Browse
Search
BOA minutes 060815
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Board of Adjustment
>
Minutes
>
2015
>
BOA minutes 060815
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 9:15:29 AM
Creation date
3/7/2018 10:22:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/8/2015
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
BOA agenda 060815
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Board of Adjustment\Agendas\2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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
<br />OC Board of Adjustment – 6/8/2015 Page 48 of 68 <br />technology techniques to minimize adverse aesthetics and visual land, property, buildings and other facilities adjacent 1 <br />to, surrounding and generally the same area as the requested location in such wireless telecommunication support 2 <br />structure. I ask this board to please exercise and apply some common sense in this application. This is not a 3 <br />complicated application when you look at the facts and look at where it stands in the ordinance. This applicant has not 4 <br />satisfied the requirements of the ordinance with respect to at least the issu e of being the least visually intrusive location 5 <br />of the tower. You are not obligated to allow T -Mobile to build its optimal site so they can argue about that if they want. 6 <br />You are not required to let them build the optimal; you are required to apply stan dards in your ordinance. They have 7 <br />not satisfied the ordinance. This last one has to do with the property value question. 8 <br /> 9 <br />Michael Harvey: I’ll put it in Exhibit 3. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Bob Hornik: The case is American Towers versus the Town of Morrisville in 2012 North Carolina Court of Appeals. I 12 <br />would direct the board’s attention to look at the facts of the case but when we get to the last two pages which deal with 13 <br />the impact on property value issue. The analysis of this court and the fact s that are presented to the court as the facts 14 <br />that are presented to you. The applicant in that case, the petitioner, presented expert testimony. The opposition did 15 <br />not, the court looked at that and said that the y responded that the petitioner responded found that the petitioner’s ____ 16 <br />on the issue of the proposed telecommunication was substantially ____ value of adjoin property to be deficient in four 17 <br />areas. One, report that _____. Two, the subdivision, the cell tower was in place before the neighboring homes were 18 <br />built as opposed to the case in here. Three, the report denied ___ the effect of possible evaluation of property and four, 19 <br />the report did not take into account any poten tial loss of value due to the loss of _____ the tower rising above the 20 <br />adjoining residential neighborhood. In the end, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court’s decision which 21 <br />affirmed the denial of a special use permit for a cell tower as in the case of American Towers versus Morrisville. And 22 <br />they decided to uphold the Court of Appeals opinion. The same proposition. So you don’t to accept their expert 23 <br />testimony as ____ if you don’t want to. I would suggest to the board that you shouldn’t accept that testimony. In 24 <br />addition to all the various specific provisions of the UDO that I submit the applicant did not satisfy, the applicant did not 25 <br />____on evidence to satisfy the second and third prongs on the general findings that you have to make to ___. They did 26 <br />not prove to you that this proposal would maintain or enhance the value of adjoining property and they did not prove to 27 <br />you that this proposal if built as proposed would be compatible and harmonious with the uses in the area and on those 28 <br />two grounds I would ask this board to deny the application. Thank you. 29 <br /> 30 <br />Larry Wright: I would like to thank both counsels and are there any questions that the board has? 31 <br /> 32 <br />Jeff Schmitt: Do you wish to proceed until we have deliberation and finding tonight or ar e we going to adjourn. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Larry Wright: We are not going to adjourn. We are going to go through this. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Karen Barrows: Michael, on page 141, there is a note from the health department, has this request been met? 37 <br /> 38 <br />Michael Harvey: They are proposing a su bdivision and that note is to remind time and ultimately you all of the 39 <br />testimony that if there is a subdivision of property we will have to evaluate the no expected impact statement. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Karen Barrows: This is not considered subdividing the property? 42 <br /> 43 <br />Michael Harvey: No. This is not going to be a subdivision. 44 <br /> 45 <br />Jeff Schmitt: Can I ask the applicant/petitioner of consideration for other sites within the two mile circle. Is that an 46 <br />appropriate thing or a business question? 47 <br /> 48 <br />James Bryan: There are some factors that are going to be business decisions and some that or not. You can’t ask 49 <br />them about their plans for expanded service but there is a submittal requirement in our UDO that says hey you have to 50
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.