Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-02 Regular Meeting NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 2, 2015 PAGE 239 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Monday, March 2, 2015, at 4:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, NC. Members present: Chairman Jonathan Barfield, Jr; Vice-Chairman Beth Dawson; Commissioner Skip Watkins; Commissioner Woody White; and Commissioner Rob Zapple. Staff present: County Manager Chris Coudriet; County Attorney Wanda Copley; and Clerk to the Board Teresa Elmore. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Rick Houston, Senior Pastor of Pilgrim Rest Missionary Baptist Church, provided the invocation and Vice- Chairman Dawson led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Barfield asked if any member of the Board would like to remove or discuss any item on the Consent Agenda. Hearing no comments, Chairman Barfield requested a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion: Commissioner Watkins MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Dawson, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes – Governing Body The Commissioners approved the following minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board: Agenda Review Meeting held on February 12, 2015 Regular Meeting held on February 16, 2015 Report for Public Record Concerning the Howell and Debock Insurance Settlements The Commissioners accepted a report for the record that the Howell lawsuit was resolved by payment of $35,000 to Jimmy Duke Howell by the insurance company. The Debock lawsuit was resolved by payment of $15,000 to Dennis A. Debock by the insurance company. Copies of the Settlement Agreements are available in the Legal Department. Approval of January 2015 Tax Collection Reports – Tax Department The Commissioners accepted the following Tax Collection Reports as of January 2015: New Hanover County New Hanover County Fire District Copies of the Tax Collection Reports are hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and are contained in Exhibit Book XXXIX, Page 5.1. Adoption of Budget Ordinance Amendments – Budget Department The Commissioners adopted the following Budget Ordinance Amendments for fiscal year ending June 30, 2015: 15-046 Department of Social Services 15-047 Sheriff's Office 15-048 Sheriff's Office 15-049 Parks and Gardens Department Copies of the budget ordinance amendments are hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and are contained in Exhibit Book XXXIX, Page 5.2. REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF REZONING REQUEST BY CINDEE WOLF OF DESIGN SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF AMJB PROPERTIES, LLC TO REZONE 3.88 ACRES FROM R-10, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO (CZD) B-2, CONDITIONAL HIGHWAY BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT, TO EXPAND AN EXISTING RV AND BOAT TRAILER STORAGE LOT AT 5050 CAROLINA BEACH ROAD (Z-938, 2/15) Current Planner Brad Schuler presented the request by Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions on behalf of AMJB Properties, LLC to rezone 3.88 acres of a 6.93 acre parcel located at 5050 Carolina Beach Road from R-10, Residential District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business District, to expand an existing RV and boat trailer storage business to the rear of the property and presented a slide overview of the request. The area of the existing storage business was rezoned from R-10 to (CZD) B-2 in November 2011. A preliminary site plan for the expansion shows that access will be provided from Archmil Way, which connects into NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 2, 2015 PAGE 240 Carolina Beach Road. The site and surrounding area are classified as both Urban and Conservation in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. The surrounding area includes a mixture of zoning districts of R-10, R-15, and (CZD) B-2 zoning districts. Land uses include residential to the north, south, and west, and storage/warehouse uses to the east and south. The rear of the property runs along Motts Creek, and contains wetlands, an AE floodway, and an AE flood zone, but only a small portion of the proposed expansion is within the AE flood zone. The stormwater generated by the site is designed to flow into a pond in the rear of the property that was installed when the site was first developed. Fill was added to create a slope that directs the stormwater toward the pond. Although the Land Use Plan calls for the preservation of conservation areas, natural features were designed to keep the site in harmony with the site’s natural functions. The storage areas are above the base flood elevation of 12.8 feet. Impervious surfaces coverage for the Conservation area is 19.4 percent, which meets the maximum guideline of 25 percent. Staff concludes that the proposal is consistent with the Urban and Conservation land use classifications and does not conflict with any goal or policy of the Land Use Plan. Policy 3.9 and Policy 4.3 of the CAMA Land Use Plan would support the zoning change. The request has been processed and reviewed according to Section 55.3 – Conditional Zoning District of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 110 – Amending the Ordinance. A community meeting was held on Monday, January 5, 2015, in accordance with the requirements. Two members of the public attended the meeting with no changes made to the proposal. At their February 5, 2015 meeting, the Planning Board voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the application with conditions agreed upon with the applicant. No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition of the rezoning. Staff recommends approval and suggests that the Board finds the rezoning request for 3.88 acres from R- 10, Residential District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business Zoning District to be: 1.) Consistent with the purposes and intent of the Urban and Conservation land use classification in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the proposal contains limited impervious surface near Motts Creek, and the fact that no structures or septic systems will be installed; and 2.) Reasonable and in the public interest because it maximizes the effectiveness of commercial uses by assuring that land is available for commercial uses within close proximity to the markets they serve and by ensuring that such commercial uses do not diminish the quality of life in nearby residential areas. Staff recommends the following conditions: 1. A privacy fence sufficient to also enhance neighborhood security shall be utilized as part of the buffering option. 2. The lot surface shall remain gravel so that the property might more easily transition back to residential use if market conditions improve and demand shifts in the future. 3. Hours of access shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. through 9:00 p.m. to avoid undue disturbance of the peaceful enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood, consistent with the intent of Section 23-34(b) of the County Code of Ordinances relating to unlawful noise-generating activities in residential areas. 4. The installation of security cameras. 5. Placement of lighting in the middle of the parking area and equipping each light with cones directing the light downward, minimizing the impacts on adjacent residential neighbors. 6. Restrictions will be provided to renters, posted around the site, and enforced by resident manager: no oil dumping or noxious activities, no engine flushing (no water provided), and no painting or varnishing. In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Schuler explained that the buffer would extend the six-foot fencing to the rear of the site and include landscaping. Chairman Barfield reported that no one had signed up to speak in favor or in opposition to the request and the Petitioner was available to make comments and answer questions. Cindee Wolf, representing the petitioner, AMJB Properties LLC, reported that the remaining R-15 Residential District property between the commercial properties belongs to Mr. McGirt’s mother and sister, who live on the property and do not object to the rezoning. A privacy fence exists between the Archmil Subdivision and storage facilities with a heavily wooded buffer and a thirty-foot drainage easement between the two uses. No effort was made to sidestep regulations as Mr. McGirt expanded the business gradually. To be consistent with the current zoning, the request is for the continuation of the (CZD) B-2 zoning for the entire complex. The aesthetics and landscaping of the complex is consistent throughout the Monkey Junction Self Storage. Although the residents in Archmil were against the rezoning initially, they do not have any issues at this time. In regards to the Conservation classification, a recent survey showed that none of the developed area is within the special flood hazard area elevation. A flood map amendment would remove the developed area from the classification. In response to the Board’s questions regarding environmental issues, Ms. Wolf explained that instead of paved surfaces, the ground has a gravel and base course that would filter any spill before running into the creeks and watershed. The site is monitored by security cameras and is gated, and an on-site resident monitors the site on a regular basis. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Barfield closed the Public Hearing and asked the petitioner whether to proceed or continue the item stating that if the rezoning request is denied, a new application may only be submitted within 12 months of the denial if substantial changes were made in the original petition for rezoning. Ms. Wolf responded that the petitioner wished to proceed with the decision. Chairman Barfield requested direction from the Board. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 2, 2015 PAGE 241 Motion: Vice-Chairman Dawson MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Zapple, to approve the request to rezone 3.88 acres from R-10, Residential District, to (CZD) B-2, Conditional Highway Business Zoning District with six conditions as recommended by staff as the rezoning is: 1) consistent with the purposes and intent of the “Urban” and “Conservation” land use classification in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the proposal contains limited impervious surface near Motts Creek, and the fact that no structures or septic systems will be installed; and 2) reasonable and in the public interest because it maximizes the effectiveness of commercial uses by assuring that land is available for commercial uses within close proximity to the markets they serve and by ensuring that such commercial uses do not diminish the quality of life in nearby residential areas. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A copy of AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF AREA 4 OF NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ADOPTED April 7, 1971 is hereby incorporated as a part of the minutes and is contained in Zoning Book I, Section 4, Page 100. PUBLIC HEARING AND DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT 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 -- CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 2, 2015 BOARD MEETING (S-623, 11/14) Chairman Barfield opened the Public Hearing and announced that the special use permit process requires a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore, the Clerk to the Board must swear in any person wishing to testify. He requested all persons who signed in to speak or who want to present testimony to step forward to be sworn in. The following persons were sworn in: Ben Andrea Chris O’Keefe Ken Vafier Ted Shipley, III Whitney Prease Gray Styers Haywood Newkirk Blake Hooper Kevin Lee Monang Shah Rita Holmgren Jerry Fulwood John Wessell Matthew Brenneman Jacob Wessell Kathryn B. Smith Bob Jacoby Jeff Hawkins Planning and Zoning Supervisor Ben Andrea presented the request by Hellman, Yates, and Tisdale 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 and reminded the Board that the item was tabled from last month’s meeting after it was realized that the company that prepared the engineering drawings was not licensed in the state. Proper approvals have been obtained for Branch Communications. Mr. Andrea provided a slide overview of the property and pointed out current locations of cell towers in the area noting the FAA height restrictions due to the approach zone of one of the runways at Wilmington International Airport and air travel. The two cell towers within the approach zone are limited to a height of 90 feet. The proposed tower would be outside of the approach zone and would be limited to 150 feet. The application is for construction of a 150-foot-tall monopole telecommunications tower facility on a 60 foot by 60 foot 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 according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. The site would encompass the tower, equipment pads, and required 25-foot buffer and fence. Access to the site would be from a new easement connecting to Murrayville Road. The tower would be located 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’s vote was split, first with a motion to recommend approval with the condition that the tower be a "stealth" tree. The 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, NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 2, 2015 PAGE 242 and resulted in the 3-2 vote. 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. Staff concludes that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal complies with Section 63.5-1 of the 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. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with no conditions noting the following findings of fact:  Evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed.  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.  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.  Evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use is in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. Chairman Barfield stated that a number of people have signed up to speak in support and in opposition of the request and invited the petitioner to make comments. Attorney Gray Styers, representing the petitioner, recognized representatives from T-Mobile and Branch Communications who were available to answer questions and presented an overview of the proposed project. He noted that staff has reviewed the application thoroughly and concluded that it does meet all the conditions and requirements of the zoning ordinance. T-Mobile desires to increase and improve its coverage in the area and to provide coverage along Murrayville Road and Highway 17 (Interstate 140). A map was shown noting the current and proposed improved coverage. As the company is investing hundreds of thousands of dollars, other sites were reviewed and considered, but the proposed site provides the best coverage for the area based on the findings of the radio frequency engineer. He submitted the engineers report as evidence that co-location on existing towers or other structures is not reasonable or possible and that a new structure, as proposed, is absolutely necessary to provide the coverage in this area. Additionally, Verizon Communications has confirmed its desire to co-locate on the proposed tower, which points out the need for the expanded coverage. T-Mobile would be willing to construct a stealth mono-pine designed tower at an additional cost of $40,000 plus additional maintenance cost if the Board desired to require the condition with its approval. A balloon test was performed in December 2014 and 23 pictures were presented of the surrounding area showing that at a majority of the locations the balloon was well below the tree line and that the visual impact would be virtually none. Mr. Styers argued that the cell tower would be in harmony with the area as the structures are located throughout the county, state and country and he presented pictures of various locations in the Raleigh, NC area showing the existence of the towers in neighborhoods. He also argued that the towers provide service to people who live and work in an area and the residents depend upon the service. In regards to whether towers are appropriate where children play or near recreational facilities, he showed picture of towers located around large city parks. Haywood Newkirk, a North Carolina licensed commercial appraiser in New Hanover County, provided an analysis on whether large cell phone towers have any impact on property values in four subdivisions located in the county and concluded that the analyses showed no diminution in value. He reported that based on 923 sales in the county, sales were higher for homes located closest to the towers and gave the opinion that the proposed tower would have no adverse effect upon or substantially injure the value or marketability of the adjoining, abutting, or surrounding residential properties. Chairman Barfield asked if anyone from the public wished to speak in support of the request. Rita Holmgren, resident of Thurgood Road, said that a cell phone tower can handle a limited number of calls at a time and expressed concern that during a disaster, homeowners in the area may be unable to contact family members or make emergency calls by cell phones. She requested the Board to approve the request for the tower to improve cell service in the area. Jerry Fulwood, resident of Market Street, withdrew his request to speak, as he did not feel he had adequate information to give an opinion. Chairman Barfield asked if anyone from the public wished to speak in opposition of the request. Attorney John Wessell, representing Melissa Stole, property owner of the tract of land to the east of the proposed site and representing residents in the area in opposition to the proposed tower, presented three affidavits from Ms. Stole, Jake Wessell and Sheri Cutting who gave evidence on the impact of the proposed tower on the value of the surrounding properties. He asked those present who were in opposition of the request to stand, as they all would be unable to speak in the limited timeframe. Several dozen people in the audience stood in opposition. Mr. Wessell spoke in opposition of the request reporting that the special use permit requires the petitioner to satisfy four findings of fact, which are necessary for approval. He argued that the use would not be in harmony NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 2, 2015 PAGE 243 with the neighborhood and that it did not comply with the CAMA Land Use Plan, specifically policies 3.6 and 5.7 to preserve the character of the neighborhood. He suggested there were other site locations available that would have less impact on a residential community. A site located to the east of Murrayville School would provide a lot of vacant property and would serve residents near Murrayville Road and the I-140 area instead of encroaching in the middle of a neighborhood. Mr. Wessell discussed what in harmony means and reported that the Commissioners denied a request for a cell phone tower in the same vicinity in 2006. He also reported that the courts had denied a request for a special use permit by Bellsouth in Asheville, NC because the tower was not in harmony with the neighborhood based on the fact that the proposed tower would be four times the maximum height of buildings in the zoning district. Based on the affidavit from Ms. Stole, the tower is fifty feet higher than the trees in the area and would be four times higher than the buildings in the area. In addition, the affidavit includes a petition of 190 signatures from residents in the neighborhood. He showed photographs taken by the residents of the balloon test that were superimposed with a tower to represent the views the neighborhood would have. Mr. Wessell requested the Board to deny the special use permit request based on the reasons presented and argued that T-Mobile may be more concerned with their cost and the signal propagation standpoint than the impact on the residential community. Matthew Brenneman, resident of Creekridge Road, voiced his opposition of the request stating the proposed tower would not be in harmony with the neighborhood. He reported the following: 20 of 23 photographs from the balloon test revealed that the tower was visible to the residents; he had excellent cell and data service with his personal cell phone carrier; and other approved sites were available and more suitable for the tower location than the proposed site due to its proximity to the neighborhood. He requested the Board to preserve the character of the neighborhood and the quality of life for the residents and deny the request for the special use permit that would impose undue visual hardship. In rebuttal, Attorney Styers submitted for the record as evidence the application for the special use permit and the supplemental information of the balloon test report, property value impact report and the Federal Aviation Administration’s approval letter of the Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation (Revised) for up to 170 feet above ground level. He said that special use permits for cell phone towers are allowed in residential districts and have specific requirements in the County’s ordinances. He stated that competent material and substantial evidence had been submitted as required by the ordinance. He argued that the use is in harmony with the area as supported in a court case on the location of a billboard. It was found irrelevant whether or not the billboard could be seen or was incompatible with the neighborhood. He argued that the use is in harmony with the neighborhood as it is a residential service that is allowed in residential districts and the evidence presented meets the requirements of the ordinance. The Planning Board recommended approval with a split vote and the Planning staff recommended approval, and at the recent State of the County Address, the Chairman stated that the County would need to provide needed infrastructure to accommodate changes in technology. Mr. Styers said that towers were a necessary component to support the structures and the ordinance allows them. In opposition, Kathryn B. Smith, president of the Brookside Gardens Homeowners Association, stated that their covenant states “all unsightly service utilities, fuel tanks and unauthorized structures on their properties that can cause an unsightly view from any street or way within the subdivision or from any residence within the subdivision are not allowed.” On behalf of the homeowners of Brookside Gardens and Brittany Woods, she requested the Board to deny the petition for the special use permit. Bob Jacoby, a resident of Brookside Gardens and board member of the Brookside Gardens Homeowners Association, reported that all the residents in the subdivision would have a view of the proposed tower as they enter the main entrance on New Haven Drive. He requested the Board deny the request for the special use permit for this location, as prior Boards have denied the request. Jeff Hawkins, a resident of Creekridge Road, reported that he has a different cell phone carrier than Mr. Brenneman and that he has good coverage at his residence. He said he opposed the request for the special use permit because he would have an unobstructed view of the unsightly tower from his property. Jacob Wessell, resident of Creekridge Road and a NC licensed professional engineer, expressed concern that the proposed site was used for an unpermitted landfill operation for several years and has the potential to contaminate the aquifer and Smith Creek Watershed during construction of the foundation for the tower. He objected to the site because no environmental assessment was completed. In response to Board questions, Attorney Styers explained that before moving forward with construction of a new site, a company would inquire through available databases that show the availability of locations and co- locations of towers. It is much cheaper, easier and faster to co-locate on an existing tower than to build a new site. A radio frequency engineer reviews and analyzes available sites in the area. In this case, the engineer found the sites had very low power transmitting antennas with a mile to approximately two-mile radius. This process is followed by a real estate person for possible acquisitions. In response to Commissioner White’s request for the court cases used by the petitioner, Attorney Styers reported that the cites were from the NC Court of Appeals. MCC Outdoor v Town of Franklinton cited on whether it was relevant that a site can be seen or not seen. A 2013 case of Blair Investment v Roanoke Rapids cited whether a cell tower is in harmony with an area. The appellant courts cited that if a tower is allowed in a zoning district and permitted by a special use permit, then it is prima facie in harmony unless the burden shifts with substantial competent material presented by the opposition and that it cannot be based on the opposition stating they do not NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 2, 2015 PAGE 244 want to see a cell tower or that it can be seen. Commissioner White mentioned that this is in conflict with the Asheville case. Commissioner White commented that the opposition has presented no evidence that there would be any impairment to the property values, and should not be properly consider, but the Asheville case seems to infer that height contrast to its surroundings could be considered. Mr. Styers explained that in the Asheville case, section 7-16-2c, a different criteria was used than the New Hanover County Ordinance and most other ordinances. The Asheville ordinance said the proposed use or development of the land will be harmony in the scale, bulk, and character of the neighborhood. Secondly, the Council had neither the evidence of stealth (pine tree) technology, a balloon test report, no discussion of the visibility nor whether the visibility could be minimized, which were specifically cited as deficiencies by the courts. A third distinguishing factor was the advancement of the telecommunications industry and technology since the first tower in 1996. Mr. Styers stated that for those reasons, the Asheville case could be easily distinguished, but primarily because the Asheville criteria differed from New Hanover County’s ordinance. Commissioner White asked Attorney Wessell about Ms. Stole’s affidavit regarding the availability of co- location and whether there was any evidence in conflict with the testimony of Attorney Styers. Attorney Wessell replied that Ms. Stole called the companies and asked if space was available on their towers and she was told that space was available. She took pictures of the sites and it is apparent from the pictures that space was available. Commissioner White asked Attorney Wessell if he had comments about the court cases presented by Mr. Styers that distinguish the Asheville case to the ones cited. Mr. Wessell responded that the Court of Appeals in the Asheville case very clearly noted that the City of Asheville could deny the permit because the cell phone tower was not in harmony with the neighborhood. Although New Hanover County’s ordinance may not have the specifics of Asheville’s ordinance, it does contain verbiage to determine whether it is in harmony. As in the Asheville case, the Board may consider that the tower would be dramatically higher than the surrounding buildings and uses and even the fact that people in the neighborhood were opposed to the tower. In response to Commissioner White’s question on whether any evidence was presented that showed the property values were impaired and contrasted with the petitioner’s opinion of value, Mr. Wessell responded that Ms. Cutting’s affidavit states that she is a realtor, but she is not a qualified appraiser and her statements were general. Break: Chairman Barfield called for a break from 5:55 p.m. to 6:10 p.m. Vice-Chairman Dawson asked whether the Board has an option of approving at a lower height, Deputy County Attorney Sharon Huffman responded that it would be determined on the type of condition the Board would be considering; however, conditions could be placed on a special use permit. She advised the Board that they might want to discuss with the applicant whether they would be agreeable to the condition. If the condition is to limit the height to one hundred feet, they could appeal the condition placed on the special use permit. In response to questions about Planning staff not using Policy 5.7 of the CAMA Land Use Plan, Mr. Andrea explained that staff’s position and reasoning was that similar infrastructure type was being used in similar proximity to single-family residences and thought to be harmonious. Another policy mentioned was on locating industrial type uses in a residential community. Staff would not want to make a comparison that a tower would have the same effect as an industrial plant. In regards to questions on whether sufficient service is available with other carriers, Mr. Andrea referred to the radio frequency engineer’s report that said no other structures would be feasible to locate the antenna. Mr. Styers reported that the 90-foot tower built for AT&T does not have the ability to have another carrier underneath, as it is too low and further that the SUP denied eight years ago was for AT&T and they ultimately built the 90-foot tower. T-Mobile would not be seeking to build another facility if other locations or options were available. He further stated that Verizon does not have coverage in the area and moved very quickly to co-locate on the proposed tower as carriers consider signal strengths that will provide coverage for one mile to a mile and a half. In response to Board questions on the quality of cell phone services, Mr. Wessell responded that the residents that he has talked with have indicated that their carrier service is adequate. They believe that other properties are available that would have little or no impact to the neighborhood and would provide coverage for the Murrayville Road and I-140 area. Vice-Chairman Dawson commented that the term “harmony with the area” is very subjective and she has referred to the writings of David Owens and read about the court cases cited, as in the Asheville case, where the courts ruled to deny the appeal because of the witnesses’ testimony that the tower would be an eyesore and with the 2006 matter, the Board may say that they have a precedent for a denial of the special use permit. At her request, Wilmington International Airport Facilities Director Whitney Prease responded to her concerns about FAA site approval stating that an aeronautical study with the FAA had determined that the site as proposed by the applicant passes all regulations. The site is 2.3 miles from the runway. He said they would like a beacon to be voluntarily placed on the tower. Commissioner Zapple asked Mr. Brenneman about the photograph of a tower on fire; and Mr. Brenneman responded that in his research he found that towers commonly catch on fire even with a lightning rod attached. The NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 2, 2015 PAGE 245 photograph presented was of a tower in California. He further reported that he found two vacant sites approved by the FAA on the web site antennasearch.com that was near the area. Mr. Styers reported for the record that he has worked in this industry for 15 years and has never known of a monopole catching on fire and objected that something from the internet being used as evidence with no basis. Planning staff has provided the Board with information on approved sites in the county. Although a site may have FAA approval, the Board would need to approve a special use permit for the tower. Mr. Andrea explained that Planning staff keeps records of all request for special use permits. The sites may have been registered with FAA, but have not been brought forward for special use permits. Chairman Barfield commented that as he has heard in past hearings and at this public hearing, cell phone towers do not affect real estate values. He is aware of a tremendous lack of coverage in the areas of Sidbury Road and Blue Clay Road. NACo and the NCACC are working hard to bring broadband internet connectivity to the entire country. In moving forward with the next generation, cell phones will be more plentiful and the County would need to prepare for the future. He expressed concern that some of the neighbors may not have sufficient coverage and he would need to consider the whole community. The County is working to grow the communities of Castle Hayne, Wrightsboro and the Murrayville Road area and these services would be needed. Chairman Barfield closed the Public Hearing, and notified the petitioner that a Special Use Permit, which is denied, may only be resubmitted at the discretion of the Planning Director and he asked whether to proceed or to continue the matter. The petitioner responded to proceed with the decision. Chairman Barfield requested direction from the Board. Motion : Commissioner Zapple MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman Dawson, to deny the Special Use Permit to Hellman, Yates, and Tisdale on behalf of Angela W. Steele Life Estate to develop a 150-foot-tall telecommunications tower at 6516 Murrayville Road based on the evidence presented and concluding that the Board cannot 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, because the placement of a 150-foot-tall telecommunications tower in the middle of the R-15 Residential Zone would create visual disharmony for the residents of the area. This is based on concerns expressed by the large number of residents who have appeared in opposition to the tower, which would be much higher than the tallest trees and four times higher than all the other structures in the area; and because of not being satisfied that there is not a location which would create less visual disharmony to area residents. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1. Chairman Barfield voted in opposition. . A copy of the order denying the Special Use Permit is hereby incorporated as part of the minutes and is contained in SUP Book IV, Page 55. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Chairman Barfield reported that one person had signed up to speak on non-agenda items. Earla Pope, a resident of the Wrightsboro community and a member of the Plan NHC Citizen Advisory Committee representing the Harmony with Nature Group, thanked the Board for its recent approval of the construction and demolition debris recycling equipment and requested the Board to save more landfill space by diverting organic debris (food waste), which could be composted and returned back to nature. ADDITIONAL ITEMS Comments from the Commissioners  Commissioner Zapple reported that Chairman Barfield, County Manager Coudriet and he attended the NACo Legislative Conference in Washington, DC last week. The group of 1,800 county commissioners discussed and supported an eleven-point agreement on legislative issues to work with the local delegation. One important issue discussed was to remove the tax-exempt status for municipal bonds that could end up costing the county millions of dollars and would affect taxpayers. He plans to submit a resolution for the Board’s consideration in opposition of municipal bond taxation.  Commissioner Zapple reported on attending the YMCA event to honor the City and County Fire Services and EMS Services personnel who responded to the fire at the YMCA building. He requested everyone to support the YMCA fundraising efforts to replace the facility.  Chairman Barfield reported that at the annual meeting of the Cape Fear Council of Governments (COG), Vice-Chair Dawson was elected treasurer of the COG Board of Directors.  Chairman Barfield reported that while attending the NACO Conference, the group met with the legislative delegation at the North Carolina Congressional Breakfast and they met with Representative David Rouzer about issues important to New Hanover County. As a member of the NACO Transportation Steering Committee, he attended several meetings on Saturday and Sunday to discuss proposed legislation on ports, road and mass transit. Vice-President Joe Biden spoke to the group on Monday. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOOK 33 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 2, 2015 PAGE 246 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Barfield adjourned the meeting at 6:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Teresa P. Elmore Clerk to the Board Please note that the above minutes are not a verbatim record of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners meeting. The entire proceedings are available for review and checkout at all New Hanover County Libraries and on-line at www.nhcgov.com.