BOA minutes 060815 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

OC Board of Adjustment – 6/8/2015 Page 20 of 68 1 Bob Hornik: Did he refuse your request to co-locate at any height? 2 3 Robert Hill: No sir. 4 5 Bob Hornik: So if he didn’t refuse you…… 6 7 Tom Johnson: I object to this line of questioning because we stipulated the fact that they wouldn’t let us co -locate but 8 the height at which we could get. 9 10 Larry Wright: Where are you headed with this line of questi oning? 11 12 Bob Hornik: What I want to make sure I am clear about is that T -Mobile was not refused or rejected at that site rather 13 T-Mobile rejected that site. 14 15 Tom Johnson: I’ll stipulate that fact that American Tower would allow T -Mobile on the site at the available height. I will 16 stipulate to that. 17 18 Mark Micol: Your request was to add additional height but they said you could not do that becau se the tower was not 19 sufficient? 20 21 Robert Hill: When the 105 didn’t work, we asked to extend. I don’t have the e xact number but we have probably 22 extended about 20 sites, and we have asked for others that were not structurally viable or had setback issues. So yes 23 sir we did ask for that. 24 25 Tom Johnson: One of the other standards under your ordinance is impact on property values. We hired yesterday 26 David Smith a local appraiser to take a look at that issue and I would like to have….that analysis is in your packet with 27 pictures. He compared it against another subdivision in Orang e County where there is a tower. You can see from 28 those pictures, tab 21, you can see the pictures and what that tower looks like from those locations where you can see 29 the nice part of the subdivision . Mr. Smith analyzed if there were homes in that subdivision that you could not see the 30 tower and there were homes that could see the tower. It is all in the same subdivision and that was the basis of the 31 analysis. I would like him to come speak to his analysis and his conclusion regarding that. The tower r eport is part of 32 the record but I do want him to address that but obviously he needs to be available for questioning purpose 33 requirements. He has been duly sworn. 34 35 David Smith: I live at 3 Morristown Circle in Durham. I have been sworn. I am a state certified general appraiser. I 36 have been appraising primarily in the Durham/Chatham/Orange area for the past 30 years. I also have a n MAI 37 designation. That is a professional designation. I relate it to a CPA. You can be an accountant and not be a CPA. 38 You can be an appraiser and not be an MAI. I would like to read, there are two pages, from the report on page 11. The 39 potential adverse effect from any proposed improvement or environmental hazards, noise, odor, lighting, traffic and 40 visual impact. I think other than visual impact there is no evidence of any adverse possible impacts from this. There is 41 a line of trees along the northern, eastern boundaries so it does minimize it there and there will also be a wooden 42 structure around the equipment so that won’t look any different than say a residential fence or building. The difference 43 is the tower itself sticking up. To estimate the effect of a cell tower on adjoining or abutting properties, I located a 44 subdivision with a cell tower that was adjacent. The subdivision is part of the Lake Hogan Farms in Northeastern 45 Carrboro and has a total of 82 lots. The cell tower is to the east of the subdivision and the property where the tower is 46 located is adjacent to five of the lots. It is also visible from 27 of the other lots. Using the Triangle MLS I located sales 47 that occurred from March 2001 to July 2014. From those found, I considered only those without basements that were 48 built after 1999. There were a total of 84 sales because some of the properties sold more than once. Of these 46 did 49 not have a view of the tower and the rest did. The tower is very different structure. It was over 200 feet, it is a lattice 50