BOA minutes 061013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 7/8/2013 OC Board of Adjustment – 6/10/2013 Page 84 of 92 in harmony with the area in the same way that other utilities are. In conclusion, based on the set of 1 plans in the proposed tower and inspection of the properties in the area of the proposed tower site, 2 an analysis of data gathered and facts of inclusion contained in this report and subject to the 3 assumptions and limited conditions stated, it is my opinion that the proposed tower will maintain or 4 enhance the value of the contiguous properties and will be in harmony with the area. 5 6 Samantha Cabe: In the example you gave in the two subdivisions in Durham, did you compare the 7 sales of the lots prior to the erection of the tower with sales of the lots after the erection of the tower 8 or did you compare sales in general without regard to timing? 9 10 David Smith: One of them, the towers were already in place before the subdivision sold any lots. 11 The other one, there were no towers at all. 12 13 Samantha Cabe: How many of these types of evaluations have you done? 14 15 David Smith: About 9. 16 17 Samantha Cabe: Have you ever found that a cell tower had a negative impact on property value? 18 19 David Smith: No, I never have. 20 21 Larry Wright: Any other questions? 22 23 Karen Kemerait: We have spoken with the property owners and Mr. and Mrs. Yow have stated they 24 are willing to provide an easement so that the existing trees that are shown on the schematics will be 25 preserved. 26 27 Mark Micol: Why was that area chosen? Was it due to topography or to keep it out of the farmland? 28 Is there a particular reason you didn’t move it over 100 feet? 29 30 Karen Kemerait: There had been an earlier location and there is a stream buffer and then the actual 31 tower location had to be moved outside the stream buffer. We had tried to put the tower as deep into 32 the woods as possible so that it would have as less visibility as possible. When we met with Mr. 33 Harvey, he informed us that it was located in the stream buffer and we were disappointed because 34 we did have to move the tower outside that area so we have worked really hard to find a very good 35 site. We found this 28 acre piece of property and put the tower located within the wooded area and 36 we actually have it located deeper in the woods than it currently is. 37 38 Larry Wright: Anyone else want to speak for the applicant? Mr. Harvey do you want to speak? 39 40 Michael Harvey: I think it would be best to hear from people on the list. The first person signed up 41 was Mr. Monroe, who is the County’s telecommunication consultant; he is here to answer any specific 42 questions the Board may have to address any concerns or comments. The next individual signed up 43 is Jeremy Browner. 44 45 Jeremy Browner: I have been duly sworn. I rise in support. I am a solo practice attorney in Chapel 46 Hill; I live in Carrboro. I am also the Vice-Chair for the Economic Development and Public Policy 47 Committee. I want to reiterate what I said in the earlier application which is this tower is a very 48 important public policy for the county which we want to diversify our tax base because we are having 49 issues funding services we have now and continuously require tax increases. One of the ways we 50 can fight this is having more businesses formed and increasing the value of the property and one of 51 the ways to do that is allowing businesses to be formed outside the normal town limits we have now 52 and one of the only ways of doing that is having access to data which is very important. Of course, 53