Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 7/8/2013 <br />OC Board of Adjustment – 6/10/2013 Page 83 of 92 <br />David Smith, who is a North Carolina certified real estate appraiser and he has completed and 1 <br />provided his expert opinion that the telecommunications tower will maintain or enhance the value of 2 <br />contiguous property. I have also shown in the application materials that we have met the third 3 <br />general standard that the telecommunications tower will be in harmony in the area which it is located 4 <br />and it will be in compliance with the ordinance and with the Comprehensive Plan. As the Board 5 <br />knows, the inclusion of a use such as a telecommunication tower use as a special use for a particular 6 <br />zoning district, in this case, the rural buffer zoning classification, that the use is in harmony with the 7 <br />area in which it is to be located. We have also provided evidence in addition to that to show for the 8 <br />previous standard, that the tower will not be an environmental hazard and it will not create a nuisance 9 <br />and it will be in harmony with the rural area in which it will be located so therefore, I have shown that 10 <br />we have met all specific and technical requirements of the ordinance and all the general requirements 11 <br />of the ordinance. David Smith, the appraiser, is here to speak about his property impact analysis but 12 <br />if the Board would like I could speak to the property owners about your question and have some 13 <br />information about that first. 14 <br /> 15 <br />Larry Wright: Can Mr. Smith give his presentation while you do yours? 16 <br /> 17 <br />David Smith: I have been sworn. I live at 3 Morristown Circle in Durham, North Carolina. I am a 18 <br />state certified general appraiser, I also have an MAI and SRI designations of the appraisal institute. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Karen Kemerait: Have you had an opportunity to prepare a property impact analysis? 21 <br /> 22 <br />David Smith: Yes, I have. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Karen Kemerait: Who asked you to prepare that property impact analysis? 25 <br /> 26 <br />David Smith: You did. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Karen Kemerait: Can you describe the research and analysis you did for that property impact report? 29 <br /> 30 <br />David Smith: This information is in the report you have. To estimate the effect of a cell tower on 31 <br />nearby properties, I located residential lot sales in two subdivisions in Durham. One where there 32 <br />were two cell towers clearly visible and one that was not. These subdivisions were in the same area 33 <br />near Eno River in Durham and I analyzed the sales of these lots. One of these was the River’s Edge 34 <br />Subdivision. It is the one with the two towers adjacent to it. One of these towers was 470 feet lighted 35 <br />lattice so you could see it very easily. The other was a 192 foot unlit similar to the one that is 36 <br />proposed here. The subdivision has about 50 residential lots and the tax values of the houses that 37 <br />were built range from $255,000 to $639,000 with an average of $456,000. Forty two of the lots sold 38 <br />between August 2003 and March 2009. Eno Forrest is the other subdivision and it is located in the 39 <br />same general area with no towers visible. This subdivision has 25 lots with tax values that range from 40 <br />$366,000 to $566,000 with an average of about $460,000 so the averages are pretty close. Twenty 41 <br />two lots sold in this subdivision between November 2004 and June 2007. They are similar in most 42 <br />respects, they are both in Northern Durham and near Eno River and would appeal to the same type 43 <br />of buyer. I analyzed the sales of the lots in the two subdivisions and I made adjustments for things 44 <br />like primarily difference in time because of the way property values go up and down depending on 45 <br />time. I have charts of these sales in this report and they are on pages 12 and 13 behind tab 39. 46 <br />While the lots vary in sales price, the average is both before and after adjusting for market conditions, 47 <br />that is time, give very close indications. Based on this, the two telecommunication towers have not 48 <br />had significant effect on property values and their construction will maintain or enhance the value of 49 <br />contiguous property in my opinion. Also, cellular towers have become a necessary and desired item 50 <br />in today’s world. In order to meet this need, telecommunication towers have become a common part 51 <br />of the landscape, much the same as power lines, telephone lines and other utilities have. Like these 52 <br />utilities, telecommunication towers are needed in locations throughout the country. As such, they are 53