br />26 John Price: It is a recognized exeption to the hearsay when the hearsay is within the specialty and <br />27 expertise of the witness. In this case the hearsay has nothing to do with his opinion with respect to <br />28 value of property. This solely goes to the question of environmental hazard, and the exception <br />29 does not apply. <br />30 <br />31 Samantha Cabe: Thank you. <br />32 <br />33 Barry Katz: Did we hear that according to statutes that we're not considering health hazards in the <br />34 substance of this? Isn't that what you said? Health issues are not a part of this hearing? <br />35 <br />36 James Bryan: So yeah, if that becomes an issue I would advise you to ask the attorney's to further <br />37 argue that. There are Federal Laws that apply here that are to only apply to cell towers. I'm not <br />38 particularly an expert at that. My frank advice is that I don't think that's going to be what they're <br />39 asking you to base your decision on, either party. <br />40 <br />OC Board of Adjustment — 12/12/16 Page 20 of 156 <br />