BOA minutes 060815 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

OC Board of Adjustment – 6/8/2015 Page 32 of 68 Bob Hornik: I’m not trying to make any correlation between the propagation and the search ring but I do want to poi nt 1 out that…the purpose of the search ring theoretically is that citing a tower within the search ring will satisfy or achieve 2 the applicant’s objectives to provide coverage that is still straight by the propagation study. I suppose the point of this 3 particular photograph and this information is that more than 90 percent of this search ring is located in Durham County ; 4 only 9 percent is in Orange County. A good portion of the area supposedly covered is located in Durham County, some 5 in Orange County, no question about it. The applicant hasn’t demonstrated any investigation of other locations that 6 may be suitable in Durham County or elsewhere. They really said this was the site and that is a bout it and I think that is 7 important for the board’s consideration when you look at the criteria when you are supposed to apply to make a 8 determination on the application. 9 10 Samantha Cabe: Is there something in the statute or ordinance that allows us to require them to look outside their 11 search ring. 12 13 Bob Hornik: I don’t think there is anything that neither the statute nor ordinance that requires you…well the ordinance 14 talks about the two mile radius but I think the statute limits you a little bit with r espect to the search rings. I don’t 15 disagree with Tom’s saying it is about the impact of the statute on that. This case and this application, I really think, 16 boils down to two points for the board’s consideration. I think it is hard to argue under 5.3.2 (A).1 that cell tower and cell 17 service generally promotes the public health safety and welfare. I’m not going to focus on those two criteria. The two 18 criteria that I am more concerned about are subparagraphs 2 and 3 . Subparagraph 2 deals with the impact and 19 whether the proposed cell tower will enhance or maintain the value of adjoining property. 20 21 Tom Johnson: Again, I renew my objection that if he is going to speak to that, that he needs to have an expert, either a 22 real estate expert or an appraiser to give an opinion to contra the appraiser we put up. 23 24 Bob Hornik: I’m not going to offer an opinion on that but my point is that I submit to the board that the information 25 presented to you by the applicant who has the burden of proof that it doesn’t satisfy the requirement. It is my confident 26 and substantial evidence that the proposed facility will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous properties. Mr. 27 Smith’s report didn’t even address the impact on any adjoining or contiguous properties. 28 29 Larry Wright: Based on ….. 30 31 Bob Hornik: Looking at the Lake Hogan Farms tower, that Lake Hogan Farms tower does not abut or adjoin any of the 32 properties that you could use as comparison for this particular site. I submit, we are talking apples and oranges. The 33 Lake Hogan Farms properties and that cell tower are completely different in character, different in factual circumstance 34 than this tower at this location. This tower is a tower in an open field, there is not a stand of trees around it, there is a 35 line of a few trees at the adjoining property line on Ms. Hall’s property. The ___ was going to be out in the field directly 36 across the street from the ____, it’s not the same application or the same affect. 37 38 Tom Johnson: Wasn’t Mr. Smith trying to make a correlation between those visibility and non-visibility and showing 39 there was no difference in sales. 40 41 Bob Hornik: I think that is what he was trying to do but he did not do it adequately and that his report should n’t be given 42 the weight he would want it be given. The second point is Section 5.3.2(A)2c. 43 44 Larry Wright: I would also like to call Mr. Smith because I have another issue. Did you get an assessment to encounter 45 that? 46 47 Bob Hornik: We didn’t get an assessment to counter that. We don’t have to prove t hat the tower will have a negative 48 impact on the value of your property. The applicant’s burden of proof is to establish that the tower will enhance or 49 maintain the value of the adjoining property. That is their burden of proof, not our proof. You don’t have to prove the 50