Loading...
Agenda 2015 02-02AGENDA NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Assembly Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse 24 North Third Street, Room 301 Wilmington, NC JONATHAN BARFIELD, JR., CHAIRMAN - BETH DAWSON, VICE - CHAIRMAN SKIP WATKINS, COMMISSIONER - WOODY WHITE, COMMISSIONER - ROB ZAPPLE, COMMISSIONER CHRIS COUDRIET, COUNTY MANAGER - WANDA COPLEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY - TERESA ELMORE, CLERK TO THE BOARD FEBRUARY 2, 2015 6:00 PM STATE OF THE COUNTY ADDRESS (Chairman Jonathan Barfield, Jr.) BREAK FOR RECEPTION MEETING CALLED TO ORDER (Chairman Jonathan Barfield, Jr.) INVOCATION (Pastor Wayne Johnson, Sr., St. Stephen A.M.E. Church) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Commissioner Woody White) APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS 1. Approval of Minutes 2. Adoption of State Road Resolutions 3. Appointment of Directors to the New Hanover County Financing Corporation 4. Approval to Submit a 2016 Grant Application to the N.C. Governor's Highway Safety Program for Funding in the amount of $20,000 -- "Booze It and Loose It" and "Click It or Ticket" 5. Award of Contract to Audit the County's Financial Statements to Cherry Bekaert, LLP 6. Approval of NC Education Lottery Project Application for Renovations Needed to Use the Sidbury Road Site as a "Swing Space" for the College Park Elementary School During Building Replacement 7. Approval of Board of Education Capital Outlay Budget Amendment #5 8. Adoption of Budget Amendments ESTIMATED REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS MINUTES 40 9. Public Hearing Special Use Permit Request (S -623, 11/14) - Request by Hellman, Yates, and Tisdale on Behalf of Angela W. Steele Life Estate to Develop a 150 - Foot -Tall Telecommunications Tower at 6516 Murrayville Road 10 10. Consideration of a Utility Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement 20 11. Consideration of Request for Approval to Proceed with the Issuance Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 of an RFP (Request for Proposal) for Construction and Demolition Recycling Equipment for the New Hanover County Landfill, as Included in the FY14 -15 Adopted Budget PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS (limit three minutes ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS MINUTES 10 12. Consideration of a Resolution Opposing the Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate Modification for the Towns of Apex, Cary and Morrisville, and Wake County (For RTP South) Alternative 2A - Increase IBT to Meet 2045 Demands 10 13. Additional Items County Manager County Commissioners Clerk to the Board County Attorney 14. ADJOURN Note: Minutes listed for each item are estimated, and if a preceding item takes less time, the Board will move forward until the agenda is completed. Mission New Hanover County is committed to progressive public policy, superior service, courteous contact, judicious exercise of authority, and sound fiscal management to meet the needs and concerns of our citizens today and tomorrow. Vision A vibrant prosperous, diverse coastal community, committed to building a sustainable future for generations to come. Core Values Integrity - Accountability - Professionalism - Innovation - Stewardship Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2015 CONSENT DEPARTMENT: Governing Body PRESENTER(S): Chairman Barfield CONTACT(S): Teresa Elmore, Clerk to the Board SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes BRIEF SUMMARY: Approve minutes from the following meetings: Agenda Review Meeting held on January 13, 2015 Regular Meeting held on January 20, 2015 STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Keep the public informed on important information RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve minutes. COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2015 1416101 OWN I DEPARTMENT: Governing Body PRESENTER(S): Teresa Elmore, Clerk to the Board CONTACT(S): Teresa Elmore SUBJECT: Adoption of State Road Resolutions BRIEF SUMMARY: NCDOT is considering the addition of the following roads and requesting the Board to adopt resolutions in support of adding the roads to the state system: Monterey Drive Extension located within the Harbor Villa Subdivision (Section 3) in New Hanover County (Division File No. 1210 -N). Pine Hollow Drive located within the Pine Hollow (Phases 1 & 2) and Cambridge Heights (Phases 1 & 2) sections of Johnson Farms Subdivision in New Hanover County (Division File No. 1212 -N). Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Keep the public informed on important information RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt SR -2 resolutions. ATTACHMENTS: NCDOT Request Letter and Maps (Harbor Villa) NHC Map State Road SR -2 Resolution (Harbor Villa) NCDOT Request Letter and Maps (Pine Hollow and Cambridge Heights in Johnson Farms) NHC Map State Road SR -2 Resolution (Pine Hollow and Cambridge Heights in Johnson Farms) COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. X610ILIIL%19M011Of"MaltoY[ 010 Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 2 PAT MCCRORY GOVERNOR v, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION January 9, 2015 Teresa Elmore, Clerk to the Board New Hanover County Board of Commissioners 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 175 Wilmington, NC 28403 EI VED 11 f', II 1 "0 9-015 NOO WOO ANTHONY J. TATA SECRETARY Subject: Proposed Addition to the State System of Highways; Monterey Drive extension (Div. File No: 1210 -N) Dear Ms. Elmore, This office is considering adding Monterey Drive extension to the North Carolina Department of Transportation state highway maintenance system. The requested roadway is located within the Harbor Villa (Section 3) subdivision in New Hanover County. After the Board's consideration, if they concur with our recommendation, please furnish this office with the current county resolution and official road name for our further handling. If I may be of further assistance, please advise. Thank you, 7L L�- Anthony . L District Engineer AWL: jdd Attachments: Copy of SR -1 Road Petition request form and locator map District 01i'ice 300 DivisWoard of'�ogonsN n2 840k��10 25�- 015 Fax (910) 251 -2759 ITEM: 2 - 1 - 1 I �. � � � .� • .� ....w. - -,rte.. 16 qfAQL IL WA TED W 7WM a MAPp� V rd1w[V dw1 U&WW Mr...i*�7YY w►i.rYY,.ULMYLYI WO PMONFR CG,- W= - 0t7 UNA, MELD FM a N Oil W �� AM M c��....... R&b a e ins %s � ar: o � 5 � a TWO alp NOT Mk= TO • - - r. STacscs RFsr L A Ewan ar�sla � L��asiar > WdIE'ift AND Y MSLEO OVORF JAW. S SRKZ i . r > y Ply 0 :'DIY wmmdo" ft 4XA f I I .Wwcw Jw Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 2 - 1 - 2 t- a WT 73 LOr RZ I DT W � 4 � xj =mac Oa W. i2i 74i ff L Y �r a Y ■ LDT 72A 1p "I a ILb LOT 70 C M �L k cow p 1 ! f tr 56'P2WE i REVISION OF LOTS 71 a 72 SECTION 3 HARBOR VILLA WgM90RD TdWNSIAP NEW PARWO COUNTY WOMN WWNA SCALE i`F QO` MAY. ISM ScALF- !N FEET 50 -- COMIC avail fty Asa ► N C MWIM90 swiem OVUM, Riplatr a[ VALMINGTM, H G f' Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 2 - 1 - 2 71-A JF� F fir'- �.. � : � LEP Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 2 - 1 - 4 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 2 - 1 - 5 NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REQUEST FOR ADDITION TO STATE MAINTAINED SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM North Carolina County of New Hanover Road(s) Description: Monterey Drive Extension located within the Harbor Villa Subdivision (Section 3) in New Hanover County (Division File No. 1210 -N). WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the Board of County Commissioners of the County of New Hanover requesting that the above described road(s), the location of which has been indicated on a map, be added to the Secondary Road System; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is of the opinion that the above described roads) should be added to the Secondary Road System, if the roads) meets minimum standards and criteria established by the Division ofHighways of the Department of Transportation for the addition of roads to the System. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners of the County of New Hanover that the Division of Highways is hereby requested to review the above described road(s), and to take over the roads) for maintenance if they meet established standards and criteria. CERTIFICATE The foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the County of New Hanover at a meeting on the 2nd day of February, 2015. WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 2nd day of February, 2015. Teresa P. Elmore, Clerk to the Board New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Form SR -2 Please Note: Forward directly to the District Engineer, Division of Highways. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 2 - 3 - 1 PAT MCCRORY GOVERNOR d� 5iA1Fa STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION December 31, 2014 Teresa Elmore, Interim Clerk to the Board New Hanover County Board of Commissioners 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 175 Wilmington, NC 28403 RMI VED J01 13 2015 I$Wt 110cc ANTHoNY J. TATA SECRETARY Subject: Proposed Addition to the State System of Highways; Pine Hollow Drive (Div. File No: 1212 -N) Dear Ms. Elmore, This office is considering adding Pine Hollow Drive to the North Carolina Department of Transportation state highway maintenance system. The requested roadway is located within the Pine Hollow (Phase 1 & 2) and Cambridge Heights (Phase 1 & 2) sections of Johnson Farms subdivision in New Hanover County. After the Board's consideration, if they concur with our recommendation, please furnish this office with the current county resolution and official road name for our further handling. If I may be of further assistance, please advise. Sincerely, Anthony a District Engi r AWL:jdd Attachments: Copy of SR -1 Road Petition request form and locator map District Office 300 Division Dr. Wilmington NC 28401 (910) 251 -2655 Fax(910)251-2759 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 2 - 4 - 1 101) 19 ZOO Is IN kRz Board ofCommissioners February 2.2015 | 9 p - V1lkk''� €f r �a s 3 > A- J 01 i Sc 'a2 2R �S ib If O LJI ,III li � r iT � 4 . d�i7,lrYifi7+w,cW �, , Z I A I ;u 11 �IU 1 1` I z a z µ�y 1 f z z y • � i`6� f 4 ib If O LJI ,III li � r iT � 4 . d�i7,lrYifi7+w,cW �, , Z I A I ;u 11 �IU 1 1` I z a z µ�y 1 f z z f I f 4 f T i afo�ti on �„} I f` 3��j P'' P 4. I �fAM we j L �I t J ti F I I n i 1 � € E E 'N N1 IL s 1 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 0 c� r'l h t� z z ra Y1 f'• i afo�ti on �„} Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 0 c� r'l h t� aa�]ll2l{f1 3��j P'' P 4. L... Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 0 c� r'l h t� Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 2 - 4 - 4 a c O C r O 1 4- 0 N 06 r-1 G] H M L CL 0 -0 0 CA x CA m E c �- ro a LL eta to.- GL' n 0 c r 0 a N N ro L h r bo 2 bp r -a 3 0E E ro U li Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 2 - 4 - 5 Z37 a k 3� 4 � l w= VICTMON aq MT2 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 1 3JZfi 'em IM NORTH CAROLINA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REQUEST FOR ADDITION TO STATE MAINTAINED SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM North Carolina County of New Hanover Road(s) Description: Pine Hollow Drive located within the Pine Hollow (Phases 1 & 2) and Cambridge Heights (Phases 1 & 2) sections of Johnson Farms Subdivision in New Hanover County (Division File No. 1212 -N). WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the Board of County Commissioners of the County of New Hanover requesting that the above described road(s), the location of which has been indicated on a map, be added to the Secondary Road System; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is of the opinion that the above described roads) should be added to the Secondary Road System, if the roads) meets minimum standards and criteria established by the Division ofHighways of the Department of Transportation for the addition of roads to the System. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners of the County of New Hanover that the Division of Highways is hereby requested to review the above described road(s), and to take over the roads) for maintenance if they meet established standards and criteria. CERTIFICATE The foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the County of New Hanover at a meeting on the 2nd day of February, 2015. WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 2nd day of February, 2015. Teresa P. Elmore, Clerk to the Board New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Form SR -2 Please Note: Forward directly to the District Engineer, Division of Highways. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 2 - 6 - 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2015 CONSENT DEPARTMENT: County Attorney PRESENTER(S): Wanda Copley, County Attorney CONTACT(S): Wanda Copley SUBJECT: Appointment of Directors to the New Hanover County Financing Corporation BRIEF SUMMARY: The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners is the appointing authority for directors of the New Hanover County Financing Corporation. Article III, Section 2, "Number, Term and Qualifications," stipulates that the directors shall hold the office for three years. Directors may be re- elected. The appointments of Chris Coudriet and Lisa Wurtzbacher are now requested as both directors have replaced other directors through vacancies. These appointments are to clarify their respective terms. Their terms shall run through 2018. Chairman Barfield was appointed on January 5, 2015 as part of the Appointments to Various Boards and Committees item. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Appoint Chris Coudriet and Lisa Wurtzbacher to the New Hanover County Financing Corporation. ATTACHMENTS: Financing Corp Bylaws COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 3 4P BYLAWS OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY FINANCING CORPORATION ARTICLE I OFFICES Section 1. .Principal O zce: The principal office of the corporation shall be at 3100 Tower Boulevard, Suite 1200, Durham, North Carolina 27705. Section 2. Re&i Bred Q rce: The registered office of the corporation shall be at 3100 Tower Boulevard, Suite 1200, Durham, North Carolina 27705, Attention: John L. Crill. Section 3. Other Offices: The corporation may have offices at such other places within the State of North Carolina, as the Board of Directors may from time to time determine, or as the affairs of the corporation may require. ARTICLE H 1VIEMERERS The corporation shall have no members. ARTICLE III DIRECTORS Section .I. General Powers: All corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the authority of, and the business and affairs of the corporation managed under the direction of, its Board of Directors. Section 2. Number Term and Qua li cations: The number of Directors shall be not Iess than three (3) and not more than five (5). Within the foregoing limits, the Board of Directors shall have the power and authority to fix or change the number of directors, with the approval of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners. The number of directors constituting the initial Board of Directors shall be three. Each Director shall hold office for three years or until his death, resignation, retirement, removal, disqualification, or his successor is elected and qualified. A Director may be re- elected. Section 3. Election o Directors: Directors (except the initial Directors) shall be elected, appointed, or designated by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners. Section 4. Removal: A majority of the Directors then in office or the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners may remove any Director at any time with or without cause. NGHK; 79194_1 -1- Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 3 - 1 - 1 Section S. Vacancies: If a vacancy occurs on the Board of Directors, the vacancy shall be Filled by the Board of Directors, provided that such appointment is ratified by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners. Section 6 Chairman: There may be a Chairman of the Board of Directors elected by the Directors from their number at any meeting of the Board. The Chairman shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Directors and perform other such duties as may be directed by the Board of Directors. Section 7. Compensation: The Board of Directors may fix the compensation of Directors. ARTICLE N MEETINGS AND ACTION OF THE BOARD Section 1. Regular Meetings: A regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held on the first f f N each year, if not a legal holiday; but if a legal holiday, then on the next day following which is not a legal holiday, for the purpose of transacting such business as may be properly brought before the meeting. In addition, the Board of Directors may provide, by resolution, the time and place, within the State of North Carolina, for the holding of additional regular meetings. Section 2. S ecial Meetin s: Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called by the Chairman or Secretary or shall be called by either of them upon the written request of the majority of the Directors. Section 3. Presence at Meetings: The Board of Directors may permit any or all Directors to participate in a regular or special meeting by, or conduct the meeting through the use of, any means of communication by which all Directors participating may simultaneously hear each other during the meeting. A Director participating in a meeting by this means is deemed to be present in person at the meeting. Section 4. Notice of Meetin s: Regular and Special meetings of the Board of Directors shall be held upon such notice sent by any usual means of communication not less than seven days before the meeting. Such notice shall reasonably describe the purpose of the said meeting. Section S. Waiver of Notice: A Director may waive any notice required by law or these Bylaws before or after the date and time stated in the notice. The waiver shall be in writing, signed by the Director entitled to the notice, and filed with the minutes or corporate records. A Director's attendance at or participation in a meeting waives any required notice to him of the meeting unless the Director, at the beginning of the meeting (or promptly upon his arrival), objects to holding the meeting or transacting business at the meeting and does not thereafter vote for or assent to action taken at the meeting. Section 6 uorum: A majority of the Directors fixed by these Bylaws shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting of the Board of Directors. NGHK: 79194_ E -2- Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 3 - 1 - 2 Section 7 Action W thous Meeting: Action required or permitted to be taken by a Board of Directors' meeting may be taken without a meeting if the action is taken by all members of the Board. The action must be evidenced by one or more written consents signed by each Director before or after such action, describing the action taken, and included in the minutes or filed with the corporate records reflecting the action taken. Action taken under this section is effective when the last Director signs the consent, unless the consent specifies a different effective date. A consent signed under this section has the effect of a meeting vote and may be described as such in any document. ARTICLE V COMMITTEES Section 1. Creation: The Board of Directors may create one or more committees and appoint members of the Board of Directors to serve on them. Each committee shall have two or more members who serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. Section 2. Approval of Committees: The creation of a committee and appointment of members to it shall be approved by a majority of the Directors in office when the action is taken. Section 3. Meetings of Committees: The procedures set forth in Article IV above which govern meetings, action without meetings, notice and waiver of notice, and quorum and voting requirements of the Board of Directors, apply to committees and their members as well. Section 4. Ate: To the extent specified by the Board of Directors, each committee may exercise the authority of the Board of Directors under Article III, Section 1- However, a committee may not: authorize distributions; recommend to members or approve dissolution, merger or the sale, pledge, or transfer of all or substantially all of the corporations assets; elect, appoint or remove or fill vacancies in the Board of Directors or on any of its committees; or adopt, amend, or repeal the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws. ARTICLE VI OFFICERS Section 1. Number: The officers of the corporation shall consist of a President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and such Vice Presidents, Assistant Secretaries, Assistant Treasurers and other officers as the Board of Directors may from time to time elect. Any two (2) or more offices may be held by the same person, but no individual may act in more than one (1) capacity where action of two (2) or more officers is required. Section 2. Election and Term: The officers of the corporation shall be elected by the Board of Directors at any regular or special meeting. Each officer shall hold office until his death, resignation, retirement, removal, or disqualification. NGHK: 791941 -3_ Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 3 - 1 - 3 Section 3. Removal: Any officer or agent may be removed by the Board with or without cause; but such removal shall be without prejudice to the express and written contract rights, if any, of the person so removed. Section 4. Compensation: The compensation of all officers of the corporation shall be fixed by the Board of Directors. Section S. President: The President shall have and exercise general charge and general supervision of the affairs of the Corporation and shall perform such other duties and have such as powers as may be assigned to him by the Board. Section 6. Vice Presidents: In the absence or disability of the President, the Vice President(s) shall have the powers and duties of the President. The Vice President(s) shall also have general administrative duties under the direction of the President and such other duties as may be assigned to him by the Board of Directors. Section 7 Secretary: The Secretary shall keep accurate records of the acts and proceedings of all meetings of directors. He shall give all notices required by law and by the Bylaws. He shall have general charge of the corporate books and records and of the corporate seal, and he shall affix the corporate seal to any lawfully executed instrument requiring it. He shall sign such instruments as may require his signature, and, general, shall perform all duties incident to the office of a Secretary and such other duties as may be assigned to him from time to time by the President or the Board of Directors. Section 8, Treasurer: The Treasurer shall have custody of all funds and securities belonging to the corporation and shall receive, deposit or disburse the same under the direction of the Board of Directors. He shall keep full and accurate accounts of the finances of the corporation in books especially provided for that purpose. The Treasurer shall, in general, perform all duties incident to his office and such other duties as may be assigned to him from time to time by the President or by the Board of Directors. Section 9. Assistant Secretaries and Treasurers: The Assistant Secretaries and Assistant Treasurers shall, in the absence or disability of the Secretary or the Treasurer, respectively, perform the duties and exercise the powers of those offices, and they shall perform such other duties as shall be assigned to them by the Secretary or the Treasurer, respectively, or by the President or the Board of Directors. Section 10. Bonds: The Board of Directors may by resolution require any and all officers, agents, and employees of the corporation to give bond to the corporation, with sufficient sureties, conditioned on the faithful performance of the duties of their respective offices or positions, and to comply with such other conditions as may from time to time be required by the Board of Directors. NGHK: 791941 -¢- Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 3 - 1 - 4 ARTICLE VII INDENLIS ICATION Section 1. Definitions for Pur oses oL This Article. (a) Covered Person: A covered person shall include any person who at anytime serves or has served as a director or officer of the corporation, or in such capacity at the request of the corporation for any other foreign or domestic corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust, employee benefit plan, or other enterprise. (b) Action: An action shall include any threatened, pending, or completed civil, criminal, administrative, investigative suit or proceeding, any appeal therefrom, and any inquiry or investigation that could lead to such a suit or proceeding. Section 2. General. Except as provided in Section 5 of this Article, the corporation shall indemnify a covered person if he is made, or is threatened to be made, a party to an action whether or not the action is brought by or on behalf of the corporation (i.e., a derivative action.), or otherwise (i.e., a direct action). Section 3, Covered Ex eases. A covered person shall be indemnified against (a) reasonable expenses, including without limitation, all attorney's fees actually and necessarily incurred by hint in connection with any such action, (b) all reasonable payments made by him in satisfaction of any judgment, money decree, fine (including any excise tax assessed with respect to an employee benefit plan), penalty, or settlement for which he may have become liable in such action, and (c) all reasonable expenses incurred in enforcing the indemnification rights provided herein. Section 4. Advanced P ment o Ex eases. Covered expenses may be paid by the corporation in advance of final disposition of the action if authorized pursuant to Section 6 below. Any advance payment shall be made only upon receipt of an undertaking by the covered person to repay such amount unless it shall ultimately be determined that the covered person is entitled to be indemnified by the corporation against such expense. Section 5. Standard of Care. Unless otherwise required by law, the corporation shall not indemnify a covered person for: (a) Acts or omissions were, at the time taken, known or believed by him to be clearly in conflict with the best interests of the corporation; (b) Liability under North Carolina General Statutes 55A -8 -32 or North Carolina General Statutes 55A -8 -33; (c) Any transaction in which the covered person derived an improper personal benefit; or NGHK: 79194_1 -5- Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 3 - 1 - 5 (d) Any proceeding in which the covered person is adjudged liable to the corporation. Section 6. Detennination and Evaluation of k&nmuuLfication. The determination to indemnify a covered person, and the amount and terms of the indemnification shall be made: (a) By the Board of Directors by majority vote of a quorum consisting of directors not at the time parties to the action; (b) If a quorum can not be obtained under subdivision (a), by majority vote of a committee duly designated by the Board of Directors (in which designation directors who are parties may participate), consisting solely of two or more directors not at the time parties to the action; (c) By special legal counsel. i. Selected by the Board of Directors or its committee in the manner prescribed in subsections (a) and (b) of this subsection; or ii. If a quorum of the Board can not be obtained under subdivision (a) of this subsection and a committee can not be designated under subsection (b) of this subsection, selected by a majority vote of the full Board (in which selection Directors who are parties may participate) . Authorization of indemnification and evaluation as to reasonableness of expenses shall be made in the same manner as the determination that indemnification is permissible, except if the determination is made by special legal counsel, authorization of indemnification and evaluation as to reasonableness of expenses shall be made by those entitled under subdivision (c) of this section to select counsel. Section 7. Reliance. A covered person shall be deemed to be serving the corporation in reliance upon, and as consideration for the rights provided for herein. Any repeal or modification of these indemnification provisions shall not affect any rights or obligations existing at the time of such repeal or modification. Section S. Non- Exclusild . The rights provided for herein shall not be exclusive of any other rights to which the covered person may be entitled, including, without limitation, statutory rights to indemnification and benefits under policies of insurance. ARTICLE VIII CONTRACTS, LOANS AND DEPOSITS Section 1. Contracts: The Board of Directors may authorize any officer or officers, agent or agents, to enter into any contract or execute and deliver any instrument on behalf of the corporation, and such authority may be general or confined to speck instances. NGHK: 791941 - Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 3 - 1 - 6 Section 2. Loans: No loans shall be contracted on behalf of the corporation and no evidence of indebtedness shall be issued in its name unless authorized by a resolution of the Board of Directors. Such authority may be general or confined to specific instances. Section 3. Checks and Dra s: All checks, drafts or other orders for the payment of money issued in the name of the corporation shall be signed by such officer or officers, agent or agents of the corporation and in such a manner as shall from time to time be determined by resolution of the Board of Directors. Section 4. Deposits: All funds of the corporation not otherwise employed shall be deposited from time to time to the credit of the corporation in such depositories as the Board of Director's shall direct. ARTICLE IX DISTRIBUTIONS Section 1. Except as provided by this Article and in the Articles of Incorporation, the Corporation shall not make any distributions. Section 2. The Corporation may pay reasonable amounts to its directors or officers for services rendered or other value received. Section 3. Except as provided in Section 4 hereof, the Corporation may make distributions to any entity that is exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or any successor section, or that is organized exclusively for one (1) or more of the purposes specified in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or any successor section and upon dissolution shall distribute its assets to New Hanover County, North Carolina. Section 4. The corporation shall not make any distribution under Section 3 of this Article if at the time or as a result of such distribution the Corporation would not be able to pay its debts as they become due in the usual course of business or the Corporation's total assets would be less than the sum of its total liabilities. ARTICLE X REPORTS AND RECORDS Section 1. Records. The corporation shall keep and file such records as are required by the Nonprofit Corporation Act of the State of North Carolina, including, minutes of all meetings of members and the Board of Directors, records of an actions taken by the Board of Directors and records of all actions taken by committees of the Board of the Directors. ARTICLE XI GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Seal. The seal of the corporation shall bear the following inscription and is hereby adopted as the corporate seal of the corporation: NGHx: 79194 1 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 3 - 1 - 7 NEW HANOVER COUNTY FINANCING CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT SEAL NORTH CAROLINA Section 2. Amendments. The Board of Directors may amend or repeal these Bylaws as provided in the Articles of Incorporation; provided that the Board of Directors shall not have authority to amend Article III hereinabove regarding Directors without approval of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners. Section 3. Fiscal Year: The corporation shall operate on a calendar year basis ending June 34. Section 4. Discrimination. The Corporation shall not discriminate against any individual or team, or take any action of any nature, based upon race, religion, sex, national origin or political affiliation of any individual. CERTI)F`ICATE The fore oing Bylaws were duly adopted by the Directors of this Corporation on the 5 day of 1997. ALL O' NEAL, Direct r 0�e� BRUCE SHELL, Director ULDIS BIRZENIEKS, ector NGHK: 791941 -8- Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 3 - 1 - 8 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2015 CONSENT DEPARTMENT: Sheriff PRESENTER(S): Sheriff McMahon CONTACT(S): Fonda Sykes, Administrative Support Specialist SUBJECT: Approval to Submit a 2016 Grant Application to the N.C. Governor's Highway Safety Program for Funding in the amount of 520,000 -- "Booze It and Loose It" and "Click It or Ticket" III N I DI ON100 ILI L111117AIN The Sheriffs Office wishes to apply to the N.C. Governor's Highway Safety Program (GHSP) for 2016 grant funding. The next step of the funding process is to submit the Local Government Resolution to GHSP. Explanation of the project follows: GHSP needs assistance in gathering statistics and coordinating the initiatives of "Booze It and Lose It" and "Click It or Ticket" for Region 3. The total project cost is $20,000 for in -state and out -of -state travel reimbursements for Sheriff s Office personnel that will assist in the campaigns and training. There is no local match requirement. If the grant is awarded, a budget amendment will be submitted to the Commissioners for approval. 0 I .AN Y or" [f» ILIV ILII 0 fff U►1 I D1011 Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Increase public safety and crime prevention RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Authorize the Sheriffs Office to submit the grant application and the Local Government Resolution to GHSP. ATTACHMENTS: FY 16 LEL RESOLUTION FY 16 GHSP LEL APPLICATION COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 4 GHSP -02 -A North Carolina Governor's Highway Safety Program LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL RESOLUTION Form GHSP -02 -A (To be completed, attached to and become part of Form GHSP -02, Traffic Safety Project Contract.) WHEREAS, the New Hanover County Sheriffs Office (herein called the "Agency') (The Applicant Agency) has completed an application contract for traffic safety funding; and that New Hanover County Board of Commissioners (herein called the "Governing Body") has thoroughly considered the problem identified and has reviewed the project as described in the contract; THEREFORE, NOW BE IT RESOLVED BY THE New Hanover County Board of Commissioners IN OPEN (Governing Body) MEETING ASSEMBLED IN THE CITY OF Wilmington., NORTH CAROLINA, THIS DAY OF 2015, AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the project referenced above is in the best interest of the Governing Body and the general public; and 2. That New Hanover County Sheriffs Office is authorized to file, on behalf of the Governing (Name and Title of Representative) Body, an application contract in the form prescribed by the Governor's Highway Safety Program for federal funding in the amount of $20,000 to be made to the Governing Body to assist in defraying (Federal Dollar Request) the cost of the project described in the contract application; and 3. That the Governing Body has formally appropriated the cash contribution of $0as (Local Cash Appropriation) required by the project contract; and 4. That the Project Director designated in the application contract shall furnish or make arrangement for other appropriate persons to furnish such information, data, documents and reports as required by the contract, if approved, or as may be required by the Governor's Highway Safety Program; and 5. That certified copies of this resolution be included as part of the contract referenced above; and 6. That this resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. DONE AND ORDERED in open meeting by ATTESTED BY (Clerk) DATE (ChairpersonNeyor) Rev. 02/09 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 4 - 1 - 1 610-0 A 1. Agency: 4. Contact Person for Agency: l NEW HANOVER COUNTY i Fonda Sykes/Lt. D. MacAlpine j j 2. Agency Address: � 5. ir ie ephone Number: SHERIFF +1 (910) 798 -4216 i 3950 JUVENILE CENTER RD Speed Citations 1,123 CAST 7LE HAYNt =, NC 28429 6. Cell Phone: +1 (910) 798 -4230 j 3. Physical Location of 17. Email of Contact Person i 3950 Juvenile Center Road,Castle Hayne, NC i fsykes @nhegov.com 8._FederalIT x ID Number / Type of Agency Federal Tax ID Number: *56- 6000324 j C New {: Continuation DUNS No: * 040029563 Year: C 1 C 2 ( 3 C 4+ County: * NEW HANOVER COUNTY Type of Agency 10. Allocation of Funding C State C Non - Profit fe County (' Higher Education Federal % 100.00 Local % 0.00 (' Municipality r Hospital 11. Project title: * LEL 2016 j '12. BU09L't i i - Personnel Costs Source of 4Miniu n I, Fede Punt State Amount Contractual Services Commodities Costs Other Direct Costs _ $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 Indirect Costs Total Project C• st!,� $20.000.00 60.0do, 113. Specify How Non - Federal Share Will Be Provided: j I roject Number: CFDA #: 20. Work Type: 7 . tip. t. �r:�u�L� a ! }i U.. Y•_,I�YF { F Stiterngnt Of Problem {_,Provide detailed information of the highway safety problems in your area to be addressed through this project. Include countywide crash data for the last three years and any other relevant information to validate the statements. For mare detailed information see How to write an effective traffic safety project" located at i nect.n i i all ' t/P a men -R Version 1.0 Board of Corr issi oonerp February 21 2015 fa:� -2-1 Year 2012 Occupant Protection Citations 1,180 DWI Citations 254 Speed Citations 4431 Year2013 Occupant Protection Citations 695 DWI Citations 304 Speed Citations 1,123 Year 2014 Occupant Protection Citations 8541 DWI Citations 175 Speed Citations 1,396 ;Goals and ObjeCtiVeS _(Provide at least two SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timely) goals and objectives. For more detailed information see "How to write an effective tragic safety project" located at Version 1.0 Board of Corr issi oonerp February 21 2015 fa:� -2-1 eft s: c nne t.nc t. ov/ ni i i 'es/Law -Enf rc ment/P e - aw- Enforcemenf -Re as x - i Goal #1: Promote highway safety within Region 3 with increased efforts to raise seat belt use above 92% by September 30, Jf 2016, Obtain 90 -100% reporting of all law enforcement agencies in Region 3 by September 30, 2016. Objectives: Conduct a minimum of four Law Enforcement County Coordinator (LECC) meetings to discuss current highway ' safety activities, GHSP issues, training opportunities, and legal updates and concerns. Gather LECC monthly reports, awarding 25 GHSP equipment points for Coordinators each month they submit one. Compile a quarterly regional report for GHSP that included a summary of the reports form the LECC's and the activities by the RLEL. Promote night time seat belt initiatives, GHSP campaigns and events within Region 3. Goal Objectives: —_ — Goal #3: -- -- — __ -- - --- - ----_— _ _ — , . Objectives: ® Reduce NC's traffic - related fatalities by 25% from the 2008 -2012 average of 1,317 to 988 by 2020. ® Reduce NC's alcohol - related fatalities by 35% from the 2008 -2012 average of 386 to 251 by 2020. ® Reduce NC's unrestrained fatalities by 30% from the 2008 -2012 average of 407 to 285 by 2020. — —_ ®Reduce NC's speed - related fatalities by 25% from the 2008 -2012 average of 479 to 359 by 2020. - ® Reduce NC's young driver - involved fatal crashes by 30% from the 2008 -2012 average of 196 to 137 by 2020. Reduce NC's motorcycle fatalities by 25% from the 2008 -2012 average of 177 to 133 by 2020. �® Increase NC's seat belt usage rate 4.4 percentage points to 95% by 2020. ---I 1 4-- — — Total Salaries Cost: 4I Version 1.0 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ice: ?ot52 7 � -------------------- �9 �— Total Contractual Services: Total Commodities Cost: Board of Commissioners February 2.2O15 tbth 'ItS A4id "A" f.':.i;.. ...- ........ k... :.r.. .. ,... -ww..w . . �.. _'L .1 .,.__....•, LP ...��:,. -... ..ate r'ir �.�... �:..,�i _..__....'1. .�... -. 1: r,. .. ,- _.,,��.,�`.a.s,e4.l II { :��,Y..,.. y..� "'�..�_..'S..'C,' a...- 4 I 2 3 $1 0,00-0.-66- 4 Out -of State Travel _ _ — _ _ _ _ 5 - 6 7 Total Other Items and Equipment Direct Cost: .. ..,;..,., c': ', - =_ Y ..:. -.�*:. .�, — ..;�- r: +•r -:nv*r ..e a:.-.. -x;.- - ;..•d��.x..c:�.sw•w --r -s. Ar. '-�'- - :1� -.. "WW n - ,.a. -�:i' ... .. n. wn..�'C. i.ir.•..a.3.c. �1S',.'+R F. �. r. .� W _ i sb tY�:. .t. $1 0,00-0.-66- 2 _... Out -of State Travel _ _ — _ _ _ _ $10,000.00 - Total Travel Cost: $20,000.00 Total Other Direct Costs: $20,000.00 •_ 1 . 2 P4 Total indirect Costs A=id UL List the Schedule of tasKS by quavers, re ririg specificaily to t�Fie objectives in Secfion i as s uia 6e a ou7ie ea ist' f' t activities to be performed in each quarter. Conditions for Law Enforcement Onl tsy cnecxrng EMS nox, me aoove agency agrees to the terms below as additional activities to be pertormed as part of is project. A minimum of one (1) nighttime and one (1) daytime seat belt initiative per month; A minimum of one (1) impaired driving checkpoint per month; ® A minimum of 50% of seat belt initiatives must be conducted at night between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.; Participation in all "Click It or Ticket" and 'Booze It & Lose It" campaigns; Participation in any event or campaign as required by the GHSP; Attempt to utilize one of the Forensic Tests for Alcohol Branch's Mobile Breath Alcohol Testing (BATMobiles) units during at least one of the impaired driving checkpoints. First Quarter (October, November, December) Attend all GHSP Meetings and events. Conduct a minimum of one county coordinator meeting. Meet with a minimum of three non- participatinglreporting agencies within the region. Collect monthly LECC reports and compile into the regional quarterly report. Attend and/or conduct minimum two night time seat belt initiatives. Participate in yearly GHSP grant viewing meeting. Board of Com issioners - February 2, 2015 Version 1.0 : 4f * 54 Second Quarter (January, February, March) Attend all GHSP Meetings and events. Conduct a minimum of one county coordinator meeting. Meet with a minimum of three non - participating /reporting agencies within the region. Collect monthly LECC reports and compile into the regional quarterly report. Attend and/or conduct minimum two night time seat belt initiatives. Participate in yearly GHSP grant viewing meeting. Third Quarter (April, May, June) Attend all GHSP Meetings and events. Conduct a minimum of one county coordinator meeting. Meet with a minimum of three non- participa6ng/reporting agencies within the region. Collect monthly LECC reports and compile into the regional quarterly report. Attend and /or conduct minimum two night time seat belt initiatives. Participate in yearly GHSP grant viewing meeting. Fourth Quarter (July, August, September) Attend all GHSP Meetings and events. Conduct a minimum of one county coordinator meeting. Meet with a minimum of three non - participating /reporting agencies within the region. Collect monthly LECC reports and compile into the regional quarterly report. Attend and /or conduct minimum two night time seat belt initiatives. Participate in yearly Gl jSP grant viewing meeting. i I.i rt , IL Submitting grant application is not a guarantee of grant being approved. Once form has been submitted, it cannot be changed unless it has a status of "Return ". Version 1.0 Board of Comg�issiopr - �ebruary 2, 2015 11: 4' - -5 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2015 CONSENT DEPARTMENT: Finance PRESENTER(S): Lisa Wurtzbacher, Finance Director CONTACT(S): Jennifer Maready, Accounting Manager; Lena Butler, Purchasing Supervisor SUBJECT: Award of Contract to Audit the County's Financial Statements to Cherry Bekaert, LLP BRIEF SUMMARY: The County's financial statements have been audited by Martin Starnes & Associates for the past five years. The term of their contract ended with the June 30, 2014 audit. The County has solicited proposals from qualified firms of certified public accountants to audit the County's financial statements for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015, with the option of auditing for each of the four subsequent fiscal years. Proposals were received from the following firms: 1. Martin Starnes & Associates 2. McGladrey LLP 3. Cherry Bekaert LLP 4. Elliot Davis 5. Mauldin & Jenkins 6. Thompson, Price, Scott, Adams & Co 7. Belinda Johnson CPA The proposals were evaluated using a two -step process as recommended by the LGC. The first step involved an evaluation of the firms for expertise and experience. The criteria for our evaluation focused on the firm's experience and expertise in governmental accounting, specifically governmental experience in North Carolina with jurisdictions of similar size and financial characteristics, the firm's professional personnel to be assigned to the engagement, and the firm's past experience with similar federal and state assistance programs. Next we looked at the audit approach to evaluate the firm's proposed staffing, audit hours, sampling techniques, analytical procedures, and the firm's audit plans for electronic data processing function. Based on these criteria, three firms ranked as being the most qualified; Cherry Bekaert LLP, McGladrey LLP, and Martin Starnes & Associates. After completing the first step of the evaluation process, we looked at price and contacted references. After factoring in the proposed costs submitted by the firms and receiving favorable feedback from references, Cherry Bekaert LLP ranked first, McGladrey LLP second, and Martin Starnes & Associates ranked third. Attached is the bid summary detailing the costs proposed by all firms. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Strong Financial Performance • Deliver value for taxpayer money Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 5 RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Staff recommends that the Board award the audit services contract to Cherry Bekeart, LLP in the amount of $74,000 for fiscal year 2014 -2015 with the option to renew the contract for each of the following four fiscal years based upon satisfactory performance each year. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Summary of Fees COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval as presented by the audit team. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 5 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION AWARD OF CONTRACT TO AUDIT COUNTY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WHEREAS, staff solicited proposals from qualified certified public accountants to audit the County's financial statements for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, with the option of auditing for each of the four subsequent fiscal years based on satisfactory performance each year; and WHEREAS, proposals were received from the following seven (7) firms; and • Martin Starnes & Associates • McGladrey, LLP • Cherry Bekaert, LLP • Elliot Davis • Mauldin & Jenkins • Thompson, Price, Scott, Adams & Co. • Belinda Johnson, CPA WHEREAS, after evaluating all proposals using a two -step process recommended by the Local Government Commission (LGC), staff recommends the firm of Cherry Bekeart, LLP for award of contract. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners that the contract to audit the financial statements for the County for Fiscal Year 2014 -2015 is awarded to Cherry Bekaert, LLP with the option to renew the contract for each of the following four (4) fiscal years based upon satisfactory performance each year. ADOPTED this the 2nd day of February, 2015. NEW HANOVER COUNTY Jonathan Barfield, Jr., Chairman ATTEST: Teresa Elmore, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 5 - 1 - 1 V)- t)- t)- t)- t)- t)- O V V O O O O O Q o 0 0 0 0 0 M Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln U O O O O O N c Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln O O O O O O N 0 N N N N N O c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I l0 t � O ~ O V 3 W Z LL C to 0 0 0 0 0 0 O W 00 V)- t)- t)- t)- t)- t)- O V V O O O O O O 'i co O O O O O O O O O O O O M 0 Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln c M � � � � � � W a O O Ln O 06 m Q E 00 Ln c-I l0 N l0 00 0) 00 � O ++ N � O ~ V 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Y O O O O O O Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0 O i O N Ln Ln Ln O O Ln O 06 00 Ln 00 Ln 00 Ln c-I l0 N l0 00 0) 00 � V N W 3 W Z LL to 0 0 0 0 0 0 O W i NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2015 CONSENT DEPARTMENT: Budget PRESENTER(S): Eddie Anderson, Facility Planning and Construction Director, New Hanover County Schools CONTACT(S): Cam Griffin, Budget Director SUBJECT: Approval of NC Education Lottery Project Application for Renovations Needed to Use the Sidbury Road Site as a "Swing Space" for the College Park Elementary School During Building Replacement BRIEF SUMMARY: The Board of Education purchased a facility on Sidbury Road. Renovations proposed in this lottery project application will prepare the site to serve as a "swing space" for College Park Elementary School during building replacement. A new school for College Park Elementary is included in the 2014 Bond Program. College Park Elementary School will be at the Sidbury Road location for two school years (SY2017 -18 and SY2018 -19). The proposed future use of the Sidbury Road site is for a middle school. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Support programs to improve educational performance RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Board of Education application to use $1,163,569 of North Carolina Public Schools Building Capital Fund (Lottery Distribution) for Sidbury Road Elementary School site. A local match is not required for lottery projects. ATTACHMENTS: NC Education Lottery Project Application COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 6 APPENDIX U Item: NC Education Lottery Project Application for renovations needed to use the Sidbury Road site as "swing space" for College Park Elementary School during building replacement. Background/Historical Context: The Board of Education purchased a facility on Sidbury Road formerly owned by The Rock Church of Wilmington. The property consists of approximately 79.69 acres with a 49,132 sf steel frame and masonry church/school facility built in 2002. The existing building and site is currently being used as the Northern Transportation Division, and accommodates 80+ buses that used to be at Trask and Laney schools. Design of a permanent facility for the Northern Transportation Division in the northwestern corner of the site is underway. Renovations proposed in this lottery project application will allow the Sidbury Road site to be used as a "swing site" for College Park Elementary School during building replacement. A new school for College Park Elementary is included in the 2014 Bond Program. College Park Elementary School will be at the Sidbury Road location for two school years (SY 2017 -18 and SY 2018 -19). The proposed future use of the Sidbury Road site is for a middle school, Recommendation: Approval Rationale for Recommendation: The lottery project application is consistent with the next steps identified in the "Bond 2 Buildings" presentation at the December 2, 2014 meeting of the Board of Education, and with capital improvement plans for the Sidbury Road site. Short and Long Term Impact: This project is essential to the school system's short and long term plan to meet the facility needs resulting from past and projected growth in student enrollment Supporting Documentation: The NC Education Lottery Project Application along with a conceptual floor plan and site plan is attached for approval and signature. Board Action: Recommendation Accepted Recommendation Rejected Tabled for Further Study e1-�, Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 6 - 1 - 1 APPLICATION Approved: PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDING CAPITAL FUND NORTH CAROLINA EDUCATION LOTTERY Date: Januarys, 2015 County: Now Hanover Contact Person: Eddie ArAerson LEA: New Hanover County Schools Title: Director. Facii ty PlanniLig & Construction Address: 6410 Carolina Beach Road Wilmington, NC 28412 Phone: (M254- 4281 - ProjectTitle: _Sidbury Road ElernMaty School Site Location: _ Sldbury Road (formerly the Rock Church) Type of Facility: Elementa!y School (k -5)! North Car-ohna Generat Statutes. Chapter 1810 provides that a portion of the proceeds of the North Carolina State Lottery f=und be transferred to the Public School Building Cepital Fund ut arwordanoe with G S 115C -5W 2 Further, G S 1150 -5413 2 (d) has been amended to indudethe iullovsng (3) No county shall have to provide matching funds . (4) A county may use monies in this Fund to pay for school construction projecla ao local schwl adrrimistirettve units and to retire mdabtedness incurred for school ceriintctron proms (3) A :runty may not use monies n+ tho Fund to pay for Schad technology needs As used to this *action. Publte School Buddsnge *hall include only fauk+hes for individual schools that are used for instructional and related purposes, and does rot include uardral adminshatton. maintenance or other facilities Ppphuffam must be submlfed wd hm any year iqffowmg fire date of idiot! puymw to Nre Conbfctsr or Vmder Short description of Construction Project _ elementary school. Colleue Park Elements SY 2018 -19) while the existing Coligge Pa ! future use of the Sidbury Road School site Estimated Costs: Purchase of Land Planning and Design Services New Construction Additions 1 Renovations Repair Debt Payment 1 Bond Payment _ Classroom Teachers TOTAL $ _ 110.000,00 _ $ $ 1,063,569-00 $ 1.163.569.00 Estimated Project Beginning Date: Feb 2015 Project Completion Date: Jun 2017 We, the undersigned, agree to submit a statement of state monies expanded for this project within 60 days following completion of the project. The County Commissioners and the Board of Education do hereby jointly request approval of the above Project, and request release of $ 1,163,569.00 _ from the Public School Building Capital Fund (Lottery Distribution). We certify that the project herein described is within the Parameters of G. S. 115C -646. (Signature — Chair, County Commissioners) (Date) (Signature — Chair, Board of Education) (Date) - Form Date: July 01, 2011 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 6 - 1 - 2 CL im A 4r M-6 iA L4 Ln RZ 41 j -It I lk Board of 'Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 6 - 1 - 3 , . I I I I I I I I i I I I I Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 6 - 1 - 4 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2015 1416101 OWN I DEPARTMENT: Budget PRESENTER(S): Cam Griffin, Budget Director CONTACT(S): Cam Griffin SUBJECT: Approval of Board of Education Capital Outlay Budget Amendment #5 BRIEF SUMMARY: On January 6, 2015 the New Hanover County Board of Education adopted New Hanover County Board of Education Capital Outlay Fund Budget Amendment #5. • The budget amendment appropriates County funding for the Northeast Elementary Land Purchase in the amount of $1,627,374. County Commissioners approved funding for the land purchase on November 17, 2014. • The budget amendment reduces budgeted lottery funds for completed projects: $845,253. • Records the budget for construction phase of Williston Middle School Chiller lottery project: $150,000. • Transfers funds from Capital Contingency for design of Transportation Facility at Sidbury Road: $108,100. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Support programs to improve educational performance RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve New Hanover County Board of Education Capital Outlay Fund Budget Amendment #5. ATTACHMENTS: Capital Outlay Fund Budget Amendment #5 COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 7 New Hanover County Board of Education Capital Outlay Fund Budget Amendment #5 Be it resolved by the New Hanover County Board of Education that the following amendments be made to the Budget Resolution for the fiscal year ending ,tune 30, 2015, on the 8th day of January, 2015: Revenue by Source: Now Hanover County Revenue $ 1,627,374.00 Now Hanover County Band Revenue DPI School Bus Revenue PSBCF - Lottery Revenue (695,253.08) QSCB Revenue Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Fund Balance Appropriated $ 932,120,92 Explanation: To record budget approved by County for Northeast Elementary Land Purchase 07,627 374), to reduce lottery budget for completedprojects (-$845,253 08), to record budgetfor construction phase of Williston Middle School Chiller lottery project $750, 000), and transfer funds from Capital Contingencyfor design Facility at Sidbyry Road ($708,100). Total Appropriation in Current Budget Amount of Increase/(Decrease) of above Amendment Total Appropriation in Current Amended Budget Passed by majority vote of the Board of Education of New Hanover County on the 20L. $ 173,492,648.94 932,120.92 $ 174,424,769.86 t� day of Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 7 - 1 - 1 lncrease!(pecrease) Expenditures by Purpose/Function: Regular Instruction $ _ Capital Outlay 1,040,220.92 Technology Support Operational Support Pupil Support Unbudgeted (Contingency) (108,100.00) 932,120.92 Revenue by Source: Now Hanover County Revenue $ 1,627,374.00 Now Hanover County Band Revenue DPI School Bus Revenue PSBCF - Lottery Revenue (695,253.08) QSCB Revenue Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Fund Balance Appropriated $ 932,120,92 Explanation: To record budget approved by County for Northeast Elementary Land Purchase 07,627 374), to reduce lottery budget for completedprojects (-$845,253 08), to record budgetfor construction phase of Williston Middle School Chiller lottery project $750, 000), and transfer funds from Capital Contingencyfor design Facility at Sidbyry Road ($708,100). Total Appropriation in Current Budget Amount of Increase/(Decrease) of above Amendment Total Appropriation in Current Amended Budget Passed by majority vote of the Board of Education of New Hanover County on the 20L. $ 173,492,648.94 932,120.92 $ 174,424,769.86 t� day of Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 7 - 1 - 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2015 CONSENT DEPARTMENT: Budget PRESENTER(S): Cam Griffin, Budget Director CONTACT(S): Cam Griffin SUBJECT: Adoption of Budget Amendments BRIEF SUMMARY: The following budget amendment amends the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015: 15 -044 Department of Social Services STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Strong Financial Performance • Control costs and manage to the budget RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt the ordinance for the budget amendment listed. ATTACHMENTS: B/A 15 -044 COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 8 AGENDA: February 2, 2015 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET BY BUDGET AMENDMENT 15 - 044 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North Carolina, that the following Budget Amendment 15 -044 be made to the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015. Section 1: Details of Budget Amendment Strategic Focus Area: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education Strategic Objective(s): Provide health / wellness education, programs, and services Fund: General Fund Department: Social Services Expenditure: Decrease Increase Department of Social Services $21,692 Total $0 $21,692 Revenue: Decrease Increase IV -E Funds $21,692 Total $0 $21,692 Section 2: Explanation This budget amendment reflects the IV -E funds of $21,692 received as reimbursement for the IV -E eligible children for the months of May 1, 2014 through August 31, 2014. These funds are put back into the daycare account. The Department of Social Services (DSS) estimates how many children they can enroll in daycare. DSS makes an assumption that there will be a certain amount of turnover. Turnover to date has been less than anticpated. Therefore, the waiting list will not be affected by this budget amendment. Section 3: Documentation of Adoption This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North Carolina, that the Ordinance for Budget Amendment 15 -044, amending the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015, is adopted. Adopted, this 2nd day of February, 2015. (SEAL) Jonathan Barfield, Jr., Chairman ATTEST: Teresa P. Elmore, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 8 - 1 - 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2015 REGULAR DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor (PB Rep: David Weaver) CONTACT(S): Ben Andrea; Ken Vafier, Planning Manager; and Chris O'Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing Special Use Permit Request (S -623, 11/14) - Request by Hellman, Yates, and Tisdale on Behalf of Angela W. Steele Life Estate to Develop a 150- Foot -Tall Telecommunications Tower at 6516 Murrayville Road BRIEF SUMMARY: This request is for a Special Use Permit to allow the construction of a 150- foot -tall monopole telecommunications tower facility on a 60' x 60' leased area on a 7.32 -acre parcel located at 6516 Murrayville Road. The property currently hosts several accessory buildings that shelter tractors and other similar equipment. The property is currently zoned R -15, Residential District, and classified as Transition Area according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. A 60' x 60' leased area is proposed, which will encompass the tower, equipment pads, and required 25' buffer and fence. The tower area is situated in the central area of the property, with existing vegetation that would provide substantial ground -level visual screening from adjacent properties. Low density residential uses exist to the northwest and west of the site. The area to the southwest of the site is preserved as undeveloped open space for a residential community. To the east of the site is a low density single family residential use with an agricultural (horse farm) accessory use. Areas to the immediate south are undeveloped, due in part to the environmental and flood area constraints. Areas further surrounding the site consist of medium density residential uses and undeveloped areas, in addition to Murrayville Elementary School which is to the northwest across Murrayville Road from the subject site. At their January 8, 2015 meeting, the Planning Board voted 3 -2 to recommend approval of the special use permit. The Planning Board was split on this item. First, there was a motion to recommend approval with the condition that the tower be a "stealth" tree. That motion did not get a second. A second motion was made to recommend denial, which was seconded, and then failed with a 2 -3 vote. The third motion was to recommend approval with no conditions, and resulted in the 3 -2 vote mentioned. Several members of the public spoke in opposition to the request. Additionally, staff has received a multitude of letters and emails in opposition to the Special Use Permit request. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Intelligent Growth and Economic Development • Attract and retain new and expanding businesses • Build and maintain infrastructure • Implement plans for land use, economic development, infrastructure and environmental programs • Understand and act on citizen needs Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Note: A Special Use Permit is a quasi-judicial action requiring an evidentiary hearing and findings of fact. ACTION NEEDED (Choose one): 1. Motion for Approval (with or without conditions); or 2. Motion to table the item in order to receive additional information or documentation (Specify); or 3. Motion for Denial based on specific findings in any of the 4 categories, such as lack of consistency with adopted plans or determination that the project will pose public hazards or will not adequately meet requirements of the ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit with no conditions. ATTACHMENTS: S -623 Script S -623 Staff Summary S -623 Petition Summary S -623 Neighbor Properties Map S -623 Zoning -Ortho Map S -623 Water -Sewer Map S -623 CAMA Map Applicant Materials Cover S -623 Application Proposed Site Plan Cover S -623 Site Plan Set S -623 Authority of Agent S -623 Coverage Analysis S -623 Coverage Analysis Updated January S -623 FAA Construction Notification S -623 FCC and FAA Compliance Statement S -623 Photo Simulations S -623 Tower Design and Failure Comments S -623 Geotech Report S -623 Traffic Impact Worksheet S -623 Zoning Compliance Statements S -623 NEPA Compliance Audit S -623 RF Evaluation Report S -623 Opposition recieved as of 1/21/15 1/2 S -623 Opposition recieved as of 1/21/15 2/2 COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval as presented by staff. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Continued at the request of the petitioner 5 -0 to the first meeting in March. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 SCRIPT FOR Special Use Permit (S-623,11/14) Request by Hellman, Yates, and Tisdale, PA on behalf of Angela W. Steele Life Estate for a Special Use Permit to develop a 150 - foot -tall telecommunications tower at 6516 Murrayville Road. 1. Swear Witnesses 2. This is a public hearing. We will hear a presentation from staff. Then the applicant and any opponents will each be allowed 15 minutes for their presentation and additional 5 minutes for rebuttal. 3• Conduct Hearing, as follows: a. Staff' presentation b. Applicant' s presentation (up to 15 minutes c. Opponent's presentation (up to 15 minutes d. Applicant's cross examination /rebuttal (up to 5 minutes e. Opponent's cross examination /rebuttal (up to 5 minutes 4. Close the Public Hearing 5. Commissioners discussion 6. A Special Use Permit which is denied may only be resubmitted at the discretion of the Planning Director. You may ask to continue the matter. Do you wish to do so? 7. Ask Applicant whether he /she agrees with staff findings and any proposed conditions. 8. Vote on the special use permit. ❑ Motion to grant the permit - All findings are positive. Motion to grant the permit, subject to conditions specified below: (State Conditions) ❑ Motion to deny the permit because the Board cannot find: ria. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed for the following reason: rib. That the use meets all required condition and specifications: riC. That the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity: rid. That the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is located and is in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County: Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 1 - 1 SPECIAL USE PERMIT 5 -623, 11/14: Request for a Special Use Permit to develop a telecommunications tower on a portion of a 7.32 acre parcel located in an R -15 Residential District. Request By: Hellman, Yates, and Tisdale, PA, on behalf of Angela W. Steele Life Estate (Property Owner) Location: 6516 Murrayville Road PIDs: R03500- 004 - 004 -000 Planning Board Action At their January 8, 2015 meeting, the Planning Board passed a motion 3 -2 to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit with no conditions. Summary of Request Hellman, Yates, and Tisdale, PA, applicant, is requesting a Special Use Permit to construct and operate a 150' monopole telecommunications tower facility on a 60' x 60' leased area on a 7.32 acre parcel located at 6516 Murrayville Road. The property currently hosts several accessory buildings that shelter tractors and other similar equipment. Some flood hazard areas and environmental constraints exist on the property, outside of the site subject to tower development. During a site visit in November, Staff observed indications of an unpermitted vegetative debris landfill on the site. This unpermitted use has ceased and the site has been mitigated. A 60' x 60' leased area is proposed, which will encompass the tower, equipment pads, and required 25' buffer and fence. The tower area is situated in the central area of the property, with existing vegetation that would provide substantial ground -level visual screening from adjacent properties. Low density residential uses exist to the northwest and west of the site. The area to the southwest of the site is preserved as undeveloped open space for a residential community. To the east of the site is a low density single family residential use with an agricultural (horse farm) accessory use. Areas to the immediate south are undeveloped, due in part to the environmental and flood area constraints. Areas further surrounding the site consist of medium density residential uses and undeveloped areas, in addition to Murrayville Elementary School which is to the northwest across Murrayville Road from the subject site. S -623, (11/14) Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 2 - 1 Pagel of 4 Preliminary Staff Findings of Fact (In Accordance with Section 71 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance) Finding 1: The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. A. Water and sewer infrastructure and capacity are not necessary for the proposed use. B. The subject property is located in the New Hanover County North Fire Service District. C. Access to the tower site will be provided by an access easement with direct connection to Murrayville Road. D. The subject site does not host any known cultural or archaeological resources. E. A statement has been submitted attesting to the design and failure modes for the tower, stating that in the unlikely event of a pole failure, the tower would collapse within 100% of its height, or 150'. No habitable structures exist within at least 150' of the tower site. Staff Suggestion: Evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed. Finding 2: The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. A. Telecommunication Communication Facilities, Cellular, and Related Towers are allowed by Special Use Permit in the R -15 zoning district provided that the project meets the Standards of Section 63.5 -1 of the Zoning Ordinance. B. Section 63.5 -1(A) requires that the setback from any existing residential property line or residential zoning district boundary for any tower, antenna, or related structure in any zoning district be a distance equal to the height of the tower as measured from the base of the tower. The location of the proposed 150' tall tower is at least 160 feet from all adjacent property lines as well as any existing residential uses, exceeding the setback requirement of Section 63.5 -1(A). C. Section 63.5 -1(B)1 requires that the minimum distance between the tower and any other adjoining parcel of land or road must be equal to the minimum setback described in Section 63.5 -1(A), plus any additional distance necessary to ensure that the tower, as designed, will fall within the tower site. The proposed location complies with this provision, and no evidence has been submitted suggesting that additional distance is necessary. D. Section 63.5 -1(B)2 requires the applicant to submit photographs and statements as to the potential visual and aesthetic impacts on all adjacent residential zoning districts. A report sufficing this requirement was submitted as part of the application. E. Section 63.5 -1(C) requires a landscaped buffer with a base width not less than 25 feet and providing 100% opacity, in addition to a minimum 8 ft. tall fence surrounding the tower base. The proposed plans suffice this requirement. S -623, (11/14) Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 2 - 2 Page 2 of 4 F. Section 63.5 -1(D) requires that applicants seeking construction of new towers, antennas, and related structures demonstrate through submitted written evidence that collocation on any existing tower, antenna, or usable structure in the search area for the new tower is not reasonable or possible. A report (Coverage Analysis — 5WI0551) has been submitted with the application, meeting this requirement. G. Section 63.5 -1(E) requires that towers 150' tall or less be engineered to accommodate a minimum of one additional provider. Evidence has been submitted demonstrating that this requirement has been met. H. Section 63.5 -1(F) requires certification that the construction or placement of the proposed facility complies with several federal regulations. An FCC compliance affidavit has been submitted and demonstrates that the proposal will comply with the federal regulations mentioned in Section 63.5 -1(F). I. Section 63.5 -1(1) regulates the signage allowed on the tower and related equipment. The signage proposed is compliant with this ordinance provision. J. Section 63.5 -1(J) prohibits the storage of equipment, hazardous waste, or materials not needed for the operation, prohibits outdoor storage yards in a tower equipment compound, and prohibits habitable space within the compound area. The applicant's proposal complies with this ordinance section. K. Section 63.5 -1(L) requires that, when the proposed tower site is within 10,000 feet of an airport or within any runway approach zone, the applicant submit Form 7460 to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to assure compliance with all FAA standards. Evidence in the record (Exhibit 10) shows that a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration — Off Airport has been filed with the FAA, meeting this ordinance requirement. Staff Suggestion: Evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use meets all of the required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. Finding 3: The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity. A. The location of the proposed tower is in a pocket of undeveloped area that provides substantial ground -level visual screening from any adjacent property or use. B. A 25' wide buffer surrounding the tower base will provide visual screening for future development. C. A report from The Clontz Newkirk Real Estate Group has been submitted stating that opines that "the proposed telecommunication tower on the subject property will not injure the value of adjoining or abutting properties ". Staff Suggestion: The evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. Finding 4: The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it S -623, (11/14) Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 2 - 3 Page 3 of 4 is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. A. The 2006 Wilmington -New Hanover County CAMA Land Use Plan classifies the area proposed for the tower site as Transition, and the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Transition land use classification, and additionally, not in conflict with any policy of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. B. Telecommunications towers exist in similar residential areas in New Hanover County. Staff Suggestion: Evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use is general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. SUMMARY Staff concludes that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal complies with Section 63.5 -1 of the Zoning Ordinance Zoning Ordinance as well as the findings of fact specified in Section 71 of the Ordinance. Staff also concludes that, with the information submitted, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal is consistent with the management strategy for the Transition land use classification, and not in conflict with any other policies of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Note: A Special Use Permit is a quasi - judicial action requiring an evidentiary hearing and findings of fact. ACTION NEEDED (Choose one): 1. Motion for Approval (with or without conditions) 2. Motion to table the item in order to receive additional information or documentation (Specify). 3. Motion for Denial based on specific findings in any of the 4 categories above, such as lack of consistency with adopted plans or determination that the project will pose public hazards or will not adequately meet requirements of the ordinance. Staff suggests the following motion: Motion to Approve the Special Use Permit as requested and presented. S -623, (11/14) Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 2 - 4 Page 4 of 4 Case S -623, (11/14) Special Use Permit Request to develop a telecommuncations tower in an R -15 Zoning District Petition Summary Data Parcel Location & Acreage: 6515 Murrayville Road Owner /Petitioner: Angela W. Steele Life Estate /Hellman, Yates, and Tisdale, PA Existing Land Use: Accessory buildings for equipment storage Zoning History: Area 8B (July 7, 1972) Land Classification: Transition Water Type: N/A Sewer Type: N/A Access: Access for repair /maintenance provided via access easement Fire District: New Hanover County North Watershed & Water Quality Classification: Smith Creek (C;Sw) Conservation /Historic/ Archaeological Resources: None known in subject area Soils and Septic Suitability: Murville Fine Sand (Mu) — Severe: Wetness /Flooding Flood Hazard Areas: None Schools: Murrayville Elementary, Trask Middle, Laney High 5 -623, 11/14 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 3 - 1 Page 1 of 1 :9 -4 -1 I� z U pOiO� � U � /Y u z v NY z TTAU ll Q C PRIVATE � wo � g �Kw MABEE-WAY M 04 oc LAMAN CE CT O z w .E Q NEHAVEN =0 3wZ O 57 N � o m y c 0 v O Si c BRITTANY-RD 5 NE NPND N E O G — a ° °� ° Z c F v N n O °Q ° M Q °° f ffi ° ° °G 42 W 4 mIVATE ?' y N M y U v o c 0 TT LL � SHADY-BROOK 0 0 m' 3 0 v V •> A MAg {E WAY o �o c � � 3 o ul JII � V �. o 3 PRIVATE N _ N i �P Q� m g N � a Q ALAM9NCE -CT u � Lf, O 7 O V ON o' w (� C] N r PRIVATE N 3- w 2 — STONEHAVEWCT .. M N m � WELCH�WAY 0 v KSip E.GAROE N3-pR gg00 y o � o O O O av -RD 2 °/ o SPRINGHIL -L � < 0a =o LO Q U LO "v's �o OOO LI OOb'�YN t rN LO 0 R a v v m FL A a w R v Z V 2 NVI R zN -iM3d 6`NOODO CPNp1 e :9 -4 -1 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM wo � �Kw o m a ° °� ° °° ° °Q ° ° ° °° f ffi ° ° °G o 0 0 3 3 o o w w o o 3 u � � 0 ��� 3AV- SIM317 DAN z c d �l �� K K K K K LL' K N U o o O w o p Q Q M z w O a ry 5 o to - xe� •� `w =� -- _ ,_�__ / i'\ SNENPNDD N .n o BRIITTANY-RD z N 0 M r 0 V A \ _ PRIVATEj= /r -- -- W' z' = �_ � I � f T I N j II O SH?DY "BROOK-L"N 3 0 � -1- - -- 1 _ N v A MA13 _ EEIWAY— — — I ch .� n rr V _P_RIVATE— —.-. I� ALA -MANS EC T ���� RY'C1 i Ln IL 0 z= 1V fn p N PRIVATE rV � 1 -- 57ONEHAVEN -CT� M WA WELCH Y v to DE SS % GARNS -D — BRO_pKSIDE- _ I I c Ifs - v c If � IX _ SPRINGHILL -RD /— w ----- � \ u —o u E - - -- E o o �o OpO M �ppb \� V LO �� C 0 v IO \ a CIO 7—T- - b38pppM .n 1j ,IONVN M3�A O`�VJ DDpO R cpN a Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 5 - 1 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 -6 -1 3AV- SIM317 z pS--RD v a 1L�00 1,7 -07� U v � � CLAP 7yy�HS aW.� O v 0 v C7 o ¢ u a o z v / d .a o y = t a 0/ o�Q y c c c c E Qo a U Z �j �j 7 H U K G _ b V Q W � C Q yQ� o - 0PN_5i � 'c `w , NENpND c B RI TTANY RD 5 N E � � r O G - Z O N e p pl Q p 21 ,PRIVATE ?� h 0 v o SHAD Y-BROOK -LN m E - M N cu U MABEE WAY c O V PN0 PRIVATE �J QP o Ci' ALAM9NCE =CT - Lf, W d 7 M 0 Z N w r N PRIVATE ¢ - STONEHAVEN -CT N WELCWWAY m v gg00 KSip E.GAI2 D E N3-pR y o � o 0 a o IX a SPRING MILL RD 2 10 a R p u 0a by a v °O� M lh 0pb3`N U in c m I] R wi m a �'78000M .°n v CAROLINA 4 v ICNYH M3,4 6N0000 z CPNpt, a Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 -7 -1 APPLICANT MATERIALS Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 8 - 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS Application for SPECIAL USE PERMIT 230 Government Center Drive Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 910- 798 -7165 phone 910 -798 -7053 fax www.nhcgov,com Petitioner Information Property Owner(s) Subject Property If different than Petitioner Name JoAx4, L. '4*A;Lr, lWt�Y\ 1CR,m.I rrow ar�d C1 C4­ S e,rS Owner Name Not_ a. 5 �-1 t Address 1 LL J 65 41, Myroy P.J . Company Owner Name 2 Parcel ID(s) sroanc� Cnmrnutl►cWhQ4 -r Mol64�. 035o n -buq -spa Address Address Area 4.Z<, wcrk S I c S en X516 MV1rr0LJN4U,_ ltd. ((00"x(00, 4J8a_oarA.A. City, State, Zip ' City, State, Zip Existing Zoning and Use R 15 1 Vusids4iod. � 64DA I SC aqq p 4 t,wilm� '{on N Cab q it Phone Phone Proposed Use ($y3) 41u1 -9 4S 4 (910 ) W9 9 -- -1- 2.15 L6k � i � Ccvnmun W m Email Email Email Land Classifi tion JL7��1�� 1 �S. zom Application Tracking Information (Staff On�y) Case Number Date/Time received: Received by: 5-(033 ka (?)VA Ntz r- APPLICATION OVERVIEW In order to assist petitioners through the process for obtaining a Special Use Permit, petitioners are highly encouraged to attend a pre - application conference prior to application submittal. Petitioners are requested to review the sections of the Zoning Ordinance specific to Special Use Permits prior to submission, and advised to contact Planning Staff with any questions. The following sections of the Zoning Ordinance pertain specifically to Special Use Permits: • Section 70: Objectives and Purposes of Special Use Permits • Section 71: General Requirements of Special Use Permits • Section 72: Additional Restrictions Imposed on Certain Special Uses • Section 111: Petitions Applications for Special Use Permits (with the exception of single family dwellings on individual lots) must first be considered by the New Hanover County Planning Board at a public hearing. The Planning Board will make a recommendation to the County Commissioners which will take final action on the permit application in a quasi-judicial public hearing. Attendance at all public hearings is required. The public hearings will allow staff, the applicant, proponents and opponents to testify in regards to the request. Unless otherwise published or announced, Planning Board meetings are held on the first Thursday of each month at 6:OOPM in the Commissioner's Assembly Room at the Historic County Courthouse located at Third and Princess Streets, Wilmington, North Carolina. All meeting dates and application deadlines are published on the New Hanover County Planning website. IF W: 19of 4 -1 04/14 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS In order to assist petitioners through the process for obtaining a Special Use Permit, petitioners are highly encouraged to attend a pre - application conference prior to application submittal. Applications must be reviewed by Planning Staff for completeness prior to being officially accepted. Applications must be submitted to Planning Staff at least twenty (20) working days before the Planning Board meeting at which the application is to be considered. Once accepted, the Planning Board will consider the application at the assigned meeting unless the applicant requests a continuance. Applications for single- family dwellings, including mobile homes, on individual lots do not require Planning Board review and must be submitted to Planning Staff twenty (20) working days before the Commissioners meeting. For High Density Residential projects, a High Density Residential application and High Density Checklist must also accompany this application. The New Hanover County Technical Review Committee (TRC) must also review a High Density Residential project prior to submitting this application. For all proposals, in addition to this application, the following supplemental information and materials are required: Required Information Applicant Staff Initial Initial Narrative of Proposed Use t_ -- Traffic Impact Worksheet Traffic Impact Analysis (if applicable) L Site Plan (8 -2406 copies for Planning Board; 8 -24x36 copies for Commissioners) • Tract boundaries and total area, location of adjoining parcels and roads • Proposed use of land, structures and other improvements. For residential uses, this shall include number, height and type of units and area to be occupied by each structure and/or subdivided boundaries. For non- residential uses, this shall include approximate square footage and height of each structure, an outline of the area it will occupy and the specific purpose for which it will be used. • Development schedule including proposed phasing. • Traffic and Parking Plan to include a statement of impact concerning local traffic near the tract, proposed right-of-way dedication, plans for access to and from the tract, location, width and right -of -way for internal streets and location, arrangement and access provision for parking areas. • All existing and proposed easements, reservations, required setbacks, rights -of -way, buffering and signage • The one hundred (100) year floodplain line, if applicable • Location and sizing of trees required to be protected under Section 62 of the Zoning Ordinance • Any additional conditions and requirements, which represent greater restrictions on development and use of the tract than the corresponding General Use District regulations or other limitations on land which may be regulated by State law or Local Ordinance. • Any other information that will facilitate review of the proposed change i (Ref. Article V1I, as applicable) Authority for Appointment of Agent Form (if applicable) Fee - $500; $250 if application pertains to a residential use (i.e. mobile home, duplex family child care home) Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ft`M?9ot� - 2 04/14 CRITERIA REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (As Outlined in Section 71 of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance) The applicant should explain, with reference to attached plans (where applicable), how the proposed use satisfies these requirements (please use additional pages if necessary). The applicant has the burden of proof and must provide sufficient evidence in order for the required findings to be met. Planning Staff, the Planning Board, and the Board of County Commissioners reserve the right to require additional information, if needed, to assure that the proposed Special Use Permit meets the following requirements: 1. The Board must find "that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved." ih�- fro �o see d commur� i e.a`h� nS f acs 1i lo.1 s�-�- bns ax1 c� w; 11 r�o-1- i r wn 4 -L pv.6 iic hQa. i or- s k; t- h iiz !a cibn ors Sa-e� �ac�li will act � Qu,6l c 4 o,y, - t P-0 " �rJi .e.. acc ss ko q It -R s>parr�, -�4 n-1 Atli M I a.nd EMS, 4 2. The Board must tind "that the use meets all required conditions and specifications" of the Zoning Ordinance. Ac I Mjuiavr &n-Vs oar- S;cA�br► (,16- S- 4 CtrAMUnICMA-I►sr F0.s<ili$i28� &m kk -% ' a nA P-XL"L d fib er c� -4�. � V3,tw 4Anoura- co Z-C%1 ark ems ►1 „,�� -�ko �roos� of P1��s.a -n� en ohs. sees 0 3. The Board must find "that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a ublic necessi ." pi mss wY.el�ss w1n;c1� ilr+ 21st C P ti� &itn LSA a V"lt c mXCAZ+r41. 50-0' ii VJL-4 - � � kaput. bar, 51�own �}o arc en4�an --. Ov0dve o� SUfvuxn�grvefi, L The Board must find "that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformit with the 21an of development for New Hanover Count X."- -N� SA-e -,LL grv" ?MkYAA a r4k� loc022Hn �b twFti4Q� �astili &AXL }0 i-4s Si u- WNA C tx� i �r'� `[k:� aSA off- v-L -- a�.ctv Is ab �pmvi c icus Wickk w i4f04= 4v � $ suarrr,ur►� -i o y a}o a �b finis lieA`�bn �1 � show w'I1l 6 ire k"rmn t,;4 -1vc, a��a �� hi ch 'c! is 1 n Qq�� . `CA_ b %1 car rti►i w�-} -h -�I ls�r, o� aU.9 fit � t.PAA) i�av� NUC1 Board of Gam9m9i5siqi9eFs FebFHaFy2,2015 ftgq 04114 Section 72 of the Zoning Ordinance provides additional requirements for the following Special Use Permits. Please supplement your application with all necessary material to meet any additional requirements if your use is any of the following: • Cemetery • Convenience Food Store • Hospital or Nursing and Personal Care Facilities • Private Club or Lodge and Fraternal and Social Organizations • Sanitary Landfill • Travel Trailer Paris • Family Child Care Home • Kennel • Mobile Home • Non - Residential Off - Street Parking • Commercial Marina • Septage and Sludge Disposal • Outdoor Shooting Ranges • Adult Entertainment Establishment • Indoor /Outdoor Recreation Establishments • Community Boating Facility • Residential Uses within Commercial Districts • Bed and Breakfast Inn • Electronic Gaming Operation • Farmers Market or Produce Stands in Residential Zoning Districts • Mining • High Density Development • Senior Living Options If an applicant requests delay of consideration from the Planning Board or Board of County Commissioners before notice has been sent to the newspaper, the item will be calendared for the next meeting and no fee will be required. If delay is requested after notice has been sent to the newspaper, the Board will act on the request at the scheduled meeting and are under no obligation to grant the continuance. If the continuance is granted, a fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule as published on the New Hanover County Planning website will be required. In granting a Special Use Permit, conditions may be designated to assure that the use in its proposed location is harmonious with the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance, CAMA Land Use Plan and any other adopted plans that are applicable. All conditions become part of the special use permit and run with the land. A Special Use Permit shall become null and void if construction or occupancy of the proposed use as specified and approved is not commenced within 24 months of the date of issuance. By my signature below, I certify that this application is complete and that all of the information presented in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. +s�CarVe►' L Signs ure of Petitioner and/or Property Owner Print Name Page 4 of 4 04114 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 9 - 4 PROPOSED SITE PLAN Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 10 - 1 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM 9 - 11 -1 78"- 5`4 W IA �� T— H7 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM 9 - 11 -1 78"- 5`4 LU �� T— H7 LU Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM 9 - 11 -1 LU x W 0 0 z 0. 0 z CL 2 0 J U 5; z LU LU _j LO LU cm LU L 9 LI uj La 0, 0 cn < Z W z db J �4 Z z <Z U, LU 1,— m uj tu 2S .2 LLJ <Z z I T U U, lop co V) �O 0 0 LU LLJ LU 0: 0 M m C) < C) 0 z z z 12 LLJ 3: 0 M U-) z ^W-S U) LUUJ z ti A�!!' �VvL g' , In 't �I W 1 W 0 0=4 to law z "0 fry n zj J'. r - p R � - 2; W I . 1 E �2 C45 cl LO U- �39 W v, , �Uz. t mD � l 2g 2 it v Six ABZ11 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM 9 - 11 -1 �w > a% W <<m o aa gas R �mLL o��rcry m (..) —__`c¢ tt�p� � d : .•� N oP / �! lt¢w d r LU LO W [1N z u o--W W�x�zoo 9W oZ �O c" o LL O� Z Mzi d� _ _ c W 03 z� ° o EaoY Ll oz oU z > " ° mm V a Y,�-.*s z s o o a - a0 - c w F w o rc z a ¢ ¢ �m °�a��' 0 0 z a > lw a o ¢ z - w $ _ o poo y Z� �ZZ �Jn Z w iQN O O O Zj Mj O w O U pQ 0 O ? W - a o °i - - yzo u o ff" a HIHON OINO L', a< w N H1E10N 3ntf1 H1aON f O z O113NOtlw Q ® 3 <1 s am °° N O O I I T q O iON VOA � NS� I yrUUO4 0.y cb 2 Z�y� ZyNq � O \ eo r�qm .4qy � y I tam a q wo cyipo po \ 20l � O O n � (� MC3Aw °1 11N ,)5 ,O1.O L ONODN E Y z�m ` ij _ w °:fi1 � N 7'lY ' • '•,- - t�.iola. a J oy ^°m oI�° n oo I C< oa W ° GVq so E p W , a Ae O E4 14 °o 7, e Ut: io <O Z� �r w.b amain¢ m �ao °o y14N, —N a N IU.i \ ¢ O 11 11 O ! L;..Mz a L Li T SURVEYED► \ INE N.�� to wz r �� tom 2�., •, Ow J I N ahm � o �� w 000� itgm O 4, q 4 I o I �a l Oa0 I ZarIao L r` j44bm 1 2Vy`m1 !a V < nm I I y o p0 1 oq a 1 oa L_ — J — ma ON O OpC 60 v - u na- .r . .; 1 op�Q) t W C CU ; g �0 .-.N oy3` F u ut ° ur ., o E c c> c o , oo t o N z _ d Q ❑ w oC Ed � V ? � 2 IL T. 0 o oM ° z ,� imti ° ? - L.o 7 LL o' p.c n m H dL E•w•ac O•� - °° v °om o a°'=� u co o c c� o ° ° W EN - E E•WM ¢ z z i U U nt > —r O °U6 F H1aON 0180 H1NON 30211 z 0113N10 1 o_ - 6 wZa a w'� � O o w: I w w W 3 3 3 3 3 3 L1 3 Jj m P W •n w F < zmzwa -o o^ 10\IOO�Y • JO Q f�. W -n U 4z Q ��N mwa� 2 aNO i 4 ¢w Q iZ N \���� �� it� \� P O,�/ ad�® o� �ZQlh 00 rn ac S a k -1,a V- LO LLJI �NJ Z �Z LL 40�wZ��irc��wJa N d, fin/' Li O zN Zzaan °ZZY z OWa ee02�N id —z F lm-.wz°p0 w wazow�°w�- z°,o�wa o - - poo mom 02910 -0 '�U ~�zx zCD2� J W U r zz °� ° C, .v w.�i S'o= �lLLi J�y�•4�� Ui mw aN°- z° ~r y - arci ,U - z W m>'6'au�wa -� g •�O Q o UZN~ z °w CD ° i�wm zU adoreOaDOapmw¢oxrna1.oyN�F °aaz w a FOa r)rj �' W Zy w� 4 °w a m'? F Z W ap °'sN°i �<rcrc�o�..° J -•n 11 /7(Iltt \11� w :' w w J w a w°N Q Nzopc>pJazm zmaw����� a S"dm=N9�, z °a¢2vpOLLmQZwO° �Faa °Ym °w°ya'1oauz.i zzr° az,N.1� W a n a a to W - UX� N n N J I o vxi U U nt > —r O °U6 F H1aON 0180 H1NON 30211 z 0113N10 1 o_ - 6 wZa a w'� � O o w: I w w W 3 3 3 3 3 3 L1 3 W w 3 m P Z.N. o No�:n o^ 10\IOO�Y • olA Ill W z I J V OOb o� �ZQlh 00 I J m.l o °amyzam=�a °zx °noo o R M p�o� am3^ a N d, o Naoa O zN o mOm om a a w W N yy fN/iyyZ z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z y y °w�yyyl!aozwrp JZOp3NmOSNw¢NwZNNWy w- mw aN°- z° ~r y - arci m o m XP m w 0 a U Z II O Z Z Z m b N d U o'- °aZVlzomw�ow Z Z awi o4z ,00 z a CD Wz .w xmZ a I-I-�O Q Z adoreOaDOapmw¢oxrna1.oyN�F °aaz w a FOa r)rj �' W Zy w� 4 N NN�N Z N.. n NNNN N.•p .DN J J w°N Q Nzopc>pJazm zmaw����� I :n d Q z °a¢2vpOLLmQZwO° �Faa °Ym °w°ya'1oauz.i zzr° az,N.1� U a a d wFpzz °wzFFpWa .0 <ymzoaz °zo[�4� '< W W w Z JNJ J 1'1 vlt)m n mNO�N J J J C10NN J J J J J U U nt > —r O °U6 F H1aON 0180 H1NON 30211 z 0113N10 1 o_ - 6 wZa a w'� � O o 0 O q O W �!a 2yo� X00 Zao 21 4 S07'15'10'E z z Ld O 300.00'(ilE) o I waNwW�pa Q tq O A K Q m P aOlb ° O 4700Cii oon • W ^ J 2l z I J V OOb o� �ZQlh 00 I J m.l o °amyzam=�a °zx °noo o R M p�o� am3^ a N d, o Naoa O N ?Uw w is I a4 a a w i • y oa I N w z ♦N�= V J U V ZFz¢m aO�xwpN? z Uxo °NWnOpUz �a= mzaorWwa=orr,`awl`I`axz a=00 mp � °w�yyyl!aozwrp JZOp3NmOSNw¢NwZNNWy w- 0 O q O W �!a 2yo� X00 Zao 21 4 S07'15'10'E z z \-9 NOJ i z waNwW�pa wm y w ._. _�_.._.. N07•l5'10'W w�w¢oi ^z m P ZZ O 4700Cii J)xw < m z - -a N�a 52 5 m ISi ^ J \-9 ' N p l j W i NOJ N S m 572.41' 0 O Z O o Z 71 U0 waNwW�pa a N O ._. _�_.._.. N07•l5'10'W w�w¢oi ^z Woo Mm �Jaa zlA ' zo-No 4700Cii pxpw I Ua ZII.IIZ �Vlif^ I 4jOY J �g�°•q aW�yF UtV Z¢a�N��� K x n0 UN: NNVI U zw000a =aein�wo'a"w w3 a ZrJin WQ o� �ZQlh 00 Hp °amyzam=�a °zx °noo o M p�o� am3^ a acw o Naoa �m I oa0 ?Uw w is I a4 a a w i w y oa I N w Na = >w W UOxoZHFZ xZl~i °z °zo3000zci ♦N�= V J U V ' N p l j W i NOJ N S m 572.41' �1 V Uavul t °o ^o 0 O Z O o Z 71 U0 waNwW�pa a N O Z o M m O w�w¢oi ^z Woo Mm �Jaa zlA ' zo-No 4700Cii pxpw I Ua ZII.IIZ MoO�N I °ae J �g�°•q aW�yF UtV Z¢a�N��� K x n0 UN: NNVI U zw000a =aein�wo'a"w w3 a mO1 .. Caiq °amyzam=�a °zx °noo o z,wi�¢ vl`i °a °°� waJMN mJUppj ip !aq 3q >o�O =mn.wO? -Q � oindodn Va + Z- w. FOZ� 0. w °X >YUmO� o xao,.Im Z Np i w O G C l a amazwz Na = >w W UOxoZHFZ xZl~i °z °zo3000zci ♦N�= V J U V �1 V Uavul t °o ^o a a� U O a II a � J w¢amanml oww Zom la waNwW�pa 410 C� oC w�w¢oi ^z \qa 2pytr �Jaa zlA ' Z wl �qa7 pxpw I 000 °maw °ae z a a� U O a II a � J Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 -11-3 W ° 2 a O W ° a 0 °OZN Ow Z zZVy° O N o K U wV N Ex wy ap - l(f y � WF ao° SOOWO ao oN w °N i¢wU= Zp n w w3 ° J OU pw w a II ° O a K 2 000 w ? N O a > Z F 2 Z U? N 3 a U a Z p~ U il N U a aW�yF UtV Z¢a�N��� K x n0 UN: NNVI U zw000a =aein�wo'a"w w3 a 0Z¢ F °a¢K�Z2NIan 000�rZ aZrW¢� Q Ux•-O�°I -a NaNFN~ zx0.D zJ� azaz�mowFU =w- wv_iwo°Oao,wzsa °amyzam=�a °zx °noo o a2 °oNZamz=ozz�a�z"' aoaoa ,)aZz° 0 K m - -o. azNr< N m >o�O =mn.wO? -Q � ° Z- w. FOZ� 0. w °X >YUmO� o Z> ZOW -ZNd2^ aN1- NmwV°I wHa. -z w Na = >w W UOxoZHFZ xZl~i °z °zo3000zci ♦N�= V J U V ZFz¢m aO�xwpN? z Uxo °NWnOpUz �a= mzaorWwa=orr,`awl`I`axz a=00 1°/I °w�yyyl!aozwrp JZOp3NmOSNw¢NwZNNWy mw aN°- z° ~r y - arci m o m XP m w 0 a U Z II O Z Z Z m b N d U o'- °aZVlzomw�ow Q Jz�au °can yzzF xx °n azanQOWFa�r�ZZ awi o4z ,00 z a CD Wz .w xmZ a I-I-�O Q Z adoreOaDOapmw¢oxrna1.oyN�F °aaz w a FOa r)rj �' W Zy w� 4 Z W °a°aaz�°nwoZ�a ° ° °aaa Z aomD,aao? -� o =ziz�'N °azWipzm °a o a IJ Nzz,00aa° o aaa�o N ¢I -a-OYN °Nw�NOOOOOW 0 W �acircoaz�o"a °o� oo�a��z�aino�r OmZ�Ow�p J w°N Q Nzopc>pJazm zmaw����� I :n d Q z °a¢2vpOLLmQZwO° �Faa °Ym °w°ya'1oauz.i zzr° az,N.1� U a a d wFpzz °wzFFpWa .0 <ymzoaz °zo[�4� '< W W in�Q�zOpwz�noNZWa��in oFFm4 wz °~m wl`a�z y�moo a a Q JZm °poRpa% olLI-a�� z a W °pZ3WOF000Oa Vi wo °- maxo�omz- J' -p ° °az ?YaOWwo a•- ¢O� >Nawrn °°Opn3aWm Q W rOWpw�pw pa x zrxxo °m .°c .°oa W J Fz<zQO -z� ° az�zm' -�uai l-o• zN Qa¢zwUZ��awj�W.. ¢ _ W U 0 0° Z° o o N w o z a o 0 0 o vw zao�wJ D ~ m z n.a_o�; -aoNa {NJJa moow °_tea >N a al- w�pxoxc~{ U U Om O Z° a N^ Q Q m< O p N O w a a m S L/ 0 Z- a �?WO w M J �uw U) Famwzma °mw ma�zzzzw Q L7 i'�°,aWmWZ�a�ma� oNau�na azaz �owo�c�iFO"'- °a�o�am <w Q LLQl J3v°�u�vNiaSo°S�rz�aN���pvi a y W Z �c�i� ^ °z °��a�¢ JZpwfy NU{J1 yF'rj> NNr K��yW1H a O w a wO OJ W J a Z p U p U x U 0 a N N p O p p N J J Q W ax?ou000ll3 3 0 N N3: O W O O 4 --Z, ri 3 p N O J Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 -11-3 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 -11-4 m ��m oa z F ti�9n D a F ;a 5E a p V -vi w m w= g-ni¢.u� p < 1' :Co-° zp u ?�iP�'aoj =�rm; F- T.- � 10 LL �xo.� z am �•\.? O 11 W o<-cxza owa z� m W .20 O LLI MB W -Q/7 i Uwu v o � :iZ � O \ W m O ON o pi�'n _o oU W .n o p o w m m W x a p /N z / �Iltllm \ \ \7 _ J F" _ a m w mix0�yWo a ll w w ma a a m ° m z z 3 i`? _o ` -�pa ¢ca z a s ¢ i�m°x ym°wFamyaozo�z�w°a �ij'oaxw�Nmwo� y Q ¢ y s �Z a i m rmw 3w wr°��a> xoz��°w Wo 05, 13<9: p�N 0oY'z pFNz3wamwwC 9°YzowmWzzFa�i v o0 ° � F V� z °?wa QuFz �zn'¢ °ZmoZorO�FZ=� rn'aallommm"A°¢ac' ^i °z ' jz 0 ' � �u ow �uz nm . om¢mZmz-_mm caVamw�_�3WaWi ° zwxwx ^ zOzwy� o¢=o3F¢= 0 m °F Zmoa,°ix2N2 oKwRz0o ao-w<za~z 0 O°y oO t. Jo Z �oFWuwoa�;zao3amm oOOm ;� O-�o �om3wznw wrc��°m oOmzw �°)�C�°�z� O v r o 1 o x_a wOw F'-�n xx�o''1 a z LL� mFn 0O OLLo' F FO o w�� '= (Q o ,� u z WDpZ.6 p , --,OZo W,-w (/ W N � O �� m030Ow z z J °°i ¢O ¢w x° .- � y W o� ? .. a .opoawzoz�lo,i�,,;orpyy� J ma a=ox K °mNF °x�Owz °mwUO W zw° a zrwo�~�p Zw Omx¢ wx00YO Wm¢J 0 >m001 Jw o a www�o�awow�?za�az a mumazsaowwuwam�3xa�xo �z 3m p� z> j Z v p= W z ¢ ¢ a° 00 W O W V w z K d' Z w a Z p p p W m m Z 4 w z o o f 5; o¢ S w j ¢ � M xp f° °z° v1tO V W >. za wWz w V w 5> < w 5 4 = J] � w O ma Q ap m3 Q S Ow N w m w a °w Jor Qm m o, a zz °m zoc� � aou 3aa °3d iza O n Of ° Qoz 9ON zzO �¢�n - O N a� 0 O N U Z y� Zip wz aaf z- ¢ Y a< Y Z a Y u-p 0500 3pm 0�m O Q Q go axo a—m a ¢ a z >u ?z° Zaw ?z i°1 W W a� & °o °oo °OO awj OOZ (¢jzaz <Oz U�/ x W ~ J °z °am zz°izz W J w za oo zSo ^oo ^�x ^w ^w zz NO¢ ox VpK Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 -11-4 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 -11-5 o:� a =='moo w� i 01. _ ����llll 111\ maa �m ­1 Ga ° & ♦, H sw ..z m O m o WOQ Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 -11-5 o:� a =='moo w� i 01. _ ����llll 111\ maa �m W _ 'z0 ..z m O �N r,0 WOQ - :i N z Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 -11-5 o:� a =='moo w� i 01. _ ����llll 111\ maa coo; a 0 0o U n O z WOQ N s s o:� a =='moo w� i 01. _ ����llll 111\ maa coo; a 0 0o U n O z WOQ p a >5awz '2 u'i rr sc=� aJ�< 3yroJSw zoW J ¢ s� ¢ °z ai °z�oFj ap °w sin 4a ¢how a woi>ma" Z F� aw O p z I I I w J 1I 0 z K ¢ g O � _ z I a 1 J 1 I Q f c a i w d � 1 I i I I I I 1 /I i •N N F N O w Y O'w iW w UU, > V n LLJ Z W ? ,!if LLJ 0 Z 4 N 3 Fw� �I \ \ \ \ \ 4�a0i1'a ° aQ2l p o O V d NaiV Ja ° o n ° wo o OQ n K oos N O ° V LINE I EXISTING PROPERTY .tt -.6Z G am EXISTING PROPERTY LINE i0o -------------- - - - --I EXISTING PROPERTY LINE o g 00 " --- - - - - -- ° o P Zo ap J W I I \ \ \I I I i / z a a ^ J o z FrIdL K a O L i . f~ Z W N a IL J /1 `,, ,1111 ,,,,, �� P, �% R m 3r�5 O��w o� = W w wz w W ee a _z °z E i, ' y 6§ M U W � NN `,, ,1111 ,,,,, �� P, �% R m 3r�5 O��w o� = W w wz w W o o _z Q�zQ w g n� �a `,, ,1111 ,,,,, �� P, �% R m 3r�5 O��w = Q a �i 00 Z�zaYaj�aO w8v o� o _z Q�zQ w g �_ �a NN KW K� W 6410 f0 El 57, O0 �U N 'Od00] °<wz a>doFa 3r�5 O��w z OFZZrO Z�zaYaj�aO Q�zQ w 2f41K ��7 KW K� d 6410 f0 El 57, O0 �U N 'Od00] 1i (7y z3a� OOOW� 00 o zjw a�w41�y< o�M-8 = w O p � V1K , lozoU t�i1z0¢.Zw IN zW¢20 W� °�mOVlwzw aw I,cg� �W o ��wOK zg(7 w Ld ° o HZ - 4— IOQO� p U O 0U w? O � w � m o s Y � o U N� ON Z N OZ Oj UU z -------------- ----- - - - --- f U EXISTING PROPERTY LINE. w vii \ W o b I I 0 wo U U Z wF _ _m EXISTING PROPERTY LINE 'I I O U j K x¢ 1 I � m Oj U a NO O U W a j w I ° d �i1 j p O i-n Krc p ow I 003 O - 1 z Z 1 1 Z 1 Q z d o ------------ - - - - -- - - - - -; I W lu � w 444 - 9lOZ LO la0 - Ilanc,d .ix(I - CZ loo�6 - •P'S00 4l'lZ'6 SL0M r iIQ Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 - 11 -6 �✓ 1� p = J h r r in Z z J 'l K1 i �N o o a o m ° a who �N o p�OF y ri�O '0m xU' r O O Oo =�3 ? io OoJ0;~o n n mJu ° � J anO o ,p an O N p N d rc o rc a w11 sf ° Z no f Q Q a m` t. a °z w oN�5,0n 9 i N oz?w�r� J °w o?�oW O W wa <� „a W zwFJF .{ iwaNO�o� 3 pNOi3 0 � ����c W vi °N °RN M a z �W9.Sft S o ` � w z 0 Q w B d (1) F,z J5 w °W °rc V Qa •� 5w t II ° �m 2 k2 •� iy NZ O Z oa om °w N i OO o a n 8 ° °o °o as akw ao 0 0 ° > -zF ° & >aoEa 3 zow °�o S1z��O O� °w�G NaOam�ZW 33 U F O °a�5 °� °O�J E X 99 N U?w ~O 7 °aOW •w0 Wz� b~pzZau Q_ogun! w z &���ow ¢����1/1o2pW •� •I O NOa -. -c�C WCOU�O? z N 4 m / pa o ra OVMN ss300tl •� ,0 -,OC �a o� rc o - N I /// I Z iV w& 5 (L O � K U Z a< LU ..0 -.09 a Q o V N Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 -11-7 a a ° Q Z z J 'l K1 i �N .. i W = 0 a u 0 �i ?? - N F- 117 mn3 a Z who �N o p�OF y ri�O '0m xU' r O O Oo =�3 ? io OoJ0;~o n n mJu ° � J anO o ,p an O N p N d rc o rc a w11 sf ° Z no f Q Q a m` t. a °z w oN�5,0n 9 i N oz?w�r� J °w o?�oW O W wa <� „a W zwFJF .{ iwaNO�o� 3 pNOi3 0 � ����c W vi °N °RN M a z �W9.Sft S o ` � w z 0 Q w B d (1) F,z J5 w °W °rc V Qa •� 5w t II ° �m 2 k2 •� iy NZ O Z oa om °w N i OO o a n 8 ° °o °o as akw ao 0 0 ° > -zF ° & >aoEa 3 zow °�o S1z��O O� °w�G NaOam�ZW 33 U F O °a�5 °� °O�J E X 99 N U?w ~O 7 °aOW •w0 Wz� b~pzZau Q_ogun! w z &���ow ¢����1/1o2pW •� •I O NOa -. -c�C WCOU�O? z N 4 m / pa o ra OVMN ss300tl •� ,0 -,OC �a o� rc o - N I /// I Z iV w& 5 (L O � K U Z a< LU ..0 -.09 a Q o V N Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 -11-7 a a Q Z z g �i ?? a0 ZQ w?U �z�a a m° wU N w• - N o Q O who �N o p�OF y ri�O '0m xU' r O O Oo =�3 ? io OoJ0;~o n n mJu ° � J anO o ,p an O N p N d rc o rc a w11 sf ° Z no f Q Q a m` t. a °z w oN�5,0n 9 i N oz?w�r� J °w o?�oW O W wa <� „a W zwFJF .{ iwaNO�o� 3 pNOi3 0 � ����c W vi °N °RN M a z �W9.Sft S o ` � w z 0 Q w B d (1) F,z J5 w °W °rc V Qa •� 5w t II ° �m 2 k2 •� iy NZ O Z oa om °w N i OO o a n 8 ° °o °o as akw ao 0 0 ° > -zF ° & >aoEa 3 zow °�o S1z��O O� °w�G NaOam�ZW 33 U F O °a�5 °� °O�J E X 99 N U?w ~O 7 °aOW •w0 Wz� b~pzZau Q_ogun! w z &���ow ¢����1/1o2pW •� •I O NOa -. -c�C WCOU�O? z N 4 m / pa o ra OVMN ss300tl •� ,0 -,OC �a o� rc o - N I /// I Z iV w& 5 (L O � K U Z a< LU ..0 -.09 a Q o V N Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 -11-7 � V b� 3 W J w N zLO J 03 ,hyn3IZ <�R _�av C4 -Z N z 9 � V b� 3 z i o� 4 - o o i i° W N QS w w O YN - dl- �,� ' f"O 3r F 1 a m N. w ° ?°O K °� z �zz� &w ?mom r °p a vai Q is o ��oowr zoo zam z-. a� z z z a o 00 °w z zi3 cxioi o0 3 ¢ Q X O O ° 2° W rc Uw 2S Cl o°ZOm �OF WO w j 5 i o a o <n F=waao ocii N°a 4a o m6 w o °N oa ° LA a z m z_ zm 3 d °ai t ina w zzUiYm gwy b °pd FFa o0 o a a a w� rcu ? ° o 'o 5 z m o z '� J yw < a Y N 40 �_ ° �" z I Ell 4 a W FF i aa¢¢ Ci Kw F o ¢QO n 1_ i m� Z N¢ Q� ~ °g aZ mg U ° O w m z $ i in So ww� °�� va`i °� o a J °u w uxi Q zu� zo i� 21 o u W rcFQay ow �° m wo _N ° N p OF �F K Jr. NQ j p w m V a °H ro O c w. o rns 'o r erns a$ zoJ Z Z ° �a o -� ° °m z z? z z° N' a ° ° i v w z io ��< w° °O ° °- - ? a z a� a�Fr - ti Z w m w a a�ai it Nza as � a� So_ � 0 � 2 ° fK C�ZZ Kw Q iii Z rn rn G ° F oya ow apH �a o ma �m mm d r 33 i o Z d m �° oz °a �� z °~ �J wa o _ yE °oiuziWw 111 Q Iii t�s°� m z J wO o J gaai °ate Z < a a? i a maw Vrc x as zdm� ♦-n in a z w o ° o� m�a o lz i~ H a vi vi �rc zo ° z °smfi V w o m o a °Qm in ra oo�d�� � g \N\ �- 1 \tn \N O W W¢ WZ NI � °: S= as \ \ ���iiiiii .•a:::o::a:: ::c�. ;: ©:. :cz•.�z:::o:: o:: ;a.. c...� ........: ©:;:o a z o z z a v`�im d oW oV U F w - wm o 1 z o- ow 4Z Q ar mmw x �3 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 -11-8 2Q F iz 33 o °3 w iz VO azym� Z g d LO a s w N a o z i o� 4 - o o i i° W N QS w w O YN - dl- �,� ' f"O 3r F 1 a m N. w ° ?°O K °� z �zz� &w ?mom r °p a vai Q is o ��oowr zoo zam z-. a� z z z a o 00 °w z zi3 cxioi o0 3 ¢ Q X O O ° 2° W rc Uw 2S Cl o°ZOm �OF WO w j 5 i o a o <n F=waao ocii N°a 4a o m6 w o °N oa ° LA a z m z_ zm 3 d °ai t ina w zzUiYm gwy b °pd FFa o0 o a a a w� rcu ? ° o 'o 5 z m o z '� J yw < a Y N 40 �_ ° �" z I Ell 4 a W FF i aa¢¢ Ci Kw F o ¢QO n 1_ i m� Z N¢ Q� ~ °g aZ mg U ° O w m z $ i in So ww� °�� va`i °� o a J °u w uxi Q zu� zo i� 21 o u W rcFQay ow �° m wo _N ° N p OF �F K Jr. NQ j p w m V a °H ro O c w. o rns 'o r erns a$ zoJ Z Z ° �a o -� ° °m z z? z z° N' a ° ° i v w z io ��< w° °O ° °- - ? a z a� a�Fr - ti Z w m w a a�ai it Nza as � a� So_ � 0 � 2 ° fK C�ZZ Kw Q iii Z rn rn G ° F oya ow apH �a o ma �m mm d r 33 i o Z d m �° oz °a �� z °~ �J wa o _ yE °oiuziWw 111 Q Iii t�s°� m z J wO o J gaai °ate Z < a a? i a maw Vrc x as zdm� ♦-n in a z w o ° o� m�a o lz i~ H a vi vi �rc zo ° z °smfi V w o m o a °Qm in ra oo�d�� � g \N\ �- 1 \tn \N O W W¢ WZ NI � °: S= as \ \ ���iiiiii .•a:::o::a:: ::c�. ;: ©:. :cz•.�z:::o:: o:: ;a.. c...� ........: ©:;:o a z o z z a v`�im d oW oV U F w - wm o 1 z o- ow 4Z Q ar mmw x �3 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 -11-8 U U ° � O U U J F- W o O z = ° z U w Q a N f o� rl Gg 3 � hf � o fb qN, V ! W = oo.lt9 a g r., C� ] °o o M n o rY y a Z a U U ° � O U U J F- W o O z = ° z U w Q a N �w Z� ODU N EIR II—II III III ^N III —Ill III —III N�� —Ill I H I —IN W IM-11 U 7 I I: �W ��I— �Illlr w S i _ H n f o� N J W '*U.9 w W W .. J >V }� wlz N W = oo.lt9 a U (/ o 0, I O• rn V: a °Z N6Q� toe 3 a Z �w Z� ODU N EIR II—II III III ^N III —Ill III —III N�� —Ill I H I —IN W IM-11 U 7 I I: �W ��I— �Illlr w S i _ H n f 3SVa Z# N J W '*U.9 w i i pp ° �OU3 z� tiU i N UTA a�WC 3 i„° a U (/ o 0, I O• O N� a °Z N6Q� N z % 3 m'n °ci yca�i0 N VJ Y Z 0 B �� za �w a m mu\ii vl - ^aoww - N KO Z.. ¢ iN N Na 3 e ii hi C7 Z w Z v1 °N 2 °a C�— O ni ova $ ^w N 2' w 3:w x v =aw a g NJG^3 Q¢0° Ci 63 wQ KK zz3 w �Z�0� U 41 d�3o� .mad Q a N N ti 8Z U > 0. 6 Y GGG x 810 j ° Zo ZN Z/l NIVINIVW '.Ii zxN OQ� .9 -,Z w boo Z U J_ Z Q F- Z t9 W ° �1 a rJ Q Q ° ?a V J z a W z co U A rc °h aU rc� N a Q UTA �w Z� ODU N EIR II—II III III ^N III —Ill III —III N�� —Ill I H I —IN W IM-11 U 7 I I: �W ��I— �Illlr w S i _ H n III III 'o J II�III � )I�II' o _= IIL= 111111: Q uoo r Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 -11-9 I z � W a; x E 0 Wma °aq 5 z °z� �o a° m� j U U i ° �x 5 :jQ f=/IQ 3y J Q F- W cl 1 0 z Z o O V 3 Iq ui w U N r a a J_ N J W Q i i pp �OU3 � zz Q Oa °a O zz�a a m � ° NN �i 9? �Nw j a �a N n °N • O ni — III III 'o J II�III � )I�II' o _= IIL= 111111: Q uoo r Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 -11-9 I z � W a; x E 0 Wma °aq 5 z °z� �o a° m� j U U i ° �x 5 :jQ f=/IQ 3y J Q F- W cl 1 0 z Z o O V 3 Iq ui w U N r J_ Q W Q Oa °a Of m � W �i 9? �Nw 2 W W Y • O ni — CO i W di s� Q a N N ti 8Z I- J .9 -,Z H Z Z W �1 a rJ Q Q N o U 8O G a0 A III III 'o J II�III � )I�II' o _= IIL= 111111: Q uoo r Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM :9 -11-9 I z � W a; x E 0 Wma °aq 5 z °z� �o a° m� j U U i ° �x 5 :jQ f=/IQ 3y J Q F- W cl 1 0 z Z o O V 3 Iq ui w U N r W p = J zN O Z r O 0 1 j o z ;� n o rc� O O .. J � LL, z Fno3 U w z - U! rM -m3 aZ 1 j o z ;� n .zil a wo 0o Ted w wN Z� U E pc r -O (7Y <* - W % ° ° ° g LLJ Ln -= a£ 3 w m a€ o O a a z zo a` �d NE ? W< m o nE n t Q LLJ z as °o�5 o w ui z w C7 a N y J Q N W � y w � Q = z w � y 0 -, l i U D:f LO w � z °—E _ e C� d «— a ER vl d- LO rs �� W 3 •. T _ r= W U O U m 2 W ti • j ED cn °ao YE 5 rn c a, a g 5 Os N p1..> $ D rn o°`° =z J J H H CD o o . N N w ~ _ � Z a � Q M w YLl - f4 o O O J � Fno3 U w z U �.� w � w W � Q Z a LL O A�t : W N V Z Q O .zil a wo 0o Ted w wN Z� U E pc r -O (7Y <* - W % ° ° ° g LLJ Ln -= a£ 3 w m a€ o O a a z zo a` �d NE ? W< m o nE n t Q LLJ z as °o�5 o w ui z w C7 a N y J Q N W � y w � Q = z w � y 0 -, l i U D:f LO w � z °—E _ e C� d «— a ER vl d- LO rs �� W 3 •. T _ r= W U O U m 2 W ti • j ED cn °ao YE 5 rn c a, a g 5 Os N p1..> $ D rn o°`° =z J J H H CD o o . N N w ~ _ � Z a � Q M w YLl - f4 o O O � U z U �.� w � W � Q Z w� LL O O W U . W �/ O � Z co � � z o z ■ W N Q J � OU O � I � � � � C M X X� U� � W �z X � X W 00 3 x� � 3 N� X� � E E w ZZ�N X N W (n (n W Q W 0 .zil a wo 0o Ted w wN Z� U E pc r -O (7Y <* - W % ° ° ° g LLJ Ln -= a£ 3 w m a€ o O a a z zo a` �d NE ? W< m o nE n t Q LLJ z as °o�5 o w ui z w C7 a N y J Q N W � y w � Q = z w � y 0 -, l i U D:f LO w � z °—E _ e C� d «— a ER vl d- LO rs �� W 3 •. T _ r= W U O U m 2 W ti • j ED cn °ao YE 5 rn c a, a g 5 Os N p1..> $ D rn o°`° =z J J H H CD o o . N N w ~ _ � Z a � Q M w YLl - f4 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 11 - 10 O O O U z �.� w � W w� LL W . W �/ O U Q � z o z ■ W N D O O Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 11 - 10 Properly Owner Letter of Authorization Re. Application for New Wireless Telecommunications Facility Site Name: Steele Site Address: 6516 Murrayville Road, Wilmington, NC 28411 I, Angela Steele, as owner of the property referenced above in New Hanover County, North Carolina, hereby authorize Branch Communications and their attorneys, Jonathan L. Yates, Karen Kemerait and Gray Styers, to pursue applications, permits and approvals through New Hanover County for the newly- proposed wireless communications site described above. Landowner signature: Date: Lo Landowner name and address: = 1 [ L i r;a ll V /je Jk&I If Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 12 - 1 %.d C) Lo Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 13 - 1 n VP?Opdi( u m� C1� N 9 N a N a `a w G m r L L O Mn' rr(^D Vl Cc _C3 ♦ ��v • + r 4 �. � ry C � • � cn Y} •♦ i LO J+ M a -. 1 EI �y :f) fu " f _El .*'' rim r:5 _ V• n� W r LO LO C) 3: LO m � o 1-' S -117 G So ""a[16 5G 3 r M a Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -13-3 0 M O E L c� Z) E 0 U a� L L N L Q N 0) cu N O U O O v 0 L U W 4-A co 70 ri, r� a� L 0 4- M W n V) �►.ryJ ry LO LO 0 3: LO 'y CE 0 m m C r...l CD 00 CD r� C? 47 m H, ® � �� Q LJ®� ❑ ITEM: 9 -13-4 A..I C U c� Q U cn C:C I m Ir- L 0 LO ITEM: 9 -13-5 a. � E E E -v O as m aa0 _0m D ti cV oa a -:r -0 C? a? CD 4 co LO rl II x x x F LO r r co II II II co 4 m CD r-- ❑r} 07 OO ITEM: 9 -13-5 12920 SH 3811' Street Bellevue, WA 98006 The engineers at T- Mobile have evaluated all tall structures in the search area of our coverage needs along Murrayville Road and have concluded, in our professional opinion, that collocation on an existing tower, antenna or other usable structure is not reasonable or possible and that a new tower structure, as proposed, is absolutely necessary to provide coverage in this area. Attached to this report are slides /nxaps demonstrating the service gap that is to be addressed by the proposed telecommunications tower and demonstrating the need for the proposed tower. The slides include a map showing the search ring, There are no tall structures within that search ring, however, we also evaluated the closest existing tower — a monopole owned by American Tower, which we called 5WI0551C, on which the highest available collocation height is 75'. The results of this analysis is shown on the attached slides, which demonstrate. that is does not provide reliable coverage along Highway 1-140/17 (John J Burney Jr Freeway) and I -40 or in- building coverage in the desired service area along Murrayville Road. The attached coverage maps provide the radio frequency analysis indicating the coverage of existing wireless communications sites, coverage prediction, and design radius at various signal strengths. I am providing this certification that the proposed network design is intended to improve coverage and capacity potential in the area — specifically indoor coverage in the homes along Murrayville Road and reliable mobile coverage along I- 140/17. We are willing to have the antennas be placed within a stealth "inono- pine" with limbs, such as those the structure shown on the photo attached, but, otherwise, these coverage objectives cannot be achieved by any higher ranked alternatives such as a concealed facility, attached facility, replacement facility, or collocation. Sincerely, WarkE Moyne A P9 DepfDwwnt Manager— T-946&- 2105 Water 9 *e Tk". Suite 400 efarCntte, .�V'iC. 28217 704 - 2414395 (-V) 704-423-2127(0 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 14 - 1 V C) Lb Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -14-2 Cy O N L" O 7 Q N d N i CL L 2 i11 L d r N 3 u I, il Cf) d- C) D7, 0 LL > • ca OID • Fj 0 LO kn • (9 Cc (D -0 Q= Q: G a � c 3 I I r' I l I la "RE + yy %LO� Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -14-4 Q Nr r 0) 0 0 N W L D E 0 U N L 0 a7�) C{� D lV ^L W 0 U 0 0 0 i n �J O a HA a 4p L kn 1p LOJf LO - - -rn 1" i" 1 't' LO -: Z N Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -14-4 Q Nr r 0) 0 0 N W L D E 0 U N L 0 a7�) C{� D lV ^L W 0 U 0 0 0 i n �J O a HA a a. 0 AC tu 0 L) (1) -4--j co fn In C/) 0 0� IT11- LO LO 0 3: LO Ir rp pgiqF(4 At P p -19FHaF�' 2, 9949 ITEM: 9 -14-5 'IT ■ 2 E 0 co m • L 10 0 _0 03 m C) -a II Dr X x CD Oo CD wt -;- Cl? C�l op ❑❑■■ Ir rp pgiqF(4 At P p -19FHaF�' 2, 9949 ITEM: 9 -14-5 'IT ■ �r t� r� v � ry / I W LO LO V ITEM: 9 -14-6 a R4 P c v 0 C} O r-- IT" m c ti a m co L _0 . a C} 3� O 4' 0' x v v v i p m [I x x x �. LO v u u rr r 0 aooCD � co ,-��� na® ❑o■■ ITEM: 9 -14-6 a R4 P c v 0 C} O r-- IT" LU Ll.. W OW OD �a a� w� W a C6 70 73 Q Cll U) ry I C) LO C7 LO ITEM: 9 -14-7 PA c� Yi 0 G. p] rC C I� ° 1 '01 a 7:3 C) • N ' O x %/ v v • �-- LO LIB � 91 x x x II II II r O v o �� • ® o? m r_o ❑f°W■ • ITEM: 9 -14-7 PA c� Yi 0 G. \�VF�� (0P n O l n E E R s X138 S. STATE STREET, SUITE 101 SANDY, UT 84470 P: (801) 990 -1775 F: (601) 990 -1776 VECTOR, PROJECT: U0142- 475 -141 TOP OF BRANCHES �VL!IWL! LLYLL Copyright 2034 5TEALTh1 & Concealment Solutions, Inc All lights Rese -red Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -14-8 ;NTENNA SOCKS ANTENNAS, TH65 %TION ONLY TO BE FED A _E COLOR Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -14-9 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 14 - 10 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration - Off Airport 0 The site will be down for scheduled maintenance Wednesday 10/08/2014 from 9:00pM 40 9:30PM Li FfGrfN� %PIi1�tTW1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration - Off Airport Add a new Case Oft All Desk Reference Guide V2014 3 0 project Name: BRANC- OD02893ID-14 Sportson Branch Communications, LLC Details for Case: Steele Shaw Proler;t Summary Case: Status ASN: 2014- A544894•CB 5tatna: Mark In Progress Public Comments: None Construction { Alteration Information 09/1912014 i Nail- Of: Construction Duratlon: Permanent Letters: if Temporary : Months: Days. Work Schadule - Start: 0911912014 FJ' 56849_SWI0551 1-A i Work Sche4ule. - End! W For temporary cranes -,toes the permanent aYr4cture requhe separate notice to the FAA? To find out. use the Mortice Criteria TOOL. If separate notice is required, please ensure it Is filed. Ifle is not filed, please state the reason In the Description of Proposal. .State Rill I W Structure Details a49 Latitude: 34° 17' 38..66" N longitude: 77° 50' 53.SS' W Horizontal Datum: NAD83 SHe Elevation (SE): 27 (nearest root) = Structure Height (AGL): 170 (nearest feat) Current Height (AGL): (nearest foe) - For native of alteration or exlsting provide the tnrraar 895 AGL height Of the eXiSting structure. MHz Inehlde details in the Descrlprieo u(Proposal W Max Operating Height (AGL): (nearest foot) • For aeronautical study of a crane or "ostructian equipment 7 the maximum height should he listed above as the 930 Stnrctun_ Height (AGL)- Addiffe"Ity, provide the maximum Ml operating height to avafd delays W impacts are identified that W require negotiation to a reduced height. If the Structure Height 932 and maximum operating height are the same enter the same 3500 value In Loth flelefs. 932 Nacelle Height (AGL)= (nearest loot) For Wind Tortil 500ft AGL or greater cl Requested Markingi Lighting: DuM -red and medium intensity Other; loan ReeAmmeAded Narking /Lighting: I 940 Current Marking /Ligf,tirl All Proposed Structure other W Nearest City: Ogden Nearest State: North Carolina Description or Location: 175 yrds, s or Murrayvllle Rd just On the P— JrOsummary page upload any certifiedsurvey. W of Brittany Rd. Description of proposal: New Tower Cor15tr11Cllgn to 2305 enhance ceflular communication l In the surrounding area. Previous Back to Next Search ResuCt Date Accepted, 09/1912014 Date Determined; !RP Letters: None Documents; 0911912014 FJ' 56849_SWI0551 1-A Projea Documents: None Structure Summary Structure Type; Arnerina Tower Structure Name: Steele FDC NOTAM: NOTAM Number: FCC Number: Prior ASN: Common Frequency Bands Page 1 of +, OE /AAA Law Req High Freq Freq unit !RP Epp unit!, 698 806 MHz 1000 W 806 824 MHz Soo W 824 a49 MHz $OP W 851 966 MHz Soo W 969 894 MHz Soo W 895 901 MHz Soo W 901 902 MHz 7 W 930 931 Ml 3504 W 931 932 MHz 3500 W 932 932.5 MHz 17 cl 935 940 MHz loan W 940 941 Mme 3506 W 1850 1910 MMZ 1640 W 1930 1990 MHz 1640 W 2305 2110 l 2006 W 2345 2350 MHz 2406 W Specific Frequencies Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM- 9 - 15 - 1 I- r -' t rt_._. -` -_-- A .- .n. ... t T w+ T- Mobile Site Number: 5WI0551 T- Mobile Site Name: Steele Branch Site Number: NC -0025 The proposed structure will meet the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, FCC Rules Sections 1.1311, 1.1312, 1.1307 and all other applicable federal, state and local laws. Radio frequency emissions from the antenna array(s) will comply with the FCC standards. Individually and cumulatively the proposed facilities located at the telecommunications site will meet current FCC standards. Samual Curtis, PE O••�F�S5�0' SEAL 041521 T. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 16 - 1 Samual T. Curtis, P.E. Curriculum Vitae Education May 1995 May 2002 August 2003 August 2003 August 2003 August 2003 November 2003 November 2003 December 2003 July 2004 August 2005 October 2005 University of Central Oklahoma Bachelor of Science - Physics Engineering, Minor in Applied Mathematics Optical Solutions FTTH PON Design Certified Level 3 V160 -1E EWSD Architecture V160 -1E EWSD Terminal/User Interface V160 -3E EWSD Documentation V162 EWSD Switch Maintenance V183 ONEUP Delta V 189 EWSD Smart RSU V 150 -OE EWSD Digit Translations. Multi- Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Design and Implementation, Mikrotik RouterOS Certified Registered Professional Engineer — Oklahoma License Number 22174 (Electrical Engineering — Computers, Control Systems and Electronics) Licensed Professional Engineer: 1. Oklahoma, License #22174 2. Texas, License #117377 3. North Carolina, License #041521 4. New Mexico, License #22310 5. Colorado , License 449018 6. Washington, License #51870 Work Experience March 1987- ACRS, Inc. April 1992 Manager CADDIDrafting April 1992- ACRS, Inc. September 1995 Comptroller September 1995- ACRS, Inc. October 1997 Chief Financial Off cer /Project Manager October 1997- ACRS 2000 Corp. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -16-2 July 31, 2008 Executive Vice President August 1999- Teledigm Technologies, Inc. January 2005 President January 1, 2004 — Specialty Telecommunications Services, LLC Present Owner January 2005 — Ca Link Services, LLC /(LinkWifi, Inc Present President/Managing Member January 2009 — RACK59 Partners, LLC Present Partner /Managing Member Qualifications • Licensed Professional Engineer • Instrumental in developing a computerized drafting department within ACRS • Experience utilizing CADTEL; an AutoCAD -based drafting tool for utilities • Extensive knowledge in all REA -RUS nomenclature and procedures • Responsible for all of ACRS' banking and financial functions since 1992 • Experience with running a family owned telecommunications consulting firm • Experience running a family owned construction company • Responsible for installing approximately 200 miles of buried and aerial fiber optic cable throughout various regions of the United States. • Experience estimating and bid preparation for various projects • Experience in design and construction of large optical SONET, FTTH & HFC networks in rural and metropolitan areas. • Experience managing installation of pipeline and pump stations. • Expert Witness Testimony Preparation. • Member of TASA • Member /Officer of OSPE • Member of NSPE • Member of the Association of Communications Engineers ('ACE ") Member of the Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers. Expert Witness Experience; 1. Levy & Craig; "Williams Communications, Inc v. Underground Installation, et al." and Dorsey & Whitney, LLP; 2. "Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona v. Edward J. Caywood and Allison Caywood et al." 3. AT &T CORP. AND AT &T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE SOUTHWEST, INC. [PLAINTIFFS], VS.QWEST INTERNATIONAL OMMUNICATIONS, INC., Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -16-3 QWEST COMMUNICATIONS INC., SP CONSTRUCTION INC. AND C &S DIRECTIONAL BORING COMPANY, INC. [DEFENDANTS} 4. Docket No: 01 -CIV -5554 United States District Court, Southern District of New York Plaintiff {s): Remee Products Corp. Defendant(s): Sho -Me Power Electric Cooperative & TM Sales, Inc. 5. Written and oral testimony before the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. a. CAUSE NO. PUD 200300771 "AT &T Wireless, Cingular Wireless, Dobson Cellular, T- Mobile USA, US Cellular and Western Wireless v. Hinton Telephone Company" 6. Written Expert Report and Testimony in The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma — CASE No: CIV -04- 0577 -R; Broadwing Communications, LLC vs. Greg Tucker Construction Co. 7. Oral Testimony before the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. 8. Patent Research and report for FENNER INVESTMENTS, LTD (PLAINTIFF) v. HEWLETT - PACKARD COMPANY and DELL, INC. (DEFENDANTS), CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:08cv273 Detailed Work Experience January 1996 to January 1997 Project Manager /Construction Manager Associated Communications and Research Services, Inc; 817 N.E. 63rd Street; OKC, OK 73105 Responsible for the design of a $2MM 50 mile fiber optic SONET ( "Synchronous Optical Network ") connecting Eastern Oklahoma State College with five rural school districts to serve as an Interactive educational Television Network ( "IETV "). This project consisted of placing 24 fiber optic strands underground over treacherous landscapes prevalent in southeastern Oklahoma. Responsibilities included route design, right -of -way acquisition, construction management and implementation. Also responsible for development of plans and specifications per 7 CFR 1755.93. Interfaced with owner on a daily basis reviewing project progress and adherence to plans and specifications. Also assisted with the installation of fiber optic SONET lightwave multiplexing terminals to provide connectivity throughout the network. This project enabled five rural school districts in Oklahoma to prevent consolidation and share valuable resources. This network ultimately became part of the Oklahoma OneNet network. January 1997 to December 1997; Executive Vice President; Associated Communications and Research Services, Inc; 817 N.E. 63rd Street; OKC, OK 73105 Responsible for company work product prior to final review by licensed P.E. This work product included preparation of plans and specifications for telecommunication networks per 7 CFR 1755. More specifically Central Office Design, Special Equipment Design and Outside Plant Design. Had responsible charge of a team of four Engineer Interns and fourteen Engineering Technicians. Interfaced with clients who consisted of rural independent telephone companies, competitive local exchange carriers, and larger interexchange long distance carriers. Responsible for managing the day -to -day operations of a mid -sized engineering /construction firm. Responsible for the construction of underground and aerial fiber optic facilities. Projects included: Fiber optic cable installation for Brooks Fiber. These projects totaled over $200k interconnecting several large buildings in downtown Oklahoma City to the WorldCom network. Had responsible charge of the construction of building risers, underground horizontal directional drilling, trenching fiber optic splicing, and preparation of "as built" plant records. Responsible for installation and coast. of a thirty mile fiber optic network connecting wireless Personal Communications Systems ( "PCS ") towers for Kansas Personal Communications Systems. Interfaced with Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -16-4 the Kansas Department of Transportation, assisted with development of plans and specifications. Responsible for $1.3MM construction budget for this particular project. Responsible for installation and construction of a fiber optic "overbuild" within the city of Talihina, OK. Interconnected a local Hospital, Vo -Tech Center, and High school. Responsible for a $300k project budget. Assisted with plans and specifications and preparation of "as built" plant records. Interfaced with different permitting agencies such as ODOT, BIA and the City of Talahina. Interfaced with owner on a weekly basis. December 1997 to December 1998; Executive Vice President; Associated Communications and Research Services, Inc; 817 N.E. 63rd Street; OKC, OK 73105 Responsible for managing the day -to -day operations of a mid -sized engineering/construction firm. Responsible for the construction of underground and aerial fiber optic facilities. Responsible for company work product prior to final review by licensed P.E. This work product included preparation of plans and specifications for telecommunication networks per 7 CFR 1755. More specifically Central Office Design, Special Equipment Design and Outside Plant Design. Had responsible charge of a team of four Engineer Intems and fourteen Engineering Technicians. Interfaced with clients who consisted of rural independent telephone companies, competitive local exchange carriers, and larger interexchange long distance carriers. Projects included: Assisted with the design of Plans and specifications to overbuild the town of Afton, Wyoming for a telecommunications carrier. This project consisted of a complex Coax, Copper and Fiber Optic Outside Plant Design balancing the RF characteristics of an HFC network. Assisted with the design of Plans and Specifications associated with an USDA RUS Loan of over $5MM for an Independent focal Exchange Carrier located in Idaho to overbuild certain urban and rural areas in Idaho. This project consisted of detailed plans and specifications and project management for over 100 miles of buried fiber optic and copper cable plant. Assisted with specific engineering needs for 27 Independent Telephone Companies located in Michigan. This included the development of detailed plans and specifications along with Present Worth Annual Carrying Charge ( "PWAC ") studies for deploying two Signaling Transfer Points ( "STPs ") for a CCITT SS7. This consisted of deploying a number of network nodes, termed Signaling Points (SPs), interconnected by point -to -point signaling links based on a 64kbps channel. This network provided supervision of provision of intertoll circuits, address signaling, carry call progress signals, and Alerting notification to be passed to the called subscriber. Responsible for development of plans and specifications intended to assist a Native American Tribe in Michigan to deploy Personal Communications Systems ( "PCS "). This project's efforts consisted of coordinating the construction of wireless PCS towers, site acquisition, inter -tower transport design, radio frequency propagation studies, and digital switch network design. December 1998 to December 1999; Executive Vice President; Associated Communications and Research Services, Inc; 817 N.E. 63rd Street; OKC, OK 73105 Responsible for managing the day -to -day operations of mid -sized engineering/construction firm. Responsible for the construction of underground and aerial fiber optic facilities. Responsible for company work product prior to final review by licensed P.E. This work product included preparation of plans and specifications for telecommunication networks per 7 CFR 1755 - more specifically Central Office Design, Special Equipment Design and Outside Plant Design. Had responsible charge of a team of four Engineer Interns and fourteen Engineering Technicians. Interfaced with clients who consisted of rural independent telephone companies, competitive local exchange carriers, and larger interexchange long distance carriers. Projects included: Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -16-5 Developed a set of Plans and Specifications to interconnect a digital switching center with an interexchange carrier via fiber optic transport facilities. This project was located near Tucson, AZ and was funded by USDA RUS loan funds. This project included interconnecting a negotiated meet point located near Tucson, AZ with Sells, AZ and the observatory located at Kitt Peak owned by the US Government. Developed plans for the first self supporting dielectric aerial fiber placement for an RUS funded project. Assisted client by preparing RUS specifications for buried plant (Form 515). Tasks included route design, survey, field verification, optic transport loss budget design, detailed AutoCAD design and construction management. Also assisted with the preparation of Central Office Digital Switching Design for two CLASS 5 digital offices. Responsible for miscellaneous construction projects throughout the year. These projects included underground fiber optic transport between small businesses, schools and hospitals in Southeastern Oklahoma. Performed expert witness assistance with the preparation of testimony for: Levy & Craig; "Williams Communications, Inc v. Underground Installation, et al." and Dorsey & Whitney, LLP; "Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona v. Edward J. Caywood and Allison Caywood et al." Responsible for evaluating fair market value of damages and work product. Prepared plans and specifications for a metropolitan fiber optic transport and distribution project for Level(3) Communications and Flour Daniels within the Denver, CO metropolitan area. This project consisted of field surveying, preparation of staking sheets, bill of materials, and detailed AutoCAD design. December 1999 to December 2000; Vice President; ACRS 2000 Corp; 817 N.E. 63rd Street; OKC, OK 73105 Responsible for managing the day -to -day operations of a mid -sized engineering/construction firm. Marketed company services and was responsible for $1 MM of additional consulting and construction revenues. Responsible for the construction of underground and aerial fiber optic facilities. Responsible for company work product prior to final review by licensed P.E. This work product included preparation of plans and specifications for telecommunication networks per 7 CFR 1755 - more specifically Central Office Design, Special Equipment Design and Outside Plant Design. Had responsible charge of a team of three Engineer Interns and twenty Engineering Technicians. Interfaced with clients who consisted of rural independent telephone companies, competitive local exchange carriers, and larger interexchange long distance carriers. Projects included Installation of Digital Subscriber Line ( "DSL ") equipment for Bechtel Corp within five States. This project included development of detailed Method of Procedure ( "MOP "), construction management, and "as built" plant records. Project included two racks of NEBS 3 compliant equipment collocated in 71 Southwestern Bell and US West Wire Centers in Oklahoma, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, and Kansas. Had responsible charge for 14- 2 person installation teams. Prepared detailed plans and specifications for a metropolitan SONET fiber optic transport networks for Williams Communications, Inc. Projects included developing and designing economical routes, underground plan and profiles, coordinating with City, State, and County permitting agencies, and construction management. Projects included metropolitan cities Oklahoma City and St. Louis. December 2000 to December 2001; Vice President; ACRS 2000 Corp; 817 N.E. 63rd Street; OKC, OK 73105 Responsible for managing the day -to -day operations of a mid -sized engineering/construction firm. Marketed company services and was responsible for $I .3MM of additional consulting and construction revenues. Responsible for the construction of underground and aerial fiber optic facilities. Responsible for company work product prior to final review by licensed P.E. This work product included preparation of plans and specifications for telecommunication networks per 7 CFR 1755 more specifically Central Office Design, Special Equipment Design and Outside Plant Design. Had responsible charge of a team of Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -16-6 three Engineer Interns and twenty Engineering Technicians. Interfaced with clients who consisted of rural independent telephone companies, competitive local exchange carriers, and larger interexchange long distance carriers.. Projects included Developed detailed plans and specifications for a 30 mile underground fiber optic transport facility connecting the final leg of a large SONET ring for an independent local exchange telephone company. Responsible for project from inception to completion including but not limited to economical comparison of various plans and recommendation of the final design. Tasks included route design, right -of -way acquisition, coordination with City, County, and ODOT permitting agencies, construction management, quality control, and preparation of as built plant records. Performed expert witness assistance along with preparation of testimony for TASA. December 2001 to December 2002; Vice President; ACRS 2000 Corp; 817 N.E. 63rd Street; OKC, OK 73105 Responsible for managing the day -to -day operations of a mid -sized engineering/construction firm. Marketed company services and was responsible for additional consulting and construction revenues. Responsible for the construction of underground and aerial fiber optic facilities. Responsible for company work product prior to final review by licensed P.E. This work product included preparation of plans and specifications for telecommunication networks per 7 CFR 1755 - more specifically Central Office Design, Special Equipment Design and Outside Plant Design. Had responsible charge of a team of three Engineer Interns and twenty Engineering Technicians. Interfaced with clients who consisted of rural independent telephone companies, competitive local exchange carriers, and larger interexchange long distance carriers. Projects included Responsible charge for the construction of a 12" and 16" water pipeline for the City of Guthrie. This project included the installation of a booster pump station, water pipeline and standby generator. Developed detailed plans and specifications for replacing six digital switching centers for an independent local exchange carrier in western OK. Tasks included explicitly illustrating existing switching infrastructure along with current call traffic density calculations. Prepared trunking diagrams, traffic flow diagrams, CCS /line calculations, power studies, and growth analysis. This design was for Stored Program Controlled Central Office Equipment. Established minimum performance requirements and capabilities for digital central office equipment. Responsible charge for the construction of a Passive Optical Network for a Fiber -To- The -Home project in western OK providing distributed optical plant to 476 subscribers. The FTTC system consists of an Optical Network Unit (ONU), an optical fiber Passive Distribution Network (PDN), and a Host Digital Terminal (HDT) : Developed detailed plans and specifications to upgrade a clients switching network to be in compliance with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement requirements (CALEA). Lawful access services exist to satisfy a legal obligation on the part of a Telecommunications Service Provider (TSP) to support and aid authorized agencies, such as law enforcement and national security, in obtaining subscriber information and, where necessary, intercepting electronic communications. Lawful access services satisfy two types of basic legal requests: subscriber information requests and intercept requests. Subscriber record information provides the authorized agency with specific information about the subscriber's account and service profile. An intercept request provides the authorized agency with access to the call - identifying information and, possibly, the electronic communication of a particular subscriber as directed in the court order. Developed plans and specifications for converting a clients existing analog subscriber circuits to a concentrated integrated digital DS -I circuit per TR -303. The introduction of digital switching systems made it possible for the DLC COT to be eliminated by integrating many of the COT functions into the switching system. In an Integrated Digital Loop Carrier (IDLC) system, the Remote Digital Terminal Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -16-7 (RDT) has a direct interface to the digital switching system. The switching system provides all the fimctionality associated with terminating the digital facilities. These digital facilities may be a DS1 or higher -rate digital facility on a metallic or optical fiber transmission medium. The switching system also provides capabilities for an IDLC system to interface external systems or equipment for surveillance, provisioning, and maintenance operations. Developed plans and specifications to assist a client becoming an internet service provider utilizing existing copper 24 gauge plant and providing high -speed ADSL broadband internet service. This included retrofitting an existing Digital Loop Carrier network to accommodate ADSL broadband service. December 2002 to December 2003; Vice President; ACRS 2000 Corp; 817 N. E. 63rd Street; OKC, OK 73105 Responsible charge for company work product prior to final review by licensed P.E. This work product included preparation of plans and specifications for telecommunication networks per 7 CFR 1755 - more specifically Central Office Design, Special Equipment Design and Outside Plant Design. Managed a team of one Engineer Intern and ten Engineering Technicians. Interfaced with clients who consisted of rural independent telephone companies, competitive local exchange carriers, and larger interexchange long distance carriers. Responsible for managing the day -to -day operations of a mid -sized engineering /construction firm. Marketed company services and was responsible for additional consulting and construction revenues. Responsible for the construction of underground and aerial fiber optic facilities. Successfully designed a five switch network upgrading an ILEC customers current switching platform to Siemens EWSD. Negotiated original quote from $2.9MM to $1.8MM. Implemented design and oversaw installation. Designed and oversaw the installation of a 6 node OC -12 fiber optic SONET network. Negotiated contract with manufacturer and managed project's installation. Assisted client with funding and vendor evaluations. Developed a network design which would allow the client to maximize current regulatory cost recovery. December 2003 to October 5,2007; Vice President; ACRS 2000 Corp; 817 N.E. 63rd Street; OKC, OK 73105 Responsible charge for company work product prior to final review by licensed P.E. This work product included preparation of plans and specifications for telecommunication networks per 7 CFR 1755 - more specifically Central Office Design, Special Equipment Design and Outside Plant Design. Managed a team of one Engineer Intern and ten Engineering Technicians. Interfaced with clients who consisted of rural independent telephone companies, competitive local exchange carriers, and larger interexchange long distance carriers. Responsible for managing the day -to -day operations of a mid -sized engineering/construction firm. Marketed company services and was responsible for additional consulting and construction revenues. Responsible for the construction of underground and aerial fiber optic facilities. Designed and installed three different fixed wireless networks in Oklahoma implemented over IEEE 802.11 technology. Compiled and engineered a cost effective solution for last mile Ethernet for three different data service providers. Managed a construction budget of over $1MM Design and feasibility studies surrounding a Multi- Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) IP Core network. Prepared traffic engineering for VPN tunnels and Label Switched Paths (LSPs) to several ILECs. Assisted in the preparation of detailed business case to deploy encoded IP video (MPEG -2 and MPEG -4) as an application to the Core network. Managed a construction budget of $3,750,000. Designed and installed Voice over IP (VoIP) gateway interfaces for two separate CLECs. Implemented a SIP protocol solution with G.729 compression successfully. Tested and deployed VoIP on fixed wireless as well as HFC transmission mediums. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -16-8 Oversaw the design and construction of a two hundred foot communications tower in southeast Oklahoma. Presented plans before local government and obtained permits and zoning variance. Project included a fiber optic transmission service of approximately one mile. Project total $400,000 Implemented and tested Local Number Portability and CALEA functionality on client switching infrastructure. Designed and implemented a FTTH network upgrade. This project included RF video engineering as well as GR303 integrated digital trunk design and configuration. Prepared written testimony before the Oklahoma Corporation Commission responding to testimony from CMRS carriers forward looking cost analysis. October 6, 2007 to July 31, 2008; President /CEO; Teledigm Corporation; 817 N.E. 63rd Street; OKC, OK 73105. Elected Chief Executive Officer of Teledigm Corporation Inc, a holding company for ACRS 2000 Corp (www.acrsokc.com), Teledigm Technologies Inc (www.teledigm -com), and Vidia Communications, Inc. (www vidiacom.com). Resigned position as of August 1, 2008. January 1, 2004 to present; Owner; Specialty Telecommunications Services, LLC; Professional Engineering Firm specializing in telecommunications design and litigation support. December 2004 to present; President/CEO; @Link Services, LLC (www,athnkwi.com) ; 817 N.E. 63rd Street; OKC, OK 73105 Elected President and CEO of a growing lP Centric LLC owned and operated by four independent local exchange carriers. @Link Services, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company is formed by a consortium of individuals and entities with expertise in the telecommunications industry, with the ability to provide value -added services to independent telephone companies. By combining the resources and experience of its members, the Company provides excellent telecommunications services at very competitive prices. @Link provides end -to -end network solutions with a full range of products and services, including broadband data, voice, video, VPN, municipal and security surveillance services. @Link is a telecommunications provider employing high quality and secure networking utilizing what is known as MPLS core infrastructure, enabling high quality services for the ILEC industry necessary to assist in maintaining a competitive edge. @Link also provides a revolutionary competitive telecommunications application in existing telephone serving areas, providing IP -based voice, data and video delivery, primarily by utilizing wireless technology. @Link is utilizing wireless 802.1 x technology and has designed the network with much needed redundancy as well as carrier quality of service. @Link provides broadband services to over 8,000 Oklahoma residences and businesses. December 2008 to present; Partner and Member; RACK59 Partners, LLC (www.rack59.com) ; 7725 West Reno; OKC, OK Managing Member and Partner in a 50,000 square foot data center. Engineered and deployed fiber connectivity between 201 Robert S Kerr and RACK59 creating an Internet Exchange Point for Central United States. Coordinated peering agreements between local carriers and multiple interstate carriers. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -16-9 E-� a a ITEM: 9 - 17 - 1 c� z z 0 z b � U � N S w � r" ITEM: 9 - 17 - 1 z 0 a 0 H 0 x a z P4 7 U February 2, 2015 -2 N z 0 a 0 H 0 x a W a a U February 2, 2015 -3 .xYRa�'�fr M z a 0 H 0 x a W w F z w U February 2, 2015 -4 ,Wwew qT z 0 a 0 0 x a F z w a a D February 2, 2015 -5 IN STRUCTURES October 6, 2014 Darin Davenport Branch Communications, LLC 1516 South Boston Avenue, Suite 215 Tulsa, OK 74119 918.949.4551 Re: Design and failure modes for a 150 -ft Tapered Monopole Quality of Steel and Fabrication of a Monopole Structure Valmont Quote No. 271114 Site Location: Steele NC -0025 Pole Designed for a 100% fall radius In order to assure you of the high quality of all Valmont products, we would like to offer the following comments: Tapered Monopole Design Standards and Failure Modes: • Communications monopole structures designed by Valmont are sized in accordance with the latest governing revision of the ANSI/TIA 222 standard unless otherwise requested by our customer. This standard has been approved by ANSIIASCE, which has dealt with the design of antenna support structures for over 40 years. The TIA standard, based on provisions of this nationally known specification, has a long history of reliability. At its core philosophy is it's first and foremost priority to safeguard and maintain the health and welfare of the public. • The TIA standard designates a minimum wind loading for each county in the United States, Valmont uses the wind loading listed in the TIA standard unless a greater value is specified by our customer. Structures are also designed for radial ice at a code specified reduced design wind loading. Code designated coefficients are used to ensure that the structure will survive the designed wind speed. The structure can usually survive even a greater wind load than the basic design wind speed because of these conservative coefficients. • Design and loading assumptions that are used for the analyses of these structures are very conservative in nature when compared to other codes, which makes structural failure highly improbable. • Failure of a steel monopole occurs when a point is reached where the induced stresses exceed the yield strength of the material. At this point, the deflections induced in the material are no longer temporary. Hence, a permanent deflection in the monopole would exist. • The term failure above refers to local buckling at a designated point on the pole. Local buckling does not cause a free failing pole; rather it relieves the stresses from the pole at this location. Monopoles are flexible, forgiving structures, which are not generally susceptible to damage by impact loads such as wind gust or earthquake shocks. • When local buckling occurs, a relatively small portion of the shaft distorts and "kinks" the steel. When the pole begins to bend the exposure area is reduced and therefore, the force due to wind is decreased as well. Even though buckling exists, the cross section of the pole is capable of carrying the entire vertical load. Therefore, wind Induced loads could not conceivably bring this type of structure to the ground due to the excellent ductile properties, design criteria, and failure mode. However, in the unlikely event of a pole failure, it would collapse within a maximum radius of 100% of the pole height, in this case 150 ft. • Valmont's communication poles have proven to be very reliable products. Valmont has provided structures that have performed well during earthquakes in California, hurricanes in the South (including Hugo, Andrew, Opal and Katrina), and a number of tornadoes. In over 25 years of engineering and fabricating thousands of monopoles, to our knowledge Valmont has never experienced an in service failure of a communication pole due to weather induced overloading, even though, as in the cases of Hurricanes Hugo, Andrew and Katrina, the wind speeds exceeded the design wind speed. We use the latest standards, wind speed information, and sophisticated analytical tools to ensure that we maintain our unblemished record for quality. Page 1 of 2 Specialty Strucuues Group, Valmont ladustries, Inc. 3575 25'" Street Saiem, OR 97302 -1123 USA Toll Free: 800- 547 -2151 Fax: 503- 316 -2040 www.valmont.com Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 18 - 1 M711111.1 STRUCTURES Valmont Quality of Steel and Manufacturing: Monopoles are fabricated from ASTM A572 Grade 65 material with a controlled silicon content of 0.06% maximum to ensure a uniform galvanized coating. The base material is fabricated from Grade 50 material. All plate material meets a V -Notch toughness requirement of 15 ft -lbs. @ -20 degrees Fahrenheit. By meeting the strict toughness requirement, monopoles are best suited to resist the cycliclfatigue type loading (i.e. wind induced loading) these structures exhibit. Vaimont's anchor bolts are fabricated from A615 Grade 75 material. The bolts are typically 2 X in diameter, made from #18.1 bar stock. Anchor bolts come complete with five (5) Al 94 Grade 2H hex nuts. For the past 40 years, our company has always guaranteed the quality of the steel used in building our structures. Material Certifications are available on all material at the time of fabrication. Fabrication of the monopole is performed in accordance with the provisions of the AISC Manual of Steel Construction and ASCE °s Design of Steel Transmission Pole Structures. All welding and inspection is in accordance with the American Welding Society's Specification D1.1- latest revision. Testing and inspection reports are available upon request at the time of fabrication. I hope these comments address the issues that you might encounter relative to the anticipated performance of monopole structures and quality of steel fabrication. If you have additional questions or comments, I may be reached at (503) 589 -6618. n,�piJlaara+�1s4�a' OCT 0 6 2014 Page 2 of 2 specialty Structures Group, Valutont Industries, Inc. 3575 25" Street Salem, OR 97302 -1123 USA Toll Free: 800 -547 -2151 Fax: 503- 316 -2040 www.yahnont.com Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 18 Sincerely, David Casey Project Eng *�eg4aato,tarral n,�piJlaara+�1s4�a' OCT 0 6 2014 Page 2 of 2 specialty Structures Group, Valutont Industries, Inc. 3575 25" Street Salem, OR 97302 -1123 USA Toll Free: 800 -547 -2151 Fax: 503- 316 -2040 www.yahnont.com Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 18 Date: November 10, 2014 Darin Davenport Branch Communications, LLC 1516 South Boston Avenue, Suite 115 Tulsa, OK 74119 Office: (918) 949 -4551 Subject: Subsurface Exploration Report T- Mobile Designation: Site Number: Branch Designation: Site Number: Site Name: Engineering Firm Designation: TEP Project Number: 1 1\ NC LIC# C -1794 Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. 326 Tryon Road Raleigh, NC 27603 (919) 661 -6351 Geotech @teggroug.net 5W 10551 NC -0025 Steele 56849.23358 Site Data: 6516 Murrayville Road, Wilmington, NC 28411 (New Hanover County) Latitude N 34 ° 17'38.658", Longitude W 770 50'53.554" 150 Foot - Proposed Monopole Tower Dear Mr. Davenport, Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. is pleased to submit this "Subsurface Exploration Report" to evaluate subsurface conditions in the tower area as they pertain to providing support for the tower foundation. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for specific application to this project. The conclusions in this report are based on the applicable standards of TEP's practice in this geographic area at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. TEP assumes the current ground surface elevation; tower location and subsequent centerline provided are correct and are consistent with the elevation and centerline to be used for construction of the structure. Should the ground surface elevation be altered and /or the tower location be moved or shifted TEP should be contacted to determine if additional borings are necessary. The analyses and recommendations submitted herein are based, in part, upon the data obtained from the subsurface exploration. The soil conditions may vary from what is represented in the CPT sounding log. While some transitions may be gradual, subsurface conditions in other areas may be quite different. Should actual site conditions vary from those presented in this report, TEP should be provided the opportunity to amend its recommendations as necessary. We at Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. appreciate the opportunity of providing our continuing professional services to you and Branch Communications, LLC. If you have any questions or need further assistance on this or any other projects please give us a call. °4�o4k8i illF/7� 22 �2�:���2"y' Report Prepared /Reviewed by: Matthew J. Nanak, E.I.T. / John D. Longest, P.E. *�.° CARo',11 f Respectfully submitted by: 3 .b, John . Longest, P.E. ;'•FNGINe' LO �1rldllltWl Performed By: Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. 326 Tryon Road, Raleigh, NC 27603 O) 919.661.6351 F) 919.661.6350 f Board okCD0 mr"tp8je rspgFoelbnuary 2, 2015 ; f ITEM: 9 - 19 - 1 150 Ft Monopole Subsurface Exploration Report Project Number 56849.23358 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2) SITE EXPLORATION 3) SITE CONDITIONS 4) SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1) Soil 4.2) Rock 4.3) Subsurface Water 4.4) Frost 5) TOWER FOUNDATION DESIGN 5.1) Shallow Foundation Table 1 - Shallow Foundation Analysis Parameters 5.2) Drilled Shaft Foundation Table 2 - Drilled Shaft Foundation Analysis Parameters 6) CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS - SHALLOW FOUNDATION 7.1) Excavation 7.2) Foundation Evaluation /Subgrade Preparation 7.3) Fill Placement and Compaction 7.4) Reuse of Excavated Soil 7) CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS - DRILLED SHAFTS 8) APPENDIX A CPT Sounding Layout 9) APPENDIX B CPT Sounding Log Performed By: Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. 326 Tryon Road, Raleigh, NC 27603 O) 919.661.6351 F) 919.661.6350 f Board otCD0mrintp8je rspgFoe1bnuary 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -19-2 November 10, 2014 5WI0551 NC -0025 Steele Page 2 150 Ft Monopole Subsurface Exploration Report Project Number 56849.23358 1) PROJECT DESCRIPTION November 10, 2014 5WI0551 NC -0025 Steele Page 3 Based on the preliminary drawings, it is understood a monopole communications tower will be constructed at the referenced site. The structure loads will be provided by the tower manufacturer. 2) SITE EXPLORATION The field exploration included the performance of one CPT sounding (C -1) to the refusal depth of 38.4 feet (bgs) adjacent to the centerline of the proposed monopole tower. The CPT sounding was performed by an ATV mounted drill rig. In the CPT sounding, an electronically instrumented cone penetrometer was hydraulically advanced through the soil to measure point stress, pore water pressure, and sleeve friction in general accordance with ASTM D 5778. The CPT data was then used to determine soil stratigraphy and to correlate soil parameters such as angle of internal friction and cohesion /undrained shear strength. A CPT Location Plan showing the approximate sounding location and CPT Log presenting the subsurface information obtained are included in the Appendix. 3) SITE CONDITIONS The site is located at 6516 Murrayville Road in Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina. The proposed tower and compound are located in a clearing in woodlands. The ground topography is relativity level. 4) SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The following description of subsurface conditions is brief and general. For more detailed information, the individual CPT Log contained in Appendix B - CPT Log may be consulted. 4.1) Soil The UBC -1983 Soil Behavior Type of the materials encountered in the CPT sounding include Type 3 — Clay, Type 4 — Silty Clay, Type 5 — Clayey Silt, Type 6 — Sandy Silt, Type 7 — Silty Sand, Type 8 — Sand, and Type 9 — Sand. 4.2) Rock Rock was not encountered in the CPT Sounding. Refusal of cone penetrometer advancement was encountered at a depth of 38.4 feet (bgs) in the CPT Sounding. 4.3) Subsurface Water Subsurface water was encountered at a depth of 1.8 feet (bgs) in the CPT Sounding at the time of drilling. It should be noted the subsurface water level will fluctuate during the year, due to seasonal variations and construction activity in the area. 4.4) Frost The TIA frost depth for New Hanover County North Carolina is 5 inches. Performed By: Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. 326 Tryon Road, Raleigh, NC 27603 O) 919.661.6351 F) 919.661.6350 f Board otCD0mrintp8je rspgFoelbnuary 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -19-3 150 Ft Monopole Subsurface Exploration Report Project Number 56849.23358 5) TOWER FOUNDATION DESIGN November 10, 2014 5WI0551 NC -0025 Steele Page 4 Based on the CPT sounding data it is the opinion of TEP that a pier extending to a single large mat foundation or a single drilled shaft can used to support the new tower. The following presents TEP's conclusions and recommendations regarding the foundation types. 5.1) Shallow Foundation The foundation should bear a minimum of 5 inches below the ground surface to penetrate the frost depth and with sufficient depth to withstand the overturning of the tower. To resist the overturning moment, the weight of the concrete and any soil directly above the foundation can be used. The values are based on the current ground surface elevation. Table 1 - Shallow Foundation Analysis Parameters Notes: 1) The bearing values provided are net allowable with a minimum factor of safety of 2 with anticipated settlement less than 1 inch. Bearing may be increased by 1/3 for transient loading (e.g. wind or earthquake loading) 2) These values should be considered ultimate soil parameters 3) The soil values are based on a maximum foundation size of 35 foot squared. If the foundation design size exceeds this dimension TEP should be contacted to re- evaluate soil parameters based on the actual foundation size Performed By: Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. 326 Tryon Road, Raleigh, NC 27603 O) 919.661.6351 F) 919.661.6350 f Board otCD0mrintp8je rspgFoelbnuary 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -19-4 Effective Depth Soil Static Bearing' '3 2 Cohesion Friction Angle Unit Friction Top Bottom (psf) (psf) (degrees) Weight (pcf) Factor 1.5 Type 7 Silty Sand I 1950 I 47 112 0.50 I F 2025 1.5 4.3 Type 7 - Silty Sand 47 F 50 0.50 4.3 5.7 Type 6 Sandy Silt 1925 1880 46 47 53 0.30 0.50 5.7 10.8 Type 9 - Sand 1650 Notes: 1) The bearing values provided are net allowable with a minimum factor of safety of 2 with anticipated settlement less than 1 inch. Bearing may be increased by 1/3 for transient loading (e.g. wind or earthquake loading) 2) These values should be considered ultimate soil parameters 3) The soil values are based on a maximum foundation size of 35 foot squared. If the foundation design size exceeds this dimension TEP should be contacted to re- evaluate soil parameters based on the actual foundation size Performed By: Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. 326 Tryon Road, Raleigh, NC 27603 O) 919.661.6351 F) 919.661.6350 f Board otCD0mrintp8je rspgFoelbnuary 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -19-4 150 Ft Monopole Subsurface Exploration Report Project Number 56849.23358 5.2) Drilled Shaft Foundation November 10, 2014 5WI0551 NC -0025 Steele Page 5 The following values may be used for design of a drilled shaft foundation. TEP recommends the side frictional and lateral resistance values developed in the top section of the caisson for a depth equal to the half the diameter of the caisson or the frost depth, whichever is greater, be neglected in the calculations. The values are based on the current ground surface elevation. Table 2 — Drilled Shaft Foundation Analysis Parameters Depth Soil Type Static Bearing (psf) Side Frictional 2 Resistance (psf) 3 Cohesion p (psf) Friction Angle 3 (degrees) Effective Unit Weight (pcf) Top Bottom 1.5 Type 7 - Silty Sand 1 2900 i 20 47 Type 7 - Silty Sand 3900 60 V F 47 112 1.5 4.3 50 4.3 5.7 Type 6 Sandy Silt 2825 350 1880 47 5.7 10.8 Type 9 - Sand 3975 130 46 53 10.8 14.1 Type 9 - Sand 2650 170 44 52 14.1 15.9 Type 8 - Sand 1775 180 40 51 15.9 17.1 Type 7 - Silty Sand 1350 150 32 48 17.1 20.2 Type 4 Silty Clay 900 190 530 43 20.2 22 Type 4 - Silty Clay F 2025 290 1160 F 45 22 23.8 Type 5 - Clayey Silt 3375 410 2190 F 48 23.8 27.1 Type 9 - Sand 2250 300 41 53 27.1 33 Type 9 - Sand 1500 360 42 54 33 35.1 Type 9 - Sand 1000 330 F 35 52 35.1 36.3 Type 3 - Clay 775 160 450 F- 47 36.3 38.4 Type 8 - Sand 18150 400 38 55 Notes: 1) The bearing values provided are net allowable with a minimum factor of safety of 2. Bearing may be increased by 1/3 for transient loading (e.g. wind or earthquake loading). If the bearing depth of the foundation is less than 5 diameters below the ground surface the bearing values listed in Table 1 - Shallow Foundation Analysis Parameters should be utilized 2) The side frictional resistance values provided are allowable with a minimum factor of safety of 2. Side frictional resistance values may be increased by 1/3 for transient loading (e.g. wind or earthquake loading) 3) These values should be considered ultimate soil parameters Performed By: Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. tr- 326 Tryon Road, Raleigh, NC 27603 O) 919.661.6351 F) 919.661.6350 Board ofuc46DomrftilaslwsmrapgFOelbraary 2, 2015 w- ITEM: 9 -19-5 November 10, 2014 150 Ft Monopole Subsurface Exploration Report 5WI0551 NC -0025 Steele Project Number 56849.23358 Page 6 6) CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS - SHALLOW FOUNDATION 6.1) Excavation The CPT data indicates excavation to the expected subgrade level for the shallow foundation will extend through sand and silt. A large tracked excavator should be able to remove the materials with minimal difficulty. Excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state and federal regulations, including OSHA (29 CFR Part 1926) excavation trench safety standards. It is the responsibility of the contractor for site safety. This information is provided as a service and under no circumstance should TEP be assumed responsible for construction site safety. 6.2) Dewatering /Foundation Evaluation / Subgrade Preparation As previously discussed, subsurface water was encountered in the CPT test at a depth of 1.8 feet (bgs). Therefore, dewatering (using pumped sumps or well points) will be required for construction purposes at this site. The subsurface water level should be kept below the bottom level of any excavation. After dewatering and excavation to the design elevation for the footing, the materials should be evaluated by a Geotechnical Engineer or a representative of the Geotechnical Engineer prior to reinforcement and concrete placement. This evaluation should include probing, shallow hand auger borings and dynamic cone penetrometer testing (ASTM STP -399) to help verify that suitable residual material lies directly under the foundation and to determine the need for any undercut and replacement of unsuitable materials. Loose surficial material should be compacted in the excavation prior to reinforcement and concrete placement to stabilize surface soil that may have become loose during the excavation process. TEP recommends a 6 -inch layer of compacted crushed stone be placed just after excavation to aid in surface stability. 6.3) Fill Placement and Compaction Backfill materials placed above the shallow foundation to the design subgrade elevation should not contain more than 5 percent by weight of organic matter, waste, debris or any otherwise deleterious materials. To be considered for use, backfill materials should have a maximum dry density of at least 100 pounds per cubic foot as determined by standard Proctor (ASTM D 698), a Liquid Limit no greater than 40, a Plasticity Index no greater than 20, a maximum particle size of 4 inches, and 20 percent or less of the material having a particle size between 2 and 4 inches. Because small handheld or walk - behind compaction equipment will most likely be used, backfill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding 6 inches (loose). Fill placement should be monitored by a qualified Materials Technician working under the direction of a Geotechnical Engineer. In addition to the visual evaluation, a sufficient amount of in -place field density tests should be conducted to confirm the required compaction is being attained. 6.4) Reuse of Excavated Soil The sand and silt that meets the above referenced criteria can be utilized as backfill based on dry soil and site conditions at the time of construction. Performed By: Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. 326 Tryon Road, Raleigh, NC 27603 O) 919.661.6351 F) 919.661.6350 Board otCD0mrritp8je rspgFoelbnuary 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -19-6 November 10, 2014 150 Ft Monopole Subsurface Exploration Report 5WI0551 NC -0025 Steele Project Number 56849.23358 Page 7 7) CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS - DRILLED SHAFTS Based on TEP's experience a conventional drilled shaft rig (Hughes Tool LDH or equivalent) can be used to excavate to the refusal depth of TEP's CPT sounding. An earth auger can typically penetrate the materials encountered to the refusal depth of the CPT sounding with little difficulty. Materials below the refusal depth may require a coring bit or roller -bit to remove the material. Special excavation equipment may be necessary for a shaft greater that 60- inches in diameter. Due to the subsurface water and the sandy soil, the contractor may elect to utilize the "slurry" method for shaft construction. The following are general procedure recommendations in drilled shaft construction using the "slurry" method: 1) Slurry drilled shafts are constructed by conventional caisson drill rigs excavating beneath a drilling mud slurry. Typically, the slurry is introduced into the excavation after the groundwater table has been penetrated and /or the soils on the sides of the excavation are observed to be caving -in. When the design shaft depth is reached, fluid concrete is placed through a tremie pipe at the bottom of the excavation. 2) The slurry level should be maintained at a minimum of 5 feet or one shaft diameter, whichever is greater, above the subsurface water level. 3) Inspection during excavation should include verification of plumbness, maintenance of sufficient slurry head, monitoring the specific gravity, pH and sand content of the drilling slurry, and monitoring any changes in the depth of the excavation between initial approval and prior to concreting. In this area it is common to encounter thin layers of organic materials and /or shell deposits. These layers may rapidly alter the pH of the slurry mixture thus affecting the performance of the slurry. It is emphasized that pH levels of the slurry should be closely monitored at this site. 4) A removable steel casing should be installed in the shaft for the entire depth to prevent caving of the excavation sides due to soil relaxation. Loose soils in the bottom of the shaft should be removed. 5) The specific gravity or relative density of the drilling mud slurry should be monitored from the initial mixing to the completion of the excavation. An increase in the specific gravity or density of the drilling slurry by as much as 10 percent is indicative of soil particles settling out of the slurry onto the bottom of the excavation. This settling will result in a reduction of the allowable bearing capacity of the bottom of the drilled shaft. 6) After approval, the drilled shaft should be concreted as soon as practical using a tremie pipe. 7) For slurry drilled shafts, the concrete should have a 6 to 8 inch slump prior to discharge into the tremie. The bottom of the tremie should be set at about one tremie pipe diameter above the excavation. A closure flap at the bottom of the tremie should be used, or a sliding plug introduced into the tremie before the concrete, to reduce the potential for the concrete being contaminated by the slurry. The bottom of the tremie must be maintained in concrete during placement, which should be continuous. 8) The protective steel casing should be extracted as concrete is placed. A head of concrete should be maintained above the bottom of the casing to prevent soil and water intrusion into the concrete below the casing. If variability in the subsurface materials is encountered, a representative of the Geotechnical Engineer should verify that the design parameters are valid during construction. Modification to the design values presented above may be required in the field. Performed By: Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. 326 Tryon Road, Raleigh, NC 27603 O) 919.661.6351 F) 919.661.6350 Board otCD0mrr tp8je rspgFoe1bnuary 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -19-7 150 Ft Monopole Subsurface Exploration Report Project Number 56849.23358 APPENDIX A CPT SOUNDING LAYOUT Performed By: Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. 326 Tryon Road, Raleigh, NC 27603 O) 919.661.6351 F) 919.661.6350 f Board otCD0mrintp8je rspgFoe1bnuary 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -19-8 November 10, 2014 5WI0551 NC -0025 Steele Page 8 9 �'T\ �1 EXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS 1 PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT WOODED AREA BORING LAYOUT SCALE: N.T.S. PREPARED BY: TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 326 TRYON ROAD RALEIGH, NC 27603 (919) 661 -6351 www.tepgroup.net GRASSY AREA GRASSY AREA WOODED AREA 1 ' t �'C -1 1�i PROPOSED 60'x60' LEASE AREA i i i i i PROPOSED 150' MONOPOLE TOWER PREPARED FOR: BR, ;NCH Cogm— CATOONS. LLC 516 SOUTH BOSTON BLVD. #11 TULSA, OK 74119 (918) 949 -4551 PROJECT INFORMATION: 5WI0551 NC -0025 STEELE 6516 MURRAYVILLE ROAD WILMINTON, NC 28411 (NEW HANDOVER COUNTY) ITEM: 9 -19-9 EXISTING STRUCTURE (TYP. ) REVISION: TEP JOB #:56849.23358 SHEET NUMBER: C -1 150 Ft Monopole Subsurface Exploration Report Project Number 56849.23358 APPENDIX B CPT SOUNDING LOG Performed By: Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. 326 Tryon Road, Raleigh, NC 27603 O) 919.661.6351 F) 919.661.6350 f Board otCD0mrintp8je rspgFoe1bnuary 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 19 - 10 November 10, 2014 5WI0551 NC -0025 Steele Page 9 Mid - Atlantic Drilling Inc. Client : Tower Engineering Operator : Location : Wilmington N.C. Job Number Hole Number: C -1 Water Table Cory Robison 56849 1, 10" Cone Number: DDG1299 Date and Time : 11/7/2014 8:19:41 AM C) = Tip CPT DATA Resistance Local Friction Pore Pressure SPT N" 0 Qt TSF 600 0 Fs TSF 16 0 Pw PSI 160 0 60% Hammer 200 O J = W ) O m 0 ,Z REMARKS 0 FF1 5 4H4- 44 10 _r _rr� I "-T -ri _r _rl T �-t r 15 20 —t dL L Id 25 H 4— -H 4 4 30 —T -ri _r _ �T—T rT rt T 35 LLL 40 7777 1 - sensitive fine grained 04- silty clay to clay ■ 7 - silty sand to sandy silt ■ 10 - gravelly sand to sand 2- organic material ■ 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 8 - sand to silty sand 11 - very stiff fine grained ( ) 0 3 - clay ■ 6 - sandy silt to &Wsg tCommissio ers - Fegmly 2, 2015 0 12 - sand to clayey sand ( ) ITEM - BR NCH COMMUNICATIONS, LLC Attn: Benjamin Andrea New Hanover County Planning 230 Government Drive Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 Re: 5WI0551 Cell Tower Traffic Requirements 6516 Murrayville Road Wilmington, NC 28411 Mr. Andrea, Branch Communications 1516 S. Boston Avenue, Suite 215 Tulsa, OK 74119 918-949-4551 Fax 918- 949-4557 Branch Communications is in the process of submitting for approval of a proposed telecommunications facility located at 6516 Murrayville Road. For access to the tower location an existing gravel driveway will be utilized. Branch Communications is requesting that any traffic mitigation requirements be waived due to low traffic volume and no additional proposed Right of Way encroachment. The existing driveway would be used daily during the construction process (approximately 45 days). Following construction, the proposed driveway would be used roughly five times per month by pick- up trucks or lesser vehicles for site maintenance and inspection. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding traffic mitigation please feel free to reach out to me directly. Sincerely. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -20-1 Traffic Impact Worksheet Prior to submission of nonresidential site plan, this worksheet must be prepared, A Traffic Impact Analysis will be required for all projects generating 100 peak hour trips or more. The scope of the TIA shall be determined by concurrence of the Planning Director, the MPO coordinator and NCDOT traffic engineer. Any mitigation measures required must be included in the final site plan submitted for review. PROJECT NAME 5w1()551 PROJECT ADDRESS 6516 Murrayville Rd Wilmington, NC 28411 DEVELOPER/OWNER Branch Communications EXISTING ZONING R -15 GROSS FLOOR AREA 3600 (Gravel Compound size) sq. ft. NEAREST INTERSECTION Murrayville Rd and Mabee way BEFORE PROPOSED PROJECT Average Daily Traffic (Date) -- 5trips/Month (Once Built) LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) NSA ITE MANUAL TRAFFIC GENERATION ESTIMATE: *lTE Manuat available at Planning Department USE AND VARIABLES: Telecommunication Facility (construction. Peak) (Example: Racquet Club; 8 courts; Saturday peaks) AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS N/A PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS NSA (Traffic generation of 100peak hour trips will require Traffic Impact Analysis Scoping meeting with Planning Department) Person Providing Estimate ignature Peak Hour estimate confirmed by Planning & Zoning on M- (Date) Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -20-2 HELLMAN YATES & TISDALE ATTORNEYS AND COLINSELEIRS AT LAW JONATHAN L. YATES DIRECT VOICE 843 414 -9754 , LYQHELLMANYATES.COM October 8, 2014 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Benjamin Andrea, Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor Planning & Inspections - Planning & Zoning New Hanover County 23o Government Center Drive, Suite 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 (910) 798-7571 HELLMAN YATES & TISDALE, PA 105 BROAD STREET, THIRD FLOOR CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA 29401 V 843 266 -9099 F 843 266 -9188 RE: Proposed 1504000. monopole -style wireless communications facility to be located at 6516 Murrayville Road, Wilmington, NC 28411 by Branch Communications Dear Ben: We are pleased to present this application on behalf of Branch Communications and T- Mobile for a 150400t monopole -style wireless communications facility to be located at 6516 Murrayville Road, Wilmington, NC 28411. The underlying 7.25 -acre property is owned by Angela Steele and is designated as tax map number R03500- 004 - 004 -000. The property is located in the R -15 district. This facility is desperately needed in order to provide adequate voice and advanced data coverage to the surrounding area. We have taken the liberty of recasting the relevant sections of the New Hanover County Zoning Ordinance below with our response to the relevant section in bold. As you will see from the following, all of the New Hanover County requirements have been met. Section 63.5 -1: Telecommunication Communication Facilities, Cellular and Related Towers These facilities may be located by right in the 1 -1 and I -2 Districts and by special use permit in all other zoning districts. In addition, these facilities shall be subject to the following:. (A) Except for amateur radio antenna up to go feet, any tower, antenna or related structure in any zoning district shall set back from any existing residential property line or residential zoning district boundary a distance equal to the height of the tower as measured from the base of the tower. In no case shall the setback for any tower, antenna or related structure be less than 50 feet. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 21 - 1 October 8, 2014 Page 2 As shown on Sheet Z2 of the Site Plans and Drawings, attached hereto as Exhibit "5" and incorporated herein by reference, the proposed facility is set back more than i5o feet from any property line, thereby complying with this requirement. Furthermore, the fall zone for the proposed monopole - style communications tower has been certified at i5o feet, as shown in the ANSI /Fall Zone Letter by North Carolina Engineer Jeffrey E. Grassman, attached hereto as Exhibit "7" and incorporated herein by reference. (S) Where Special Use Permits are required, all of the following standards shall be applied, and all requirements must be met. Additional conditions may be determined to be necessary to mitigate negative impacts, and the permit should be approved only if all negative impacts can be mitigated. No reductions in setbacks may be granted for this use under Section 62.1 -4 of this ordinance. The minimum distance between the tower and any other adjoining parcel of land or road must be equal to the minimum setback described above, plus any additional distance necessary to ensure that the tower, as designed, will fall within the tower site. Please see Sheet Z2 of Exhibit 115," as well as Exhibit "7." 2. The applicant shall provide simulated photographic evidence of the proposed appearance of the tower from four (4) vantage points and a statement as to the potential visual and aesthetic impacts on all adjacent residential zoning districts. The simulation shall include overall height; configuration; physical location; mass and scale; materials and color (including proposals for stealth structures); and illumination. Photo simulations of the proposed facility are attached hereto as Exhibit "S" and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Concealed (stealth) or camouflaged facilities are encouraged when the method of concealment is appropriate to the proposed location. Attached stealth facilities may include but are not limited to: painted antenna and feed lines to match the color of a building or structure, faux windows, dormers, or other architectural features that blend with an existing or proposed building or structure. Freestanding stealth facilities typically have a secondary, obvious function such as church steeple, windmill, silo, light standard, flagpole, bell /clock tower, water tower, or tree. There is no appropriate method of concealment for this facility on the Steele property. We are deploying the monopole design, as it has been found to be the most innocuous and visibly- pleasing to the surrounding area. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -21-2 October 8, 2014 Page 3 4. The proposed appearance of concealed or non- concealed facilities shall be evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding community prior to submission of the special use application. Applicants shall meet with Planning staff for a preliminary review of proposed appearance in order to assure each facility will impose the least obtrusive visual impact. Applicants accept and acknowledge this provision. (C) A landscaped buffer with a base width not less than 25 feet and providing too opacity shall be required within the tower site to screen the exterior of protective fencing or walls. The base of the tower and each guy wire anchor must be surrounded by a fence or wall not less than 8 feet in height. As shown on Sheet Z6 of Exhibit "5," the proposed monopole -style wireless communications facility will be enclosed by an eight -foot -high chained link fence, topped with three strands of barbed wire as an anti - climbing device, for a total height of nine feet. In addition, please see Sheet Z5 of Exhibit "5," which shows the landscaping plan by Branch Communications. Branch Communications will plant 107 Carolina Sapphires to screen the compound. (D) All applicants seeking approval for the construction of any new towers, antennas, and related structures shall submit written evidence in the form of a report to demonstrate that collocation on any existing tower, antenna or usable structure in the search area for the new tower is not reasonable or possible. Technical data in the report shall include certification by a Registered Professional Engineer licensed in the State of North Carolina or other qualified professional, whose qualifications shall be included, regarding service gaps or service expansions that are addressed by the proposed telecommunication tower and accompanying maps and calculations demonstrating the need for the proposed tower. A map showing the search ring and an inventory of all structures investigated for co- location shall be included as well as a radio frequency analysis indicating the coverage of existing wireless communications sites, coverage prediction, and design radius, together with a certification from the applicant's radio frequency (RF) engineer that the proposed network design is intended to improve coverage or capacity potential or reduce interference and the proposed facility cannot be achieved by any higher ranked alternative such as a concealed (stealth) facility, attached facility, replacement facility, co- location, or new antenna support structure. Please see the T- Mobile letter of need, radio- frequency propagation maps, and search ring prepared by T- Mobile RE Design Engineer Gurpreet Singh, attached hereto as Exhibit "9," and incorporated herein by reference. (E) All towers shall be constructed to accommodate collocation. Towers over 150 feet in height shall be engineered to accommodate at a minimum two additional providers. Towers 150 feet or less in height shall be engineered to accommodate at a minimum one additional provider. As shown on Sheet Z4 of Exhibit "5," the proposed facility has been Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -21-3 October S, 2014 Page 4 designed for T- Mobile and at least three of its competitors, thereby complying with this requirement. (F) All applicants seeking approval shall also submit a written affidavit from a qualified person or persons, including evidence of their qualifications, certifying that the construction or placement of such structures meets the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, FCC Rules Sections 1. 1311, 1.1312, 1.1307 and all other applicable federal, state and local laws. The statement must certify that radio frequency emissions from the antenna array(s) comply with the FCC standards. The statement shall also certify that both individually and cumulatively the proposed facilities located on or adjacent to the proposed facility will comply with current FCC standards. In accordance with NCGS 153A-349.52(a), the County cannot base its permitting decision on public safety implications of radio frequency emissions of wireless facilities. Please see the written compliance affidavit, attached hereto as Exhibit "n" and incorporated herein by reference. (G) Any tower and associated equipment which was lawfully constructed under the terms of the Ordinance, which is now considered a nonconforming improvement, may continue or be reconstructed as a conforming improvement even through the tower and associated equipment may not conform with the provisions of this Ordinance for the district in which it is located. Towers and associated equipment may only be enlarged and /or relocated if the enlarged or relocated tower eliminates the need for an additional tower, provides additional collocation opportunities on the tower, or provides additional antenna space on the tower; and provided further that the enlargement and /or relocation shall be in conformance with the following regulations and design limitations: 1. Tower height may not be increased by more than 15% of the originally constructed tower height. Increases in height greater than 15% will require a variance from the Board of Adjustment. 2. A tower shall be allowed to be reconstructed and relocated within the boundaries of the property on which it is located so long as the decrease in the setback does not exceed 15% of the originally constructed tower height and the relocated tower is sited to minimize any increase in the existing nonconformity. Any request to reconstruct and relocate the tower where the resulting decrease in setback exceeds 15% of the originally constructed tower height shall require a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Applicants accept and acknowledge this provision. (H) Cellular and PCS antennas attached to existing structures shall not add more than six feet to the overall height of a structure. (10/02) Applicants accept and acknowledge this provision. (I) Signage: Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -21-4 October 8, 2014 Page 5 Attaching commercial messages for off -site or on -site advertising shall be prohibited. 2. The only signage that is permitted upon a tower, antenna support structure, equipment cabinet, or fence shall be informational, and for the purpose of identifying (1) the antenna support structure (such as ASR registration number); (2) the party responsible for the operation and maintenance of the facility; C31 its current address and telephone number; (4) security or safety signs; (5) property manager signs for the tower (if applicable); and (b) signage appropriate to warn the general public as to the use of the facility for radiofrequency transmissions. Branch Communications, T- Mobile and all other users of the proposed wireless communications facility will only place the federally- required site identification and emergency signage on the proposed facility, as shown on Sheet Z7 of Exhibit "5." (J) Equipment Compound: 1. Shall not be used for the storage of any equipment or hazardous waste (e.g., discarded batteries) or materials not needed for the operation. No outdoor storage yards shall be allowed in a tower equipment compound. Applicants accept and acknowledge this provision. 2. Shall not be used as habitable space. Applicants accept and acknowledge this provision. (K) Outside Experts and Disputes 1. Siting of telecommunications facilities may involve complex technical issues that require review and input by outside experts. Staff may require the applicant to pay the reasonable costs of a third -party technical study of a proposed facility. Selection of expert(s) to review the proposal shall be at the sole discretion of the decision- making body. Applicants accept and acknowledge this provision. 2. if an applicant for a telecommunications facility claims that one (1) or more standards of this Ordinance are inconsistent with federal law as applied to a particular property, or would prohibit the effective provision of wireless communications within the relevant market area, the decision - making body may require that the application be reviewed by a qualified engineer for a determination of the accuracy of such claims. Any costs shall be charged to the applicant. Applicants accept and acknowledge this provision. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -21-5 October 8, 2014 Page 6 (L) The applicant shall submit Form 746o to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to assure compliance with all FAA standards and to resolve issues of concern, including required lighting, possible transmission interference or other conflicts when the proposed tower site is located within ten thousand (io,000) feet of an airport or within any runway approach zone. Please see the Federal Aviation Administration filing documents, attached hereto as Exhibit "lo" and incorporated herein by reference. In addition to these Exhibits, please find a copy of the current tax map, attached hereto as Exhibit "i;" the narrative of proposed use, attached hereto as Exhibit "2;" the adjacent owners and uses, attached hereto as Exhibit "3;" the Traffic Impact Worksheet, attached hereto as Exhibit "4;" and the Property Owner Authorization letter, attached hereto as Exhibit "6." On behalf of Branch Communications and T- Mobile, we thank you very much for your time and consideration in the review of this application. If you have any questions or if we can provide any additional information, please call me on my direct line at (843) 414 -9754 or on my mobile at (843) 813 -0103. We look forward to working with you and your staff on this project for Branch Communications and T- Mobile. With warmest regards, I am JLY:edh Enclosures Cc: Karen Kemerait, Esq. Gray Styers, Esq. Your very truly, athan L. Yates �' - '��7 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -21-6 J a1� A� �\ 11110411111% G R PR37F�f c�li]h€ALS November 3, 2014 New Hanover County Development Services 230 Government Center Drive, Suitc 110 Wilmington, NC 28403 Attention: Mr. Chris O'Keefe, Planning Director Subject: Proposed 150 -ft (154 -ft with appurtenances) Monopole Communications Tower Site Name: 5WI0551 Branch Towers, LLC ID: NC-0025/Steele TCNS# 118032, filed 9/23/2014 6516 Murrayville Road Wilmington, NC 28411 (New Hanover County) Dear Mr. O'Keefe, Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. (TEP) of Raleigh, NC has been contracted by Branch Towers, LLC to complete a NEPA Checklist (FCC Compliance Audit) for the aforementioned proposed communications tower. As part of the completion of the Form -620 submission to the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office as directed by the FCC- Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (FCC -NPA), Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. is required to contact your office regarding the proposed undertaking. The proposed 150 -ft (154 -ft AGL with appurtenances) monopole communications tower will be located at 6516 Murrayville Road, north of the City of Wilmington, within New Hanover County, North Carolina. The proposed communications tower facility will be located on the southern portion of an approximately 7.32 -acre property, identified as Parcel # R03500- 004 - 004 -000 by the New Hanover, NC Tax Assessors Office. Access to the site will be provided by a proposed 20 -ft wide access & utility easement which will proceed southeast from a portion of Murrayville Road for approximately 550 -ft, along an existing gravel drive and through a heavily disturbed maintained grass lawn, until reaching the proposed 60 -ft x 60 -ft Branch Towers, LLC lease area. The area of potential disturbance associated with the proposed 60 -ft x 60 -ft Branch Towers, LLC lease area and 20 -ft wide by approximately 550 -ft long access & utility easement is anticipated to total approximately 14,600 -ft2 (0.33 - acres). These areas are herein referred to as the direct effects area of potential effect (APE). The proposed tower is anticipated to be an unlit structure. The topography of the proposed tower compound is sloping to the south - southeast. The parent property is located in a portion of New Hanover County where the majority of the surrounding area is occupied by undeveloped forested and low density residential Iand uses. Additionally, the parent property is occupied by industrial land uses associated with Steele's and Son Landfill, a yard debris and dirt land fill. 326 Tryon Rd. Raleigh, NC 27603 -3530 O) (919) 661 -6351 F) (919) 661 -6350 Iwoolridgeatepgroup.net Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -22-1 I la it W, �� TP4 +rESz PROFESSIONALS; The 1 -A coordinates of the tower location are as follows: Latitude: N 34° 17' 38.658" (NAD 83) Longitude: W 770 50'53.554" (NAD 83) Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. recently visited the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NC SHPO) website on August 19, 2014 to access the HPOWEB GIS Service to make an assessment of the potential significant impacts to architectural or historic sites in the vicinity of the proposed tower site. A FCC -NPA designated 0.5 -mile radius visual Area of Potential Effect (APE) was established for the proposed 150 -ft (154 -ft with appurtenances) monopole tower to determine if the proposed tower would have any visual effect on properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic PIaces within the visual APE. The NCSHPO HPOWEB GIS Service revealed (0) recorded architectural sites, listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, located within the 0.5 mile radius of the proposed site. Additionally, Ms. Lauren Norris of Tower Engineering Professionals Inc., conducted background research to identify Historic Properties within the direct effects APE associated with the proposed tower, which included a search of archeological site records at the Office of State Archeology in Raleigh, NC on October 2, 2014. No (4) recorded archeological sites were identified during the background research conducted by Ms. Norris. TEP contracted Environmental Services, Inc., a cultural resources consulting firm, to conduct a Review of Archaeological Potential of the proposed tower site. The results of the assessment indicate that "the project area is located within an extensively graded and graveled area that has been used as a stump dump. As the depth of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth by at least two feet, the location has no potential to contain significant, intact archaeological sites and it is ESI's professional opinion that no archaeological investigation of the location is necessary and the project as proposed will have no effect on significant cultural resources." The report has been included for your review. It is the position of TEP that the proposed tower construction will have "no effect" on sites eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places within the APE; however, we would appreciate any comments that you may have on the proposed activity regarding the possible impacts that the proposed facility may have on Historic Properties. Please provide any comments within thirty days of the receipt of this documentation. A portion of the pertinent 7.5- Minute topographic map that depicts the proposed tower location, Review of Archaeological Potential, site plan, and site photographs have been included for your review. If there are any questions, or if any additional information is needed, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Sincerely, Lindsey Woolridge Environmental Scientist I Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. 326 Tryon Rd. Raleigh, NC 27603 -3530 O) (919) 661 -6351 F) (919) 661 -6350 lwooIridge@tepgroup.net Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -22-2 ENN'IRONMFNT L SERNK3, INC. 4901 'trademark Drive R4ley 9h, NC 27610 - www .emiroiimenialserviccsmc.coni 28 October 2014 Andrew Blake Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. 326 Tryon Road Raleigh, NC 27603 Re: Tower 5WI0551.. New Hanover County, North Carolina Review of Archaeological Potential Dear Mr. Blake: Environmental Services, Inc. (ESi), reviewed the location of the proposed tower identified as 5WI0551, located at 6516 Murrayville Road in Wilmington, North Carolina for Tower Engineering Professionals, Inc. (TEP) in order to assess the level of prior disturbance at the property and to determine if the Iocation had the potential to contain significant archaeological deposits (see attached USGS 7.5- minute quadrangle). The project consists of a proposed 150 -foot (154 -foot with appurtenances) monopole, 60 -x -60 foot lease area, and 20 -foot wide access and utility easement (see attached site plan). The property has been used as a stump dump and has been extensively graded and graveled (see attached site photographs). As the depth of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth by at least two feet, the location has no potential to contain significant, intact archaeological sites. As such, it is ESI's professional opinion that no archaeological investigation of the location is necessary. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at (919) 212 -1760 or truss @esinc. cc. Sincerely, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. Yi Russ, RFA Senior Archaeologist Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -22-3 0 DeLorme, Topo North ArnencaTO 10. MN (SATO M 1� www.delorme com T. 2,000 0 ft Data Zoom 13-0 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -22-4 G o )Stc- earth feet 700 meters 200 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -22-5 r 2001 Aerial We- v wk y f i, am Google earth feet 700 meters 200 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -22-6 A 5W I055 October 14, 2014 1:16,072 0 0 125 0.25 0 5 mi • NR Individual Listing 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 km 0 NR Listing, Gone NRHD Center Point Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -22-7 HDFILL MIMPMTIIM� 3) Photo 'facing north along the proposed access easement. 4) Photo facing southa long the proposed access easement. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -22-9 5) Photo facing south towards the proposed tower centerline. 6) Photo facing north from proposed tower centerline. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 22 - 10 7) Photo facing south from proposed tower centerline. 8) Photo facing east from proposed tower centerline Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 22 - 11 j n 9) Photo facing west from proposed tower centerline. 10) Photo facing north towards the proposed tower centerline, Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 22 - 12 V' µ07f5'l0'V O w �s ° F z jg 2.K� ;sY 300.69'CT[5) Z ZlaO [.i pU01~i'1O�le -Z S.ftpll AnaN NZVtta�- c9Ogr ?Dr wO O?wznW ,r.. vvi✓'+ d�.� vi'R cy`"..w H C a'''� c.o°" �oz " itlllfl/�f�rx Yw } O rc °w� T1f� �m� LL, �m��o z a co oi zm ZOZUU°iw 0-IONSr-zp zrZw O U4`4 LU x W.V ;V°- g ®zaZ0'1�V @zVr4Y W [n 4x ve N/AZ zZ SVi /1 LLLg00 U` °�.L W V hY S �F U <wY. qZZ K� Ur. W'? �..1AI� 2 O azT� r4 IrII�� pli1�!�I:y3 m 3M� .Q �Inw C m UO :5 ', i- dti jr(4�'4'il � ° ©rf3m¢pm?WNUq °dwa�wo °w N. I 1H o V +oN; r.Li °W C-4 A, uiwo�xlh z�`�wuoNzj- z® am �a ° °° -'.a o RU 1 QN 3 81 0 N m � n� J N J N° Nh NN t° p.b°i w D QLJ Q05172 a �w��ua¢wz�µ.z= a° pY°o��a� _w z ' I+ a�V�IX Mw'�Hwa WOUQ OOV Q wZY° �t -i-tirw LLJ w I - . • t407'15 10 °w_ W _- m N � vn a °aa aw°i=zF"or�+n ewe � 6 20 LL 0 µ07f5'l0'V O w �s ° F z 300.69'CT[5) z ZlaO [.i pU01~i'1O�le -Z S.ftpll AnaN NZVtta�- c9Ogr ?Dr wO O?wznW 5 R ¢ iQ N w wew 5 ao� m Yw } O rc 2VlN �Z2 ¢G VtY VS mZh FOF ?�t9zxul�000 S t - u¢��Zr wFrr ash U [� C7 Iri o z ¢J� ^U -r-4V �'n Z~00�4 idr.9�w Ow143 a •' J I oi O zm ZOZUU°iw 0-IONSr-zp zrZw O U4`4 z m W.V ;V°- g ®zaZ0'1�V @zVr4Y W [n 4x ve N/AZ zZ Z ZmZZ p m Hin - Q [Olaf�U 9 2 wmSl�W� Q O¢WU V1�000 =�rym�w ° ©rf3m¢pm?WNUq °dwa�wo °w HISON dItIO moR Z z h r +oN; r.Li °W C-4 A, uiwo�xlh z�`�wuoNzj- z® am �a ° °° -'.a o RU 1 QN 3 81 0 N m � n� J N J N° Nh r.L' NN t° p.b°i W `-'z a!r`i QOVLL4h0.wZ QLJ Q05172 a �w��ua¢wz�µ.z= a° pY°o��a� _w z 0 I+ a�V�IX Mw'�Hwa WOUQ OOV Q wZY° �t -i-tirw d_ Q Zu ow- ¢~��Np i2dd W Uw6tR<r� UR Orr2w V OF_ a I - . • t407'15 10 Z?r a W _- �..}� ifJ f- Z � vn a °aa aw°i=zF"or�+n � 6 20 LL 0 �Z D wm r i z Vl xm w �4 :x W S°G C vs 2Z® 572 Al' Z W m20B Yhm IK ¢ wcewl�.,�n °a V w U a Z wVlwgNh ¢ V ¢pa< g mad. -M ueazz� LL N �ip¢w rc� 4 1 y m k� wm w 0 40 , O O m ~ F,p W°QNa wbmU uazwz w °m y vi zWam uFiaQl: m vwlw 3a I -gym 2q Sow n 11 °c ainazwz N67 a xOR sl 4 som �aIN 2�avl 4 0� Cl � 4 �a` z µ07f5'l0'V O w �s ° F z 300.69'CT[5) z ZlaO [.i pU01~i'1O�le -Z S.ftpll AnaN NZVtta�- c9Ogr ?Dr wO O?wznW 5 R ¢ iQ N w wew 5 ao� m Yw } O rc 2VlN �Z2 ¢G VtY VS mZh FOF ?�t9zxul�000 S t - u¢��Zr wFrr ash U [� C7 Iri o z ¢J� ^U -r-4V �'n Z~00�4 idr.9�w Ow143 a •' J I oi O zm ZOZUU°iw 0-IONSr-zp zrZw O U4`4 z W.V ;V°- g ®zaZ0'1�V @zVr4Y v/ _j rOZ°zQd104 °x7 YU�OmN O I/l'�-x.r }�rQw w I� n i l p m Gti4� - .Q�/ U W 2F Z4w.�a iSW0�2r=zw �oimu�i °- d=og °aoa¢aa wmSl�W� Q O¢WU V1�000 =�rym�w ° ©rf3m¢pm?WNUq °dwa�wo °w < zz��=vnw`h°,4 ©r.awm w.wm„4O1 -.8-28" �n C-4 A, uiwo�xlh z�`�wuoNzj- z® am �a ° °° -'.a o 1 LL H Q Z am -? jzo' Na°aw=m�na�q n °:4z i < L�, J O- t"xmoNi ziD? a�¢sa¢md,°lQrLLawpgo°'� W Z aom om Oziha� .n 4Z Kdrarw �wo3'w °,"a�mwma °a v Z. W `-'z a!r`i QOVLL4h0.wZ �(� �w��ua¢wz�µ.z= a° pY°o��a� _w z 0 I+ a�V�IX Mw'�Hwa WOUQ OOV Q wZY° �t -i-tirw d_ Q Zu ow- ¢~��Np i2dd W Uw6tR<r� UR Orr2w V OF_ a I - . • t407'15 10 I � _- �..}� ifJ f- Z � vn a °aa aw°i=zF"or�+n ewe J O� I OOb � � wOOmU=�N'�VIYNZ "��O 41-Iti LLO.i b'xppWW¢ uVmpZOa �Yp3N0 I w��„ i rnoa W 00 ODQNWNT w Tmd ®zzzz- "� Q Q 04�? zw✓I 4�n S? �Z wZh¢ wU Z�wulmd ��ti V�� Y I I i w u to [~li J CZp¢, HlpoxmuV Ps virvpp[jpN� �qV 1m1yy°wV~KpWNyJN i2zp°000[�1113oQ(nNQpw�:pLL ���n ip Q^z 4a NM G�9 u V C C5 'N W i �Z D wm r i z Vl xm w �4 :x W S°G C vs 2Z® 572 Al' Z W m20B Yhm IK ¢ wcewl�.,�n °a V w U a Z wVlwgNh ¢ V ¢pa< g mad. -M ueazz� LL N �ip¢w rc� 4 1 y m k� wm w 0 40 , O O m ~ F,p W°QNa wbmU uazwz w °m y vi zWam uFiaQl: m vwlw 3a I -gym 2q Sow n 11 °c ainazwz N67 a xOR sl 4 som �aIN 2�avl 4 0� Cl � 4 �a` z Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 22 - 13 O w �s ° 0.6¢ N¢¢4 K 09 ZlaO [.i pU01~i'1O�le -Z S.ftpll AnaN NZVtta�- c9Ogr ?Dr wO O?wznW 5 70 S.�N�II# �¢ OOWOOOw 0 U011 �ZOV WOLLOW �- ?4 °ON2F N w pJO V4 �� ill 4zttN�U 4R�iR � 2VlN �Z2 ¢G VtY VS mZh FOF ?�t9zxul�000 S t - u¢��Zr wFrr ¢ < ^U -r-4V �'n Z~00�4 idr.9�w Ow143 Z oi zm ZOZUU°iw 0-IONSr-zp zrZw O U4`4 O W.V ;V°- g ®zaZ0'1�V @zVr4Y v/ TgQO�mM1 OO I�,y�Z rz ZP< S Og LZe �.< rOZ°zQd104 °x7 YU�OmN O I/l'�-x.r }�rQw W-VCZOw a IIwWd =n U¢�~Nrmn wJVi3¢J Owl`02wV i.i02 o�x TU1- od��wg ui ° -az z'°o°y� >jzLL U W 2F Z4w.�a iSW0�2r=zw �oimu�i °- d=og °aoa¢aa wmSl�W� Q O¢WU V1�000 =�rym�w ° ©rf3m¢pm?WNUq °dwa�wo °w < zz��=vnw`h°,4 ©r.awm w.wm„4O1 -.8-28" �n C-4 A, uiwo�xlh z�`�wuoNzj- z® am �a ° °° -'.a o ou=z•x --� °U LL H Q Z am -? jzo' Na°aw=m�na�q n °:4z i < Uj J O- t"xmoNi ziD? a�¢sa¢md,°lQrLLawpgo°'� W Z aom om Oziha� .n 4Z Kdrarw �wo3'w °,"a�mwma °a v Z. W `-'z a!r`i QOVLL4h0.wZ �(� �w��ua¢wz�µ.z= a° pY°o��a� _w z 0 I+ a�V�IX Mw'�Hwa WOUQ OOV Q wZY° �t -i-tirw d_ Q Zu ow- ¢~��Np i2dd W Uw6tR<r� UR Orr2w V OF_ a Vx J¢l]G]Z. ti �Od ZJw_.�xpw <w4F .V [Y W Ui'. Wrti wZU� OV_2pi 7 rO 62.i cparr- a�z�'"r��zwm°�I¢ -'^ .a =� <. 4e� ¢ d � m m�Jl�n�c,�i LL�I-m V' Oq� pz LLC Q Z78�ww4iwilFiil- pwOOOOd W aww x �..}� ifJ f- wZ °~m �.q =u.KW VILLW dr 9N °wvi4LL Z N3�Ow�kCKOV02�dDOR4ZZZiri #p4m iaoWwp r, c�i5m`¢wmpo oo. � vn a °aa aw°i=zF"or�+n ewe L.i ° QU ? [[.�� ��'~K a.g �V wVUUQO� ¢�ww � � wOOmU=�N'�VIYNZ "��O 41-Iti LLO.i b'xppWW¢ uVmpZOa �Yp3N0 w 0 II W 00 ODQNWNT w Tmd ®zzzz- "� Q Q 04�? zw✓I 4�n S? �Z wZh¢ J ._ FiM W J }✓ViU 3VVi�S Oi`o~Zanl�Yl Vi °.N LJ 2 ~7 °mom !°C NI~/1�1/VI¢h Y•(. Vl'- Ow V w to [~li J CZp¢, HlpoxmuV Ps virvpp[jpN� J Q 1m1yy°wV~KpWNyJN i2zp°000[�1113oQ(nNQpw�:pLL ���n ip s¢i10 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 22 - 13 TERRI RUSS, RPA - SENIOR SCIENTIST ill PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE SUMMARY Ms. Russ is an archaeologist with over fourteen years experience in cultural resource management and academic archaeology. Previous cultural resource management projects include Phase I archaeological surveys, Phase It archaeological test investigations, and Phase III site mitigation for private, municipal, state, and federal clients. RESPONSIBILITIES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. Ms. Russ is responsible for all phases of cultural resource projects management including background research, field investigations, artifact analysis and curation, and the preparation of final reports. Specialties include Phase I archaeological survey and site assessment, Phase II testing of archaeological sites, and Phase III mitigation and data recovery of archaeological sites. PRIOR EXPERIENCE 2004- Present ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 1998 -2004 TRC GARROW ASSOCIATES, INC. 2003 LOUIS BERGER GROUP. 2002 COASTAL CAROLINA RESEARCH. 2000 -2002 PHELPS ARCHAEOLOGY LABORATORY, EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY 1997 U.S. FOREST SERVICE PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) Southeastern Archaeological Conference (SEAC) Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA) North Carolina Archaeological Council (NCAC) North Carolina Archaeological Society (NCAS) NCAS President (2007 -2009) NCAS Board of Directors (2001 -2003, 2005 -2007) NCAS Coastal Plains Chapter Secretary (2000 -2002) Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 22 - 14 Terri Russ REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE Archaeological Survey, US 17 Jacksonville to New Bern. ,Jones and Onslow counties. North Carolina Archaeological Survey, Catawba River WTP and Reservoir Lancaster County, South Carolina Archaeological Survey, Honey Hill Analysis Area, Francis Marion National Forest, Berkeley and Charleston counties, South Carolina Archaeological Survey of the K &M Landfill, Pickens and Gilmer Counties, Georgia Archaeological Testing and Data Recovery of 38LA560, Edenmoor, Lancaster County, South Carolina Archaeological Data Recovery of the Windsor Site (31 BR201/201 * *), US 17 Windsor Bypass, Bertie County, North Carolina Archaeological Data Recovery of 9131132, 9BI133, and 9BI134, Cherokee Brick and Tile Company, Bibb County, Georgia Archaeological and Architectural Survey and Site Relocation: ENCNG Distribution Lines. Multiple counties; North Carolina. Architectural Survey, Saluda Tower. Polk and Henderson counties, North Carolina REPRESENTATIVE PUBLICATIONS Selected Technical Reports 2010 Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of the US 17 Improvements from Jacksonville to New Bern, Jones and Onslow Counties, North Carolina. Environmental Services, Inc. Report of Investigations No.1358, Raleigh, North Carolina. 2008 Archaeological Data Recovery of the Windsor Site (31BR2011201 **), US 17 Windsor Bypass, Bertie County, North Carolina. Environmental Services, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina. 2006 An Intensive Cultural Resource Investigation Arlington Shores, Pamlico County, North Carolina, Environmental Services, Inc. Report of Investigations No. 899, Raleigh, North Carolina. Other Papers and Conference Presentations 2008 Sandy Point: A Changing Historical Landscape. Poster Presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina. 2006 Review of Grave Intentions: A Comprehensive Guide to Preservincl Historic Cemeteries in Georgia. Christine Van Voorhies, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historical Archaeology, Vol. 40, No. 2. 2006 Review of Mortuajy Monuments and Burial Grounds of the Historic Period. Harold Mytum, Kluwer /Plenum Publishers. Historical Archaeology, Vol. 40, No 2. 2002 Uwharrie Ceramic Distribution in the Piedmont. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Department of Anthropology. East Carolina University. Greenville, North Carolina. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 22 - 15 W �! ENGINEERING PF2 ❑iESS1uNAL5 Prepared For: Mike Hennon Branch Communications EEC 5925 Carnegie Blvd, Suite 200 Charlotte, NC 28209 1 -A Certification of Location and Elevation Date of Survey: 08/24/2€114 Rev. 0: 09/04/2014 Site Name: 5WI0551 Branch ID: NC- 0025 /Steele TEP Job No: 56849 Structure Type: Proposed 150 Ft. Monopole Tower with 154 Ft. Appurtenance Site Address: 6516 Murrayville Road Wilmington, NC 28411 (New Hanover County) The elevations referenced hereon are based on N.A.V.D. 1988, and are accurate to within 3 feet, more or less as determined by our survey of the subject property. The values are as follows: Elevation of Site Above Mean Sea Level: 26.5 feet (AMSL) The horizontal values of the above referenced point, and the geodetic coordinates thereof, were established by taking multiple readings with dual frequency Global Position Satellite Receivers and are hereby certified to be within 15 feet, more or less, based thereon. The values are as follows: NAD'27 LATITUDE: 340 - 17'- 38.049" North LONGITUDE: 077'- 50'- 54.6111" West NAD'83 LATITUDE: 34` - 17'- 38.658" North LONGITUDE: 077° - 50'- 53.554" West NAD `83 (Decimal) LATITUDE: 34.2940717° LONGITUDE: 077.8482094° xx11lmfitljl. A sue.• - .��,�� a S8 Sf(3'�� Is 1 • �� SEAL r L -3782 tom, OU r Q s�//rs ORD t� t\N\ Clifford C. Byrd Professional Land Surveyor L -3782 C-1stl+ Date 326 Tryon Road, Raleigh, NC 27603 -5263 U) 919.661.6351 F) 919.661.6350 www.tel2groU.net cbwd@tepgroup.net Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 22 - 16 =Mobile i, 12920 SE 38"' Sheet Bellevue, WA 98006 The engineers at T- Mobile have evaluated all tall structures in the search area of our coverage needs along Murrayville Road and have concluded, in our professional opinion, that collocation on an existing tower, antenna or other usable structure is not reasonable or possible and that a new tower structure, as proposed, is absolutely necessary to provide coverage in this area. Attached to this report are slideshnaps demonstrating the service gap that is to be addressed by the proposed telecommunications tower and demonstrating the need for the proposed tower, The slides include a map showing the search ring. There are no tall structures within that search ring; however, we also evaluated the closest existing tower — a monopole owned by American Tower, which we called 5WI0551C, on which the highest available collocation height is 75'. The results of this analysis is shown on the attached slides, which demonstrate that is does not provide reliable coverage along Highway I- 140/17 (John. J Burney Jr Freeway) and I -40 or in- buildurg coverage in the desired service area along Murrayville Road. The attached coverage maps provide the radio frequency analysis indicating the coverage of existing wireless communications sites, coverage prediction, and design radius at various signal strengths. I am providing this certification that the proposed network design is intended to improve coverage and capacity potential in the area — specifically indoor coverage in the homes along Murrayville Road and reliable mobile coverage along I-- 140/17. We are willing to have the antennas be placed within a stealth "mono- pine" with limbs, such as those the structure shown on the photo attached, but, otherwise, these coverage objectives cannot be achieved by any higher ranked alternatives such as a concealed facility, attached facility, replacement facility, or collocation. Sincerely, Wark,E. Osborne Sr. W (Deployment .`Manager— T -946ik 2105 Water age PkIty. Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28217 704- 2414395 (9W) 704-423-2127(0 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -23-1 ry V LO Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -23-2 n L i, i i Cs N C �M Q d N a a m 9 _Z 2 C� W N L IZ- (�r1) VJ T— LO LO C) ': V / d V � • � ate.+ � Off.+ � i O ow 10 O s O r I— ,w a..� ++ O 0- v •— Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -23-3 CD r i 0) c- 0 M O E a) M cu L c cu a-+ E E 0 U fu L L D U? L O 4- a) 0) (u AL' W O U L 0 O N .j 0 rtL e'1 Q� 1% "0 dtuvgo zi }.y _ t i ��013 h 5 1 — b � = � �+ I �- 1 .. .. f — I LO LO Oa, r LO Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -23-4 cV V VJ O cc O N A� W L CU E O U O L L 0 4-- M co O U O O O L ■ r ^! IL w a W O L) C) n0 W C) r LO LO 0 LO FUT07 r' E E E MO -Om cr)CD ":r_0 v cD x v r II x x x v II II II ocoM r 0? O? C? Pr it I. • p - rvim �f ax- Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -23-5 ■ C: 7 f l 1} c cu r� V L I U) ry i m LO LO 0 LO Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -23-6 a� E-:' LO 1 y__ CD i k/' V • C:) Iii II x x x LO r II II Il CD c4 1=) -,::r ' M rC�)mCa F*—] El El El N Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -23-6 a� E-:' LO LU LL 0 Z LLB 0 Z 65 uaj� In U C) ) ry I C) 'Irl- LO LO C) 3: LO m 0- 1 4 rep c%l I. r IOWA Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -23-7 J Ij Htl 59 cam— I--- (0 E M F= E Omcp 2 7:1 ED cn 1= -=I- _0 a) G? C? LO X X X- Ul I'DOEIM, I-- c:) CD OD c:) —'r c1r) T7 C� L�) CO 0- 1 4 rep c%l I. r IOWA Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -23-7 J Ij Htl 59 cam— I--- (0 T 0 R YE —� r1 o t n e R s 918 5. STATE STREET, SUITE l0i SANDY, UT 64070 P: (501) 990 -1775 F: (601) 990 -1776 VECTOR PROJECT: U0142- 475 -141 Copyright 2014 STEALTH e Concealment Solutions, Inc Ail Rights Reserved v; c; z cl- IOP OF BRANCHES 01�VU v l o' —Q„ Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -23-8 ANTENNA SOCKS ANTENNAS, THIS VION ONLY TO BE TED A EE COLOR Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -23-9 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 23 - 10 Andrea, Benjamin From: W GARDNER <zetastation @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 8:08 PM To: Andrea, Benjamin Subject: Telecommunications tower at 6516 Murrayville Rd. New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Mr. Ben Andrea., Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Dear Mr. Andrea As residents of Brookside Gardens, 1311 Ivory Court, we oppose the construction of a telecommunications tower at 6516 Murrayville Road. This is in the heart of a residential area and would be disruptive to the harmony of the neighborhood. There are reasonable alternative locations. Several acres of undeveloped land are available nearby to the north and east more suitable for tower location and would not impact any of the areas attractive neighborhoods of single family homes. The stated benefit of the applicants, to expand and improve service, would not be diminished by locating in one of these areas as is evidenced by the maps presented at the January 8, 2015 County Planning Board meeting. Please take note of and review the similar issue of January 9, 2006 (S- 537,09/05), it was ruled the proposed plan was "not in harmony with the residential neighborhood adjacent to which it would be placed." Board of CommissioTers - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -24-1 At the County Planning Board on Thursday evening, January 8, 2015, the board was presented with a petition containing the signatures of 141 residents and letters from 45 residents. Forty residents were in attendance of the meeting. We ask that you carefully consider these arguments and those of others opposed to the proposed location of the telecommunications tower. Sincerely, Wayne and Karen Gardner Total Control Panel To: bandreaa,nbegoy.com From: zetastation(a`,=ail.com Message Score: 2 My Spam Blocking Level: High Block this sender Block gmail.com This message was delivered because the con lenifilter score did not exceed your filter level. Board of Commissiopers - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -24-2 High (60): Pass Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Login Andrea, Benjamin From: Hadley, Neil <hadleyn @uncw.edu> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 12:10 PM To: Andrea, Benjamin Cc: matthew. brenneman @independentplanning.net Subject: Proposed tower construction Dear Mr. Andrea, My wife Nancy and I attended the hearing before the County Planning Board on Thursday evening, January 8, 2015 regarding the construction of a telecommunications tower at 6516 Murrayville Rd. As residents of Brookside Gardens (1413 Stonehaven Ct) we are opposed to this construction as we feel it will both diminish our property values as well as create an eyesore in an otherwise attractive neighborhood setting. At the Board meeting, the proponents (representing T- Mobile) submitted a study conducted by a local appraiser that showed such a tower had no negative impact on the property values in another region in the county. This study is flawed as it does not provide adequate controls, nor does it provide any input from individuals who bought in this area as to the basis for their choice. Also, such a study should have been commissioned by the Board (neutral body?). There are acres and acres of undeveloped land just to the north and east. Locating a tower there would not disturb anyone versus asking your community to live in its shadow (Point 3). The Board also ignored input from two Board members, a petition containing the signatures of 141 residents, letters from 45 residents, and 40 residents who attended the meeting, all who feel that the tower will not be in harmony with the area in which it will be developed (Point 4). Please consider carefully the arguments of those opposed to this tower when it appears before the Commission on February 2, 2015. Let me also remind you that a similar proposal was denied by the Commissioners in January, 2006. Thank for your attention. Sincerely, Neil and Nancy Hadley Board of Commissiopers - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -24-3 Total Control Panel Lo xn To: bandrea@nhcjzov.com From: hadlomouncw.edu You received this message because the domain uncw. edu is on the enterprise allow list. Please contact your administrator to block messages from the domain uncw.edu Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM .1 - 24 - 4 Andrea, Benjamin From: rsnelll @ec.rr.com Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 8:43 AM To: Zapple, Rob Subject: Murrayville Cell Tower Dear County Commission member, I am writing in opposition to the proposed Cell Tower on Murrayville Road. On the strength of a similar issue that was defeated on January 9, 2006 (5- 537,09/05), it was ruled the proposed plan was "not in harmony with the residential neighborhood adjacent to which it would be placed." would like to underscore that more than 30 folks from the Brookside Gardens neighborhood as well as folks from Brittany Woods attended the last Planning Board meeting in opposition to the cell tower and that we also presented a petition with 141 signatures. In accordance with the 2006 ruling, we hope you will again deny this current request. Sincerely yours, Mr. Russell C. Snell 1313 Stonehaven Court Wilmington, NC 28411 Board of Commissio{�ers - February 2, 2015 ITEM: J - 24 - 5 Andrea, Benjamin From: Sent: To: Subject: Matt requested 1 copy you. Bob Bob Jacoby <Boblacoby @ec.rr.com> Friday, January 16, 2015 12:11 AM Andrea, Benjamin FW: proposed Cell Tower on Murrayville Road From: Bob Jacoby fmailto:soblacoby @ec,rr,coml Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 3:04 PM To: Jbarfield @nhcgov.com'; 'bdawson @nhcgov.com'; 'wwhite @nhcgov.com'; 'swatkins @nhcgov.com; 'rzapple @nhcgov.com' Cc: 'Kitty Smith (BSG)'; 'Matthew K. Brenneman CFP' Subject: proposed Cell Tower on Murrayville Road Dear County Commission member, I am writing in opposition to the proposed Cell Tower on Murrayville Road. On the strength of a similar issue that was defeated on January 9, 2006 (5- 537,09/05), it was ruled the proposed plan was "not in harmony with the residential neighborhood adjacent to which it would be placed." I would like to underscore that more than 30 folks from the Brookside Gardens neighborhood as well as folks from Brittany Woods attended the last Planning Board meeting in opposition to the cell tower and that we also presented a petition with 141 signatures. In accordance with the 2006 ruling, we hope you will again deny this current request. Sincerely yours, Mr. Robert A & Rebecca L. Jacoby 1300 Ivory Court Wilmington, NC 28411 BobJacoby@ec.rr.com H: 910- 399 -3351 Total Control Panel To: bandrea@nbcgov.com From: bobjacoby@ec.rr.com Message Score: 1 My Spam Blocking Level: High Block this sender Block ec.rr.com This message was delivered because the content f lter score did not exceed yourfilter level. Board of Commissiolners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -24-6 High (60): Pass Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Login Andrea, Benjamin From: warren reed <dellawrpr @att.net> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 S:21 PM To: Dawson, Beth Cc: Andrea, Benjamin Subject: Proposed Cell Tower Good Afternoon Commission Vice Chairman Dawson, am writing to you to voice my opposition to the proposed Cell Tower on Murrayville Road. Based on a similar proposal that was defeated on January 9, 2006 (S- 537,09105), It was found that the proposed plan was "not in harmony with the residential neighborhood adjacent to which it would be placed." It should be noted that 30 people from the Brookside Gardens neighborhood and folks from Brittany Woods attended the last Planning Board meeting to oppose the cell tower. Additionally, a petition with 141 signatures was presented. In accordance with the 2006 ruling it is our hope you will once again deny the current proposal. Sincerely yours, Warren H. and Pamela C. Reed 1321 Brookside Gardens Drive Wilmington, NC 28411 910 -399 -4287 Total Control Panel To: ban dreaCcunhcgov.com From: dellawryr(a,att.net Message Score: 50 My Spam Blocking Level: High Block this sender Block att.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 6 -24-7 High (60): Pass Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Lo in Andrea, Benjamin From: warren reed <dellawrpr @att.net> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 5:26 PM To: White, Woody Cc: Andrea, Benjamin Subject: Proposed Cell Tower Good Afternoon Commissioner White, I am writing to you to voice my opposition to the proposed Cell Tower on Murrayville Road. Based on a similar proposal that was defeated on January 9, 2006 (S- 537,09105), It was found that the proposed plan was "not in harmony with the residential neighborhood adjacent to which it would be placed." It should be noted that 30 people from the Brookside Gardens neighborhood and folks from Brittany Woods attended the last Planning Board meeting to oppose the cell tower. Additionally, a petition with 141 signatures was presented. In accordance with the 2006 ruling it is our hope you will once again deny the current proposal. Sincerely yours, Warren H. and Pamela C. Reed 1321 Brookside Gardens Drive Wilmington, NC 28411 910399 -4287 Total Control Panel To: bandreaa,nbc ov.com From: dellawrpr(tuatt.net Message Score: 50 My Spam Blocking Level: High Block this sender Block att.net This message was delivered because the conlent filter score did not exceed your filter level. Board of Commissioy�ers - February 2, 2015 ITEM: J - 24 - 8 High (60): Pass Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Loin Andrea, Benjamin From: warren reed <dellawrpr @att.net> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 5:29 PM To: Watkins, Skip Cc: Andrea, Benjamin Subject: Proposed Cell Tower Good Afternoon Commissioner Watkins, am writing to you to voice my opposition to the proposed Cell Tower on Murrayville Road. Based on a similar proposal that was defeated on January 9, 2006 (S- 537,09105), It was found that the proposed plan was "not in harmony with the residential neighborhood adjacent to which it would be placed." It should be noted that 30 people from the Brookside Gardens neighborhood and folks from Brittany Woods attended the last Planning Board meeting to oppose the cell tower. Additionally, a petition with 141 signatures was presented. In accordance with the 2006 ruling it is our hope you will once again deny the current proposal. Sincerely yours, Warren H. and Pamela C. Reed 1321 Brookside Gardens Drive Wilmington, NC 28411 910 -399 -4287 Total Control Panel To: bandrea@nhegov.com From: dellawmr(a),att,net Message Score: 50 My Spam Blocking Level: High Block this sender Block att.net This message was delivered because the content f lter score did not exceed your filter level. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 9 High (60): Pass Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Login Andrea, Benjamin From: warren reed <dellawrpr @att.net> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 5:31 pM To: rzapple @nhc.com Cc: Andrea, Benjamin Subject: Proposed Cell Tower Good Afternoon, Commissioner Zapple, am writing to you to voice my opposition to the proposed Cell Tower on Murrayville Road. Based on a similar proposal that was defeated on January 9, 2006 (S- 537,09105), It was found that the proposed plan was "not in harmony with the residential neighborhood adjacent to which it would be placed." It should be noted that 30 people from the Brookside Gardens neighborhood and folks from Brittany Woods attended the last Planning Board meeting to oppose the cell tower. Additionally, a petition with 141 signatures was presented. In accordance with the 2006 ruling it is our hope you will once again deny the current proposal. Sincerely yours, Warren H. and Pamela C. Reed 1321 Brookside Gardens Drive Wilmington, NC 28411 910- 399 -4287 Total Control Panel To: bandreaAnhcgov.com From: dellawrpr ,att.net Message Score: 50 My Spam Blocking Level: High Block this sender Block att.net This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 10 Nigh (60): Pass Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Login Andrea, Benjamin From: The Gallis <Igalli @ec.rr.com> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 3:51 PM To: Andrea, Benjamin Subject: Fw: Proposed Cell Tower off Murrayville Road(re, Steele Estate) Dear Ben, apparently I missed a very important piece of the machinery of the board.... sorry for the oversight. Lou - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: The Gallis To: jbarfield�a nhcgov.com Cc: wwhite(a-)nhcgay.com ; rzapple(cnhcgov.com ; swatkins @nhcgov.com ; tedahipley(c smithmoorelaw.com ; dlgiradoUcOmail.com ; kokeefe(cDnhcgov.com ; george schwartzman ; boblacoby(c ec.rr.com ; matthew. brenneman(d�independentplanning .net -1 bdawson(@nhcgov.com Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 2:28 PM Subject: Proposed Cell Tower off Murrayville Road(re. Steele Estate) Mr. Barfield, I am writing to you and your colleagues on the board to voice my opposition to the erection of the proposed cell tower off Murrayville Road. This tower will be smack dab in the middle of a densely populated residential area which includes the Brookfield Gardens subdivision of some 89 homes and a good portion of the Brittany Woods subdivision. When a balloon test was done several weeks ago it became apparent that our worst fears had been realized since a good 60 -70% of the Brookfield Gardens subdivision will have an unobstructed view of the tower, including the property I reside at. I can go out on my back porch and this cell tower will be clearly visible if it is built as intended. I am told that the our planning board doesn't care much for public opinion, only facts, but I think the fact is putting a cell tower in a residential community benefits only the cable company(and people have plenty of options if they can't get service from this particular company) and a single landowner while becoming an eyesore to their neighbors and will have a negative effect on our property values. I will be out of the country for the planning board meeting on Jan 8th but we should be represented adequately by our HOA. I know the planning board only deals in "facts" but I hope they will, and I know you will, take into consideration the feelings of the many neighbors effected by this monstrosity that benefits really no one. I travel a good deal through NHC, Pender and Brunswick Counties and I see many of these cell towers but cannot recall many, if any in the middle of a beautiful, existing residential setting. I am not sure why the planning board would not have rejected this out of hand simply on location. I would ask that before this matter comes before you that you, and your fellow board members, take your morning coffee and paper out on to the back porch, sit down and relax, look into the sky and imagine this cell tower is visible to you, and will be every single morning and night from now on. Can you honestly say you would be ok with that? The people you represent are not. If you're not please reject this proposal and thank you in advance for your consideration. Lou and May Galli 1404 Brookside Gardens Dr 28411 910- 632 -6948 Total Control Panel To: bandrea@nhcgov.com From: 1 galli geexr. com Message Score: t My Spam Blocking Lcv& High Block this sender Block ec.rr.com This message was delivered because the content f lter score did not exceed your filter level. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 6 - 24 - 11 High (60): Pass Medium (75): Pass Low (90); Pass Login LANTATION www.plantationbuildingcorp, cam 314 walnut street suite 200 wilmington, north carolina 28401 B U I L D I N G CORP telephone 910 763 8760 faCSimile 910 762 8550 November 3, 2014 To: New Hanover County Planning Commission RE: Stoll Residence (proposed residential construction) 6532 Murrayville Road (6.57 Acres, R15) Proposed Communications Tower Please allow this letter to convey the following: Our firm assisted the property owner in the site selection and initial framework for the construction of a custorn home and accessory structures located at 6532 i'1llurrayville Road. We have spent considerable time discussing the design, placement and intended use (now and long term) for a single family residence and accessory structures on the site. Especially as it relates to views, sunlight and the deep vistas available on such an impressive, naturally intact home site. - The proposed structures include a single family home (3000 SF), detached garage, barn, stables, pool and riding circle. This is a significant investment on the part of the property owner and any off site (but visible) pollution to the skyline will certainly detract from that investment. - There is no disagreement to the importance of wireless towers as a beneficial and necessary part of the growth in our area, however, there are certainly more suitable locations than that within a predominately rural and residential setting (a setting unique to the County as a whole). - Successful growth within our community relies on three factors; improvements that add value to the immediate surroundings, improvements that increase the overall tax base for the County and improvements that provide a return on investment to the property owner. Without disparaging the request of the applicant in their pursuit of a wireless tower, it is still impossible to agree that the construction of this tower (at the proposed location) meets these requirements for the successful growth of our community. Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. �_ Sincerely, David Spetrino, Jr President Plantation Building Corp. is a full service building firm specializing in custom homes, major renovations and multifamily residential properties in the Wilmington, NC area and Brunswick County. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 12 WN ipetitions YGUR VMCE COURTI This petition has collected 4 signatures using the online tools at iPetitions.com Printed on 2014 -11 -01 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 p jTgM 9 - 24 - 13 Stop the Cell Tower at 6516 Murrayville Road About this petition Stop New Hanover County from approving a150 foot cell phone tower at 6516 Murrayville Rd from invading our peaceful residential area. if passed it will set precedence for development in other residential zoned areas. 1. The location of the tower as proposed will injure the value of surrounding property 2. Locating a tower on this property is not in conformity with the manner in which our neighborhood (residentially zoned) has been developed nor will it blend /be in harmony with the surrounding area. 3. There is industrial property in close proximity that could be utilized. 4. The tower has not been proven long term not to endanger the public health and safety if located as proposed. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 14 Page 2 of 3 Signatures 1. Name: Melissa Stoll on 2014 -11 -01 17:18:07 Comments: 2. Name: Kimberly Lewis on 2014 -11 -01 17:55:26 Comments: Let's stop the eye sore! 3. Name: Brian and Brooke baker on 2014 -11 -01 23:51:04 Comments: I'm a real estate agent in the area and I know for sure this will affect the value of the homes and people will not like to buy a home in the area where a cell phone tower is seen. 4. Name: Kim Harrell on 2014 -11 -02 00:01:16 Comments: Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 Pag Y:f 9 - 24 - 15 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. GARDENS RESIDENT IQ Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 16 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT L-E- Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 17 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. y BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 18 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayviile Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 19 December 22, 2014 To- New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration, 64tzae- * /, BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 20 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 54 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth.. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 21 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens. and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT 13 &ok& Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 22 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. 1 +�OKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT U Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 23 4 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express any extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the comer and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS IDENT t 3)(, ZJt J—e � ( Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 24 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities tike Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT 1�fild Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 25 1jecetnner22, ZVt4 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community 1 want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell nhnne tower on Murra.vville Road_ The idea of nlitting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more chc. led '.vz "vcico nr, Tb ur--d— 1 711 4 —A +L.o .ti>a.dko. A --A for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the LUWC1 WUUi6 UC v6ii;iu LU ollly d IUW, L11C IMA la Uldt Al ICU-SL JU -UV %8 01 MUOKNI 1C Gardens residents would have full view of it. i tie main reasons tor our opposition to tnis plan is that tws tower will tae an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautifill suhdivision? This tower will benefit only a. few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. we urge you to turn clown tms request anct support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDEE G ENS RESIDENT �D f r�W +'✓ vv _� �y Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 26 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 27 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. 40OKSIDIF GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 28 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. s 7xnAfl �'-- 01!5 1'Je u) tJ / . BROOK.SIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 29 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative erect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us brink that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this .huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. �OOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 30 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods_ We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. V BROOK.SIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 31 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. L2 BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 24 - 32 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -25-1 December 22, 2414 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community 1 want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -25-2 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. 18,11ROOKS1DE GARDENS it Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -25-3 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consi ration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -25-4 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BR/OOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -25-5 December 22, 2014 To; New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -25-6 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express nay extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -25-7 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, tunling the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -25-8 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. i BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 -25-9 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. e-" BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 10 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOK SIDE GARDENS RESIDENT BLLF%EMVC1 I Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 11 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 12 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration- _, BROOKSIDE GARI)NS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 13 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 14 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community T want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT" Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 15 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. //4- C/ (90 BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 16 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. As an alternative we suggest a cell tower that is not as tall and constructed to look like a tree. We have seen this type of tower disguised successfully in other locations. It will satisfy both the concerns of the neighboring homeowners and the needs of the cell phone company. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARD S RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 17 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 18 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will he an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 19 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. m ,. 0 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 20 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 21 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme displeasure with the erection of a cell phone tower in our backyard. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods area. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, when we saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of visibility the tower will Dave. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few the fact is that at least 50-60% of Brookside Gardens resident would have full view of his eyesore. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, will decrease property values in the area for those of us whose houses are an investment, many of us being retired, or nearing retirement whose homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospect buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision. This tower will benefit only a few, the cell phone provider and a single property owner, at expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. We thank you for your consideration. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 22 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have fill view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 23 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are refired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 24 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. 41 BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 25 December 22, 2014 To: New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12/18, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -50% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARDENS RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 26 December 22, 2014 To. New Hanover County Board of Commissioners, Development Services Department As a resident of the Brookside Gardens Community I want to express my extreme concern with the erection of a cell phone tower on Murrayville Road. The idea of putting a tower in the middle of a dense residential community is not in keeping with the nature of communities like Brookside Gardens and the Brittany Woods. We were even more shocked when we woke on Thursday, 12118, and saw the balloon flying far overhead and for the first time realized what a negative effect this tower would have on our community because of the high degree of its visibility. While some would have us think that the tower would be visible to only a few, the fact is that at least 50 -60% of Brookside Gardens residents would have full view of it. The main reasons for our opposition to this plan is that this tower will be an eyesore to many in both Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, and it will decrease property values in the area. For many of us our houses are an investment, many of us are retired or nearing retirement, and our homes are the major part of our net worth. Can you imagine a realtor driving a prospective buyer around, turning the corner and seeing this huge tower in the middle of our beautiful subdivision? This tower will benefit only a few - the cell phone provider and a single property owner - at the expense of the entire Brookside Gardens community and a large part of the residents of Brittany Woods. We urge you to turn down this request and support the residents of our community over the interests of the cellphone provider and the single homeowner. Thank you for your consideration. BROOKSIDE GARD RESIDENT Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 9 - 25 - 27 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2015 REGULAR DEPARTMENT: County Manager PRESENTER(S): Lisa Wurtzbacher, Finance Director CONTACT(s): Lisa Wurtzbacher SUBJECT: Consideration of a Utility Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement BRIEF SUMMARY: On November 17, 2014, the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners approved the purchase of a +/- 17.97 -acre parcel on Edgewater Road. The proposed use of this property is for the new Northeast Elementary School that will be constructed as a part of the $160 million bond projects. In order to provide sewer service to this property and other properties in the area, the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority desires to construct a regional sewer pump station, force main and gravity sewer extensions in conjunction with the development of +/ -85.99 acres of land by a private developer, Har -Ste Investments, LLC. To formalize this arrangement, the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners is being asked to consider a Utility Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement. The parties to this agreement are the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority ( CFPUA), New Hanover County and Har -Ste Investments, LLC. The agreement provides that CFPUA will design and construct the sewer infrastructure and will request reimbursement from New Hanover County and Har -Ste Investments, LLC once the project is completed. The Total Permitted Capacity is estimated to be 189,420 GPD. The developer's flow allocation is estimated to be 63,420 GPD, and New Hanover County's flow allocation (on behalf of New Hanover Schools) is estimated to be 7,200 GPD. The total estimated cost of the project is $1,135,033. The CFPUA's cost sharing portion is estimated to be $689,577, the developer's cost sharing portion is estimated to be $379,929 and New Hanover County's cost sharing portion (on behalf of New Hanover Schools) is estimated to be $65,527. New Hanover County's cost sharing portion will be paid through bond proceeds received through the sale of the $160 million general obligation bonds. The CFPUA board approved this agreement at their meeting on January 14, 2015. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Intelligent Growth and Economic Development • Build and maintain infrastructure RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve the Utility Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement. ATTACHMENTS: Utility Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 10 Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 10 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER THIS UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement "), is entered into this day of 2015, by and between the CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY, NORTH CAROLINA, a Water and Sewer Authority established pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162A, and a local government agency authorized to enter into this Agreement under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162A -6 (the "Authority "); NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, a body corporate and political subdivision of the State of North Carolina ( "County "); and HAR -STE INVESTMENTS, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company (the "Developer ") (the Authority, County and Developer each referred to hereafter individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties "). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Developer is the owner of that certain parcel or those certain parcels of land, comprising +/- 85.99 acres, as more particularly described on the attached Exhibit A (the "Developer Property "); and WHEREAS, the County or the New Hanover County Board of Education (the "County Schools ") is the owner of that certain +/ -17.97 acre parcel of land fronting on the West line of Edgewater Club Road, as more particularly described on the attached Exhibit B (the "County Property "); and WHEREAS, the Authority desires to construct a regional sewer pump station, force main and gravity sewer extensions in substantial compliance with the plan provided by the CFPU'A titled Edgewater CIub Road Sewer Planning, dated June 13, 2014 and revised January 5, 2015, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C (hereafter the "Improvements ") to provide practical, efficient, and economical service to the County of New Hanover and the City of Wilmington; and WHEREAS, the County (on its own behalf and on behalf of the County Schools) and the Developer desire to secure the allocation of a portion of the flow capacity from such Improvements for the use and benefit of their respective development projects; and WHEREAS, construction of the Improvements will benefit potential customers of the Authority situated along or near these Improvements by providing engineered sewer infrastructure to serve these lands; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and other valuable consideration set forth herein, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and the mutual benefits to be received by the Parties from the construction of the Improvements, including but 1 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 10-1 -1 not limited to those benefits described above, the Developer, the County and the Authority, and their heirs, successors, and assigns agree as follows: Definitions. a. "County Flow Allocation" means that portion of the Total Permitted Capacity reserved and allocated by the Authority to the County for use for the County Property. b. "Cost Sharing Portion" shall mean a fraction where (i) the numerator is the applicable Party's FIow Allocation, and (ii) the denominator is the Total Permitted Capacity. C. "Developer Flow Allocation" means that portion of the Total Permitted Capacity reserved and allocated by the Authority to the Developer for use for the Developer Property. Each of the "County Flow Allocation" and "Developer Flow Allocation" may be referred to herein as the applicable Party's "Flow Allocation." d. "GPD" means gallons per day, and "MGD" means million gallons per day. c. "Total Permitted Capacity" means the total North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources ( "NCDENR ") - permitted flow capacity of the Improvements. 2. Construction of Improvements. a. Improvements. The Authority shall design, permit, construct, certify and complete the Improvements generally consistent with Exhibit C, and in accordance with the policies and procedures of each of the Authority and NCDENR. However, the design may change depending on the final plan, but must continue to provide sufficient sewer allocation to the Developer and the County Schools, as herein agreed. From the date the Authority completes this portion of the Improvements, the Authority shall allocate the Developer Flow Allocation to Developer and the County Flow Allocation to the County. b. Anticipated Completion Date. The Improvements will be permitted, certified and completed on or prior to January 1, 2417. If the Improvements are not completed by this date, the Authority shall provide temporary sewer service to the County Schools site until the Improvements are completed. c. Reservation of Flow Allocations. As of the date of this Agreement, based on the Preliminary Plan the Total Permitted Capacity is estimated to be 189,420 GPD. The Developer Flow Allocation is estimated to be 63,420 GPD, and the County Flow Allocation is estimated to be 7,200 GPD. The anticipated Flow Allocations of the County and Developer are hereby reserved and allocated with respect to the applicable Parties by the Authority. A Party's Flow Allocation shall not be increased or decreased from the Flow Allocation set forth in this subsection c., without the written consent of the affected Party and the Authority. 3. Cost Reimbursement. a. Obligation to Reimburse. Each of the County and the Developer will reimburse 2 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 10- 1 - 2 the Authority for such Party's Cost Sharing Portion of the cost to construct the Improvements within one hundred twenty (60) days from receipt of an invoice therefor following completion and receipt of all necessary approvals required for the operation of the Improvements by the Authority. b. Cost Estimates. The construction cost estimates of the Improvements are attached hereto as Exhibit D (the "Cost Estimates "), which are incorporated herein by reference. The Cost Estimates are estimates and were not developed from a bid selected in accordance with the applicable public contracting requirements of Chapter 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes for public contracts. The Parties acknowledge that the Cost Estimates are a reasonable approximation of the probable cost to construct and install the Improvements. Each Party further understands and agrees that the Cost Estimates are based upon several variables that may change over time. While the Cost Estimates are a useful tool in planning for the construction of the Improvements, reimbursement to the Authority shall be made upon the basis of the actual, final costs of design and construction of the Improvements. As of the date of this Agreement, based on the Cost Estimates and current estimated Total Permitted Capacity of the Improvements: (i) the Developer's Cost Sharing Portion is estimated to be $379,929; and (ii) the County's Cost Sharing Portion is estimated to be $65,527. Revised Cost Estimates will be determined after the Authority completes the design, and reimbursement to the Authority shall be made upon the basis of the actual, final costs of design and construction of the Improvements. 4. System Development Charges. System Development Charges ( "SDCs ") shall be due and payable by the County (or its assigns) as to the County Property, and by assignee builders as to the Developer Property, at the time of application for each building permit for structures within such Party's development, pursuant to Article IV. §4.2(b)(iv) of the Authority's "Utility Regulations and Ordinance" (the "Ordinance "). The Authority reserves the right to increase SDCs from time to time, and each other Party shall not be vested as to any SDC increases that are duly adopted by the Authority Board and are generally applicable to developers. The Authority acknowledges, however, that the other Parties already have and in the future will make substantial expenditures in good faith reliance upon the requirement that SDC payments are due when building permits are requested, and that, accordingly, the other Parties shall become vested at common law as to the SDC regulations governing timing of SDC payments as those regulations exist on the date of approval and execution of this Agreement by the Authority. 5. Easements. The parties acknowledge that the Developer and the County will dedicate to the Authority certain utility easements reasonably required for the Improvements located within the Developer Property and the County Property, as applicable, with any such dedication(s) to be set forth in such plats and/or deeds of easement as the Parties may agree upon in the Parties' mutual reasonable discretion. Further, the Developer shall provide to the Authority at no additional cost, an approximately 60' by 60' site for the pump station as shown on Exhibit C, plus a minimum 30 feet wide access easement. 6. Default. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 10- 1 - 3 a. Right to Rescind. If either the Developer or the County fails to comply with Section 7 of Appendix C of the Ordinance, and such failure continues for more than 120 -days after receiving written notice from the Authority, then the Authority reserves the right to rescind Flow Allocations guaranteed to such Parry. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Authority's ability to rescind Flow Allocations pursuant to Appendix C, Section 7 shall be limited to rescission of the Flow Allocations for the phase of development for which the FTSE 10 /07 Flow Tracking Acceptance for Sewer Permit was signed by the Authority. b. Default;_ Remedies. The Authority shall have the right to terminate another Party's rights under this Agreement in the event such other Party shall default in any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The other Parties shall have the right to exercise any and all rights and remedies available to the other Parties under law and equity in the event the Authority shall default in any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. No default shall be declared under this Agreement unless the Party claiming default gives the other Party written Notice of any alleged default with particularity and an opportunity of at least thirty (30) working days from the date of Notice to cure such default. No such failure to cure, however, will be deemed to exist if the defaulting Party has commenced to cure such default within such period and provided that such efforts are prosecuted to completion with reasonable diligence. Delay in curing a default will be excused if due to causes beyond the reasonable control of the defaulting Party. Any Notice of default shall be provided in accordance with the Notice provisions contained herein and shall in addition be prominently titled "NOTICE OF DEFAULT." 7. Notice. a. Notices. Any notice, demand, consent, agreement, request or other communication required to be given, served, sent or obtained hereunder (a "Notice ") shall be in writing, and shall be (i) mailed by first -class mail, registered or certified, return- receipt requested, postage prepaid, (ii) hand delivered personally or by nationally recognized courier service, fees prepaid; or (iii) transmitted by telecopier, addressed as follows: To the Authority: Executive Director Cape Fear Public Utility Authority 235 Government Center Drive Wilmington, NC 28403 With a copy to: To the County: With a copy to: 4 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 10- 1 - 4 To the Developer: Har -Ste Investments, LLC 5710 Oleander Drive, Suite 200 Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 Attn: Dean Hardison With a copy to: Lee Law Firm, PLLC 1427 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 208 Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 Attn: Michael V. Lee b. Effective Delivery Date. Each Party may designate by notice a new address to which any Notice thereafter may be given, served, or sent. Each Notice that is delivered in the manner described above will be deemed given and received for all purposes at the earlier of such time as it is delivered to the addressee (with the return - receipt, courier delivery receipt or telecopier answer -back confirmation being deemed conclusive evidence of such delivery) or such time as delivery is refused by the addressee upon presentation. 8. Miscellaneous. a. Choice of Law and Forum. This Agreement shall be deemed made in New Hanover County, North Carolina. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of North Carolina. The exclusive forum and venue for all actions arising out of this Agreement shall be the North Carolina General Court of Justice in New Hanover County. b. Compliance with Regulations. The Parties shall comply with all applicable Authority Ordinance and written regulations. Further, the Parties shall comply with all applicable regulations of the State of North Carolina and federal government. c. Waiver. No action or failure to act by the Parties shall constitute a waiver of any of its rights or remedies that arise out of this Agreement, nor shall such action or failure to act constitute approval of or acquiescence in a breach thereunder, except as may be specifically agreed in writing or set forth elsewhere by this Agreement. d. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall be enforceable to the extent permitted by law. e. Assignment; Successors and Assigns. Each of the County and Developer may assign and/or pledge its rights and obligations that arise out of this Agreement with prior written consent of the Authority, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement shall be freely assignable by the Developer to any affiliate or subsidiary of Developer, and by the County to the County Schools and/or any political subdivision or other body corporate and politic within the State of North Carolina. 1 No Third Party Rights Created. This Agreement is intended for the benefit of the Authority, the County, and Developer and not for any other person, and no such persons shall enjoy any right, benefit, or entitlement under this Agreement. J Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 10- 1 - 5 g. Principles of Interpretation and Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context requires otherwise: (i) the singular includes the plural and the plural the singular. The pronouns "it" and "its" include the masculine and feminine. References to statutes or regulations include all statutory or regulatory provisions consolidating, amending, or replacing the statute or regulation. References to contracts and agreements shall be deemed to include all amendments to them. The words "include," "including," etc. mean include, including, etc. without limitation; (ii) References to a "Section" or "section" shall mean a section of this Agreement; (iii) Titles of sections, paragraphs, and articles are for convenience only and shall not be construed to affect the meaning of this Agreement; (iv) the word "duties" includes obligations; (v) The word "person" includes natural persons, firms, companies, associations, partnerships, trusts, corporations, governmental agencies and units, and other legal entities; (vi) The words "shall" and "must" are each mandatory; (vii) The word "day" means calendar day, and (viii) the term "allocate" or "allocation" or language of similar import, shall have the meaning set forth in the Ordinance with respect thereto. h. Modifications; Entire Agreement. A modification or amendment of this Agreement is not valid unless signed by all Parties. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties pertaining to the subject matter of this Agreement. With respect to that subject matter, there are no promises, agreements, conditions, inducements, warranties, or understandings, written or oral, expressed or implied, between the Parties, other than as set forth or referenced in this Agreement. i. Force Maieure. The Parties hereto shall not be liable for any failure to perform hereunder as a result of an external event or events beyond their respective control, including without limitation, acts of the United States of America, acts of the State of North Carolina (including the denial of permits which a Party has pursued in good faith), embargos, fire, flood, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, explosions, acts of God or a public enemy, strikes, labor disputes, civil suits, injunctions, vandalism or civil riots. However, if any such event interferes with the performance by a Party hereunder, such Party shall diligently and in good faith act to the extent within its power to remedy the circumstances affecting its performance or to complete performance in as timely a manner as is reasonably possible. j. Remedies. All remedies as are otherwise allowed or provided by law are available to the Parties to this Agreement, unless specifically limited as described in specific provisions of this Agreement. k. No Joint Venture/No Agency. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create a joint venture between the Parties, or to make the Developer or County an agent of the Authority. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to make the Authority an owner or contractor or responsible party with regard to any contracts entered into by Developer or County. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALL Y BLANK SIGNATURE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT PAGES FOLLOW Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 10- 1 - 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the Developer have caused this Agreement to be executed under seal themselves or by their respective, duly authorized agents, managers, or officers. DEVELOPER: HAR -STE INVESTMENTS, LLC (SEAL) By: Name: Title: NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 1 certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before me this day, each acknowled ing to me that he or she signed the foregoing document: Date: January 12, 2015 Y97 _ - -....l - [Notary's signature as name appears on seal] 'TA 'r y�q�. 1117a- 12'j • /I'7a4so'7 ,Notary Public [Notary's printed name as name appears on seal] Z =z E �I 6 p G My commission expires: /[�T ) 20_lq xx 0 1""611 QJ (Affix Official Seal in Space Above] 7 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 10- 1 - 7 COUNTY: NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (SEAL) By: Name Title ATTEST: Name: Title: [Affix County Seal] NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I certify that (name of subscribing witness) personally appeared before me this day and certified to me under oath or by affirmation that he or she is not a grantee or beneficiary of the transaction, signed the foregoing document as a subscribing witness, and either (i) witnessed (name of principal) sign the foregoing document or (ii) witnessed (name of principal) acknowledge his or her signature on the already- signed document. Date: , 20 [Notary's signature as name appears on seal] , Notary Public [Notary's printed name as name appears on seal] My commission expires: , 20 [Affix Official Seal in Space Above] 4 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 10- 1 - 8 UTHORITY: CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY, NORTH CAROLINA (SEAL) By: Name Title ATTEST: Name: Title: [Affix Authority Seal] NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I certify that (name of subscribing witness) personally appeared before me this day and certified to me under oath or by affirmation that he or she is not a grantee or beneficiary of the transaction, signed the foregoing document as a subscribing witness, and either (i) witnessed (name of principal) sign the foregoing document or (ii) witnessed (name of principal) acknowledge his or her signature on the already- signed document. Date: , 20 [Notary's signature as name appears on seal] , Notary Public [Notary's printed name as name appears on seal] My commission expires: , 20 [Affix Official Seal in Space Above] This instrument has been preaudited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. Name: Title: 9 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 10- 1 - 9 EXHIBIT A "Developer Property" Located in New Hanover County, North Carolina: Being all of that parcel or tract of land consisting of 103.96, described in that certain Warranty Deed dated June 30, 2005, and recorded at Book 4871, Page 1492 of the New Hanover County Registry, reference to which said Warranty Deed is hereby made for a more particulare description. LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING PARCEL OR TRACT OF LAND: Being all of that parcel or tract of Iand designated as "Tract B ", consisting of 17.97 acres, on a map entitled "Waterstone - Exempt Subdivision Plat ", said map being recorded in Map Book 60 at Pages 20 through 21 of the New Hanover County Registry, reference to which said map is hereby made for a more particular description. I () Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 10-1 -10 EXHIBIT_ B "County Property" Located in New Hanover County, North Carolina: Being all of that parcel or tract of land designated as "Tract B ", consisting of I7.97 acres, on a map entitled "Waterstone - Exempt Subdivision Plat ", said map being recorded in Map Boole 60 at Pages 20 through 21 of the New Hanover County Registry, reference to which said map is hereby made for a more particular description. ]I Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 10-1 -11 EXHIBIT C „Preliminary Plan" (to be attached) 12 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 10- 1 - 12 5 Ln t, U Ln 42 a x N L J ¢ a F z a m L O 00 0 J ua 3 +tuorJ6 Ys Ok, t 8 �Y Shy, g U t iL x �^ l '1 4 �S �w��}}ir .� • ti Z. 3 4 E ro �y LL � ° � N �J3H �fl© 5 i6 V. xi WF U } K iLSy'F- p�Y t I t tr s i! [t ?yE wq� fet L. E 1,117 ar • .�s.� a` :.. .; F,tti rh •fin. c • "� °ol 4M ors o av - - ue _ � a U' 1 'Yn W 'S O ��S w F a� oa a' J Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 10- 1 - 13 _ =wwu 4 Kv }? SS f 4L' � --i 3 _r'kUiyE S i AM � m �k s vMl ol cl It Yom_ Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 10- 1 - 13 EXHIBIT D "Cost Estimates" (to be attached) 13 Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 10- 1 - 14 X 0 0 0 O O© O 0 0 0 0 Q lD 00 O to cr 00 zt N O N N f4 M -t rn -t LD c o rf Q vi rA N o r- M cn c -* M { Ch- a❑ M � W 00 o " F- v a ON to N v r' z n rr) eq � cMn t"'o ar N S LL c/) g! 0 00 � N O lD R m 000 t0D 14 M ct LD O r-! M 00 .0 M w 00 0 M Ul CD 00 VI ri c-1 ri rq a � a U C N V O LL M r- U M j J J � e u 'r+ ` A c M N M E TA a O OJ L QC! m QS IL _ CC •E 7 (.n 7 CL. CL CL 4) C6 0 Q O QJ • > w m inn a _ o a f° tw cu o s tA U Cn �] d W U lti L 5.. tw L c 41 � U w C E ?- Li .D N ii — • .L M L O © Q). a. O D in LU ro ro 2 V N 46 f6 6 Q}'i +� w e �' Q 7 Q1 o(a� bA H L o H 0n-a a� �° ° 0 N ri a L i-' E V) a Q LU a w L.L CL U ri Q% U LUv LU CL a 0 N r-7 E m U n� cr w 0. U U U U 4 L L L M =5 O O O O Ln In V) to Y 0 O 0 n v o° c rrn �-1 0 M Vl M U "n c %D m ri "q I 00 r-z iR 0 O o °n ° 0 M m N z �' 'AN DLO %o i� -M N n` LD r l rn ri N N N O; co L ri M rn Ln Ln fn Vv S N n 0 oo M lD O ri lD t�-i ref rq O ri N Ln Ln Ln Q Lr 00 Lf L�f1 D CL 00 ri cn M � m ( 000 `L' M m v � vt Q) O Q) fE V� N O M c y a E D- 73 C6 Y C M U O c O W O v V, t kn N 7 E y O a a O C 'C � N O W fQ O U Q1 t!) `. a a_ c U 0 1 c m cu o c a U fA iJ ±+ a. Ql U N E O U yi Y U 1n i NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2015 REGULAR DEPARTMENT: Environmental Management PRESENTER(S): Joe Suleyman, Environmental Management Director CONTACT(S): Joe Suleyman SUBJECT: Consideration of Request for Approval to Proceed with the Issuance of an RFP (Request for Proposal) for Construction and Demolition Recycling Equipment for the New Hanover County Landfill, as Included in the FY14 -15 Adopted Budget BRIEF SUMMARY: The Department of Environmental Management is seeking approval to proceed with the issuance of an RFP for equipment to significantly expand its ability to process construction and demolition (C &D) materials at the New Hanover County landfill. This plan was approved by the Board when it adopted the FY14 -15 budget. However, the Board noted that Board approval must be obtained prior to the issuance of an RFP. In the three -year period from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2014, the NHC landfill received 175,833 tons of C &D waste, or 28% of the total inbound waste stream. Of this total, 15,974 tons were diverted away from landfill disposal using a time- consuming manual sorting process. Common C &D materials include lumber, asphalt shingles, gypsum wallboard, carpet, scrap metal, appliances, cardboard, concrete, and brick. The purchase of purpose - built, semi - automated sorting equipment will expand the department's ability to divert nearly all of the construction and demolition debris received at the landfill. In effect, the landfill would gain one (1) additional year of disposal capacity for every four (4) years the system is in operation. At current disposal rates, the site can divert up to 60,000 tons per year away from landfill disposal. Over the life of the site, this diversion would add 20 years of capacity at current disposal rates. In addition to the benefit of preserving valuable landfill space, diverting material from disposal postpones costly cell construction and closure projects. Materials diverted from landfill disposal are used by North Carolina companies for a variety of purposes, including power generation, road construction, packaging, soil amendments, and carpet. The expansion of the C &D processing system includes the following elements: 1.) Site work and permitting 2.) Expansion of the existing concrete pad 3.) Installation of concrete bunkers for material storage 4.) Installation of a stationary processing line (feed hopper, conveyors, sort stations, magnetic separator, screens, and control panels) 5.) On -site training in operation and maintenance of equipment The capital and operational costs are included in the adopted FY 14/15 budget. The one -time capital expense is budgeted at $1,520,000. If approved, the proposed timeline for the RFP process is as follows: 1.) Advertisement ....................... .......................February 2, 2015 2.) Deadline for questions ............... .......................February 24, 2015 3.) Bids due ............................ ..........................April 7, 2015 STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 11 Effective County Management • Leverage technology and information to enable performance • Increase efficiency and quality of key business processes RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve the issuance of a Request for Proposal for the Purchase and Installation of Construction and Demolition Recycling Equipment for the New Hanover County Landfill. COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 4 -1, Vice - Chairman Dawson dissenting. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 11 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2015 ADDITIONAL ITEMS DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Chris O'Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director CONTACT(S): Chris O'Keefe SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution Opposing the Proposed Interbasin Transfer Certificate Modification for the Towns of Apex, Cary and Morrisville, and Wake County (For RTP South) Alternative 2A - Increase IBT to Meet 2045 Demands BRIEF SUMMARY: A request was made by the Towns of Apex, Cary and Morrisville and Wake County for an amendment to their interbasin transfer (IBT) certificate. Currently this group holds a certificate to transfer 24MGD from the Haw River Basin (a tributary to the Cape Fear River) to the Neuse River Basin. The modification would increase the amount of the IBT from 24 MGD to 33 MGD. NC Division of Water Resources administers the IBT process. Because this process is for an amendment the process is fairly brief and gives us only until February 5, 2015 to comment on the proposal. Following are some points to consider: About the Request • The request is being made to accommodate future growth expected to occur in the region up through 2045. • The request is supported by the town's and county's water supply plans. • An environmental assessment was developed for the applicant to support the request. The assessment evaluated several alternatives and recommended this action. • Public meetings were held in Apex on 1/7/15 and in Fayetteville on 1/22/15. • All comments must be postmarked or emailed by February 5. What the Request Does Not Adequately Consider • The assessment does not account for growth projected to occur downstream. • The assessment does not evaluate environmental impacts as fully as an Environmental Impact Statement would. • The statement identifies reasonable alternatives to the chosen action which would return water to the Cape Fear River Basin which should be more fully examined. • The review period has been very short and we have not had time to consider potential impacts on our water supply or the river's ecology. What Else You Should Know Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 12 • The City will consider a resolution about this topic on Tuesday, February 3, 2015. • The Fayetteville Public Water Committee has submitted comments with several important concerns — these concerns are attached. • The regulations governing certificate amendments were added to state statutes in 2013. They greatly streamlined the process. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Keep the public informed on important information RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt the resolution. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Public Hearing Notice FPWC 113T Summary COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 12 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE PROPOSED INTERBASIN TRANSFER CERTIFICATE MODIFICATION FOR THE TOWNS OF APEX, CARY AND MORRISVILLE, AND WAKE COUNTY (FOR RTP SOUTH) ALTERNATIVE 2A - INCREASE IBT TO MEET 2045 DEMANDS WHEREAS, New Hanover County finds that the Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Certificate request submitted by the towns of Apex, Cary and Morrisville, and Wake County (for RTP South) is unnecessary and poses increased risks to the water supply of New Hanover County; and WHEREAS, the Cape Fear River is a tremendous resource to our community, providing our major source of water supply as well as affording many recreational opportunities to our citizens, and it is our responsibility to maintain the highest level of certainty for our future water supply; and WHEREAS, it is our understanding that the NC Wildlife Resources Commission has indicated concern that increased withdrawals from Jordan Lake could negatively impact fish populations in the Cape Fear River and therefore negatively impact the river's ecosystem; and WHEREAS, it is our understanding that current requests for water supply from Jordan Lake do not allow for any water to be held in reserve; which could limit the ability of the lake to meet all of its intended uses, including water supply and flow downstream; and WHEREAS, it is our understanding that the additional transfer will cause more than 50% of the water supply to be diverted away from the Jordan Lake drainage basin; which is not in compliance with NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) rules and could jeopardize replenishment of the lake; and WHEREAS, a water use decision of this magnitude seems premature given that the Cape Fear Water Supply Plan, being prepared by DENR to determine whether or not all water supply needs can be met throughout the entire Cape Fear River Basin, has not been finalized; and WHEREAS, it is our understanding that this transfer is based on a 30 -year planning period, which is excessive and would compromise our ability to meet changes due to regulations, statutes, customer demands, climate changes, and regional needs; and a shorter planning period of 15 years would be more prudent. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners recommends utilization of Alternative 3A, as described in the Environmental Assessment for the proposed IBT. This option avoids interbasin transfer by sending additional untreated wastewater to the Western Wake Regional Water Reclamation Facility. It is our understanding that the Western Wake Partnership has the infrastructure in place to allow the Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 12- 1 - 1 return of treated wastewater to the Cape Fear River. If wastewater is returned, an additional IBT would not be needed and existing conditions in the Cape Fear River would be preserved. ADOPTED this the 2nd day of February, 2015. NEW HANOVER COUNTY Jonathan Barfield, Jr., Chairman Teresa P. Elmore, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 12- 1 - 2 Interbasin Transfer Certificate Modification for the Towns of Apex, Cary and Morrisville, and Wake County (for RTP South) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING January 22,2015,6:30 PM Fayetteville City Hall 433 Hay Street Fayetteville, NC 28301 The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the Towns of Apex, Cary and Morrisville, and Wake County (for RTP South) interbasin transfer (IBT) certificate modification request. The Towns of Apex, Cary and Morrisville, and Wake County (for RTP South) have requested a modification of their current IBT certificate for three purposes: Modify the basis of their IBT certificate approved July 12, 2001 from a maximum day IBT calculation to IBT calculated as the daily average of a calendar month, per the changes to NC General Statute 143- 215.22L based on Session Law 2013 -388. Include, at the request of the NCDENR Division of Water Resources, transfers to the Cape Fear River subbasin, so that the modified certificate addresses transfers from the Haw River subbasin to both the Neuse River basin and Cape Fear River subbasin. Base the certificate term on a 30 -year planning period, addressing the Towns' and County's IBT through 2045; resulting in a total of transfer of 33 mgd from the Haw River subbasin to the Neuse River basin and Cape Fear River subbasin on a daily average of a calendar month basis. The public hearing will start at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 22, 2015, at the Fayetteville City Hall, City Council Chambers, 433 Hay St., Fayetteville, NC 28301. The public may review the supporting environmental document by visitinghttp://www.ncwater.org/?Vage=473. The purpose of this announcement is to encourage interested parties to attend and/or provide relevant written and verbal comments. Division of Water Resources staff requests that parties submit written copies of oral comments. Based on the number of people who wish to speak, the length of oral presentations may be limited. If you are unable to attend, you may mail written comments to Harold Brady, Division of Water Resources, 1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1611. Comments may also be submitted electronically to Harold.M.Brady @ncdenr.gov. Mailed and emailed comments will be given equal weight. All comments must be postmarked or emailed by February 5, 2015. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 12- 2 - 1 Proposed Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Implications on FPWC Service Area Summary • The Cape Fear River is a tremendous resource to our community, providing our major source of water supply as well as affording many recreational opportunities for our citizens. For this reason, we have a great deal of interest and responsibility to maintain the highest level of certainty for our future water supply. • The Towns of Apex, Cary and Morrisville and Wake County (applicants) currently have authorization to transfer 24 million gallons of water per day (MGD) out of the Cape Fear River Basin (Jordan Lake) and into the Neuse River Basin. These applicants have submitted an Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Certificate request to increase the transfer rate by 9 MGB, for a total authorization of 33 MGD. • The IBT request is processed by the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) within the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Final agency action is taken by the NC Environmental Management Commission. • The first public hearing is scheduled on 1/7/15 in Apex and the second hearing is scheduled on 1/22/15 in Fayetteville. Concerns • To reduce the effects of a previously approved IBT, the Western Wake Partnership installed infrastructure at great cost ($290 million) to allow the return of treated wastewater to the Cape Fear River. It is not clear why the return of waste water is not a criteria for the proposed transfer, since it is a condition of the current IBT certificate. If wastewater is returned, an additional IBT would not be needed and existing conditions in the Cape Fear River would be preserved. A water use decision of this magnitude should allow ample time for the required public review process. Instead, it seems the process is being fast tracked, with a critical review period being held over the winter holidays. The Environmental Assessment (EA) document became available on 12/19/14 and the final comments are due on 2/5/15. The additional transfer will cause more than 50% percent of the water supply to be diverted away from the Jordan Lake drainage basin. This does not align with DENR rules and could jeopardize replenishment of the lake. Although the EA (used to evaluate /define potential environmental impact) indicates that the transfer would have no significant adverse impact on the environment or downstream water users, it is not clear that all due diligence was exercised. For example: o Most of the state agencies asked to review this assessment, except for NC Wildlife Resources Commission, had no comments on this major decision. o Under the IBT regulations, the request should include a specific finding as to why the applicant's need for water cannot be satisfied by alternatives within the receiving basin. The proposed IBT merely focuses on it being less expensive than other options, without fully explaining the analysis or providing costs for the other options. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 12- 3 - 1 Proposed Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Implications on FPWC Service Area o The City of Raleigh recently indicated they are evaluating the withdrawal of water from the Cape Fear River and returning treated wastewater back to the Cape Fear River. This would be a significant development that should be included in the impact analysis of the proposed IBT. • In the public announcement, it was noted that "NC Department of Public Safety Emergency Management requested to participate in NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources internal review process and it was granted essentially to help expedite the environmental document for the applicant ". This does not appear to be a standard practice and it is not clear why this was necessary or if it was appropriate. • Finally, a water use decision of this magnitude seems premature given that the Cape Fear River Water Supply Plan has not been finalized. This plan, which is prepared by DENR, will determine whether or not all water supply needs can be met throughout the entire Cape Fear River Basin. Risks to the FPWC Service Area if the IBT is Approved • Based on modeling results, the minimum flows at Lillington and Fayetteville will be reduced significantly in the future even with no increase in IBT. For this reason, treated wastewater needs to be returned to the Cape Fear River Basin to mitigate future reduced flows due to other demands on the river. • Comments made by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission indicate concern that increased withdrawals from Jordan Lake could negatively impact fish populations in the Cape Fear River. Efforts are already underway to protect this important part of the river's ecosystem, any additional impacts should be carefully considered. • The request for an additional transfer of 9 MGD is an average for the month, which means that any one day of that month could be higher than 9 MGD. This uncertainty needs to be analyzed to make sure it does not cause a problem with water availability downstream. • Current requests for water supply from Jordan Lake do not allow for any water to be held in reserve. This could limit the ability of the lake to meet all of its intended uses, including water supply and flow downstream. • This transfer is based on a 30 -year planning period, which is excessive and would compromise our ability to meet changes due to regulations, statutes, customer demands, climate change and regional needs. A shorter planning period of 15 years would be more prudent. What We Recommend • FPWC recommends utilization of alternative 3a (as described in the EA), which avoids interbasin transfer by sending additional untreated wastewater to the Western Wake Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Board of Commissioners - February 2, 2015 ITEM: 12- 3 - 2