BOA minutes 070813 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 9/10/2013 OC Board of Adjustment – 7/8/2013 Page 3 of 82 1 AGENDA ITEM 5: CASE A-2-13: Class B Special Use Permit Proposing Development of Telecommunication 2 Facilities at 1426 Old Greensboro Road (PIN 9768-22-3878) 3 4 In accordance with Section(s) 2.7 Special Uses, 5.2.2 Table of Permitted Uses, 5.3.2 Application of Use 5 Standards – Special Uses, and 5.10 Standards for Telecommunication Facilities of the UDO American Tower 6 and AT and T Mobility have submitted a Class B Special Use Permit application seeking a permit to erect a 7 199 foot telecommunication tower on a 28 acre parcel of property at 1426 Old Greensboro Road further 8 identified utilizing Orange County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9768-22-3878. 9 10 As detailed within the application, the applicant wishes to erect a telecommunication tower within a 100 foot 11 by 100 foot leased area on the south-west portion of the aforementioned parcel. There will be an equipment 12 cabinet at the base of the tower to house equipment for the various communication providers utilizing the 13 tower within a 60 foot by 60 foot fenced compound. 14 15 Access to the proposed facility is proposed to be through a proposed drive off of Sesame Road. 16 17 (This item was continued from the June 10, 2013 Board of Adjustment regular meeting.) 18 19 Larry Wright: I would like to summarize what has happened since a month ago. Mr. Harvey introduced the application 20 and a permit for American Tower and AT&T Mobility and then Mrs. Kemerait with the law firm of Styers, Kemerait and 21 Mitchell, who represents American Tower and AT&T, gave her statement and then we heard from Mr. Stephen 22 Howard, who is duly sworn and he is affiliated and is a specialist that is here supplementing the applicant for American 23 Tower and AT&T. Then we heard from David Smith, the appraiser and then Mr. Jeremy Browner, the vice-chair of 24 Economic Development and Public Policy and then from Jill House, from American Tower and Kristen Smith who lives 25 on Old Greensboro Highway who supported the telecommunications infrastructure. We heard from Desiree Goldman 26 of Greater Chapel Hill Association of Realtors. Mr. Aaron Nelson of the Chapel Hill Chamber of Commerce and Mr. 27 Gary Dixon who requested a 30-day adjournment. Mr. Dixon, please approach the board. 28 29 Michael Harvey: May I remind the board what we have already in the record. The staff’s abstract from the June 10, 30 2013 meeting including property maps, staff comments on the proposal, notification of materials and certification of 31 mailing and a special use permit. We also have the full application packet in your binder with 41 tabs/attachments 32 entered into the record and a copy of the UDO. The applicant also entered maps into the record, and the propagation 33 study maps. 34 35 Gary Dixon: (Distributed copies of presentation). My name is Gary Dixon and I have been sworn. I have one witness 36 that was not sworn in. (Witnesses were sworn in). First, I would like to thank you for being here and giving us another 37 chance. As you see, this is a farm we live beside; we have a subdivision to the side. The next picture is a 38 demonstration of what a 20 story tower would look like. The third picture gives you a better representation of where 39 our neighborhood is in relation to the tower. It shows there is a neighborhood, it keeps going out here and on the next 40 map, and there is a cluster of about 30 families that live off the side. At the entrance to our Pineview Drive there is 41 where the tower is proposed. I want to be clear, we are definitely not against cell towers but we are, as a community, 42 against the improper placement of a cell tower being directly visible on the way in and out of the neighborhood and 43 also from the other street. The UDO was put in place to enhance and preserve to enhance and preserve our property 44 values if one is granted and also preserve asthetics and as you can see my concern is that towering height being right 45 in the middle of a beautiful landscape… is that in harmony with the farm? What we really haven’t’ seen or talked about 46 is an overall plan of placement of towers in the county. You have somewhere there is a location and there is 47 somewhat of signal gap there, which is debatable but where AT&T needs to place but they have actually asked for the 48 maximum height that the law allows without going into other territory and there has been no talk of the least intrusive 49 effective of the tower. What can we do to make it least intrusive? My thought is simply why can’t we simply put it 50 somewhere else? I know AT&T has given a lot of testimony for the tower and we are for towers but do we need it at 51