Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01102019 January PB Agenda Packet Planning Board – January 10, 2019 Meeting Location: André Mallette Training Center, New Hanover County Government Center, Suite 135, 230 Government Center Drive JANUARY 10, 2019 6:00 PM Meeting Called To Order (Chairman Jordy Rawl) Pledge of Allegiance (Ken Vafier, Planning Manager) Approval of December 6, 2018 Minutes REGULAR ITEMS OF BUSINESS The Planning Board may consider substantial changes in these petitions as a result of objections, debate, and discussion at the meeting, including rezoning to other classifications. 1 Public Hearing (Presenter: Brad Schuler) Rezoning Request (Z18-19) – Request by Rountree Losee LLP on behalf of the property owner, Hilton Properties Limited Partnership, to rezone approximately 63.02 acres of land located in the 4100 block of Castle Hayne Road, from RA, Rural Agricultural District, to (CUD) I-2, Conditional Use Heavy Industrial District, and for a special use permit in order to develop a high intensity mining operation. 2 Public Hearing (Presenter: Ken Vafier) Special Use Permit Request (S18-06) - Request by Williams Mullen, on behalf of the property owner, Arab Shrine Club H Corp, for a special use permit to develop a telecommunications tower on 4.37 acres of land located at 4510 S. College Road. OTHER ITEMS 1 Other Items of Business Adjournment NE W HAN O VE R C O UN T Y P LAN N IN G B O AR D R E Q UE S T F OR B OAR D AC T IO N ME E T IN G D AT E : 1/10/2019 R egular D E PART ME N T: P lanning P R E S E N T E R (S ): Brad S chuler, C urrent P lanner C O N TAC T (S ): Brad S c huler; Wayne C lark, P lanning & Land Us e Directo r S UB J E C T: P ublic Hearing Rezoning Request (Z18-19) – Request by R ountree Losee LLP on behalf of the property owner, Hilton P roperties Limited Partnership, to rezone approximately 63.02 acres of land located in the 4100 block of Castle Hayne Road, from R A, Rural Agricultural D istrict, to (C UD) I-2, Conditional Use Heavy Industrial District, and for a special use permit in order to develop a high intensity mining operation. B R IE F S UMMARY: S tep hen D. C o ggins o f R oundtree Lo s ee, L L P is reques ting to rezone 63.02 ac res o f land lo cated in the 4100 b lo ck of C as tle Hayne R o ad from R A, R ural Agric ultural Dis trict, to (C UD) I-2, C o nditio nal Us e Heavy Indus trial, and a spec ial us e permit in order to d evelop a high intens ity mining o p eration. T he Z oning O rdinance classifies mining operations under two categories: low intensity and high intensity. T he two categories are generally differentiated based on the size and operational characteristics of the mining. T he proposed mine is generally consistent with the operation requirements for low intensity mining; however, it is classified as high intensity due to its permitted size (28.10 acres). N o use of explosives, on-site processing, or dewatering are proposed by the applicant. B oth low and high intensity mining operations require a special use permit in the I -2 zoning district. T he N orth C arolina D epartment of E nvironmental Q uality (D E Q ), D ivision of E nergy, M ineral and Land R esources (D E M L R ) issued a mining permit for the proposed operation on D ecember 15, 2015. T he permit allows for a mining operation of 28.10 acres to take place on the western portion of the property. T he permit expires on F ebruary 5, 2024. T he issuance of the state permit was a modification of a permit initially issued in F ebruary 2014 to “address concerns of groundwater contamination on the neighboring General E lectric property.” T he modification reduced the size of the mining operation (from 56.63 acres to 28.10) and required monitoring wells to be installed near the contaminated area. T he permit states that “mining shall cease immediately upon notification that regulatory limits have been exceeded” at the monitoring wells. Access is provided to the subject property by C astle H ayne R oad (N C 133) via Sledge R oad. S ledge R oad is a private gravel road, approximately 10 feet in width, that runs about two miles from the subject site to Castle H ayne R oad. About a half mile of the road is adjacent to a residential neighborhood (Wooden S hoe S ubdivision). T he subdivision contains 68 lots with nine existing single-family dwellings and an equestrian facility directly abutting S ledge R oad. T he number of vehicle trips generated by the mine will vary based on the demand; however according to the applicant, the mine will average 60-80 truckloads a day while it is in operation. A driveway permit from N C D O T is required for access to C astle H ayne R oad. N C D O T has reviewed the proposal and provided preliminary comments. T he comments indicate modifications must be made to the S ledge R oad driveway, but did not define the specific improvements at this time. T he 2016 C omprehensive P lan designates the subject property as C ommerce Zone, the intent of which is to provide Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 for employment and production hubs, predominately composed of light and heavy industrial uses. T he proposed mining operation is generally C O N S I S TEN T with the type of uses encouraged in the C ommerce Z one place type. S T R AT E G IC P LAN ALIG N ME N T: Intelligent G rowth and Ec o nomic Develo p ment R E C O MME N D E D MO T IO N AN D R E QUE S T E D AC T ION S : C O NDI T I O NAL US E ZO NI NG DI S T R I C T S taff rec o mmends ap p ro val o f the C o nditional Us e Zo ning Dis tric t and s ugges ts the fo llo wing mo tion: Mo tion to recommend approval, as the Board finds that this req ues t fo r a zoning map amendment of 63.02 ac res from R A to a C ond itional Use I-2 district, as d es c ribed is : 1. C ons is tent with the purp o s es and intent o f the 2016 C omprehensive P lan bec aus e the p ro p erty is c las s ified as C ommerc e Zone, a plac e type that enc ourages light and heavy indus trial us es. 2. R easonab le and in the public interest because the proposed mining operation site is located adjacent to existing heavy industrial zoning and will provide employment opportunities. Additionally, the mining operation site is located approximately 1.5 miles from an existing single-family subdivision. H owever, truck traffic generated by the operation could be heavy at times and without sufficient mitigation could impact the nearby homes. S P EC I AL US E P ER MI T Example Motion for Approval: Mo tion to rec o mmend approval, as the Bo ard finds that this applic atio n for a S p ecial Use P ermit meets the four required c o nc lusions based o n the find ings of fac t inc luded in the S taff S ummary. [O P T I O NAL] No te any additio nal findings of fac t related to the fo ur req uired conclus io ns. [O P T I O NAL] S tate c o nditio ns o f approval. Example Motion for Denial: Mo tion to deny, as the P lanning Bo ard cannot find that this propos al: 1. Will not materially endanger the pub lic health or s afety; 2. Meets all required c o nditio ns and s p ecific atio ns o f the Zo ning O rdinanc e; 3. Will not sub s tantially injure the value of ad jo ining o r abutting property; 4. Will b e in harmo ny with the s urro und ing area, and is in general c o nformity of the plans of d evelopment fo r New Hano ver C o unty. [S ta te the fin d ing(s) that th e application does not m eet a n d in clude rea son s to wh y it is not b eing met] C O UN T Y MAN AGE R'S C OMME N T S AN D R E C OMME N DAT ION S : (only Manager) Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 SCRIPT for Conditional Use Zoning District Application (Z18-19) Request by Rountree Losee LLP on behalf of the property owner, Hilton Properties Limited Partnership, to rezone approximately 63.02 acres of land located in the 4100 block of Castle Hayne Road, from RA, Rural Agricultural District, to (CUD) I-2, Conditional Use Heavy Industrial District, and for a special use permit in order to develop a high intensity mining operation. 1. Swear witnesses: Announce that “the Conditional Use District process requires a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore, any person wishing to testify must be sworn in. All persons who signed in to speak or who want to present testimony please step forward to be sworn in. Thank you.” 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. Board discussion 6. Ask Applicant whether he/she agrees with the staff findings and any condition proposed to be added to the Special Use Permit. 7. Vote on rezoning (first vote). The motion should include a statement saying how the change is, or is not, consistent with the land use plan and why it is, or is not, reasonable and in the public interest. Staff Suggested Motion: Motion to recommend approval, as the Board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of 63.02 acres from the RA district to a Conditional Use I-2 district, as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the property is classified as Commerce Zone, a place type that encourages light and heavy industrial uses. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed mining operation site is located adjacent to existing heavy industrial zoning and will provide employment opportunities. Additionally, the mining operation iste is located approximately 1.5 miles from an existing single-family subdivision. However, truck traffic generated by the operation could be heavy at times and without sufficient mitigation could impact the nearby homes. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 1 - 1 Alternative Motion for Approval/Denial: Motion to recommend [Approval/Denial], as the Board finds that this request for a zoning map amendment of 63.02 acres from the RA distirct to a Conditional Use I-2 district, as described is: 1. [Consistent/Not Consistent] with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because [Describe elements of controlling land use plans and how the amendment is or is not consistent]. 2. [Reasonable/Not Reasonable] and in the public interest because [Briefly explain why. Factors may include public health and safety, character of the area and relationship of uses, applicable plans, or balancing benefits and detriments]. 8. Vote on the companion Special Use Permit (second vote). Motion to recommend approval of the permit - All findings are positive. Motion to recommend approval of the permit, subject to conditions specified below: (State Conditions) ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Motion to recommend denial of the permit because the Board cannot find: a. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed for the following reason: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ b. That the Use meets all required condition and specifications: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ c. That the use will not substantially inure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ d. 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: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 1 - 2 Example Motion for Approval: Motion to recommend approval, as the Board finds that this application for a Special Use Permit meets the four required conclusions based on the findings of fact included in the Staff Summary. [OPTIONAL] Note any additional findings of fact related to the four required conclusions. [OPTIONAL] State conditions of approval. Example Motion for Denial: Motion to recommend denial, as the Planning Board cannot find that this proposal: 1. Will not materially endanger the public health or safety; 2. Meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. Will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property; 4. Will be in harmony with the surrounding area, and is in general conformity of the plans of development for New Hanover County. [State the finding(s) that the application does not meet and include reasons to why it is not being met] Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 1 - 3 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 1 of 10 STAFF SUMMARY FOR Z18-19 CONDITIONAL USE ZONING DISTRICT APPLICATION APPLICATION SUMMARY Case Number: Z18-19 Request: A) Rezoning to a Conditional Use I-2 Zoning District B) Special Use Permit for a high intensity mining operation Applicant: Property Owner(s): Stephen D. Coggins – Rountree Losee LLP Hilton Properties Limited Partnership Location: Acreage: 4117 Castle Hayne Road/Sledge Road 63.02 PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type: R00900-001-002-000 Commerce Zone Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Undeveloped High intensity mining operation Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: RA (CUD) I-2 SURROUNDING AREA LAND USE ZONING North Undeveloped RA East Undeveloped RA South Manufacturing (GE), Undeveloped I-2 West Undeveloped RA Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 1 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 2 of 10 ZONING HISTORY July 1, 1985 Initially zoned RA (Castle Hayne) COMMUNITY SERVICES Water/Sewer Water and sewer services are not proposed for the operation. CFPUA services are not available in this area. Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Northern Fire District, New Hanover County Station Castle Hayne Schools The proposed mining operation will not generate students. Recreation Northern Regional Park CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Conservation No known conservation resources Historic No known historic resources Archaeological No known archaeological resources PROPOSED SITE PLAN  The application proposes to develop a high intensity sand mine located in Castle Hayne, approximately two miles west of NC 133.  The Zoning Ordinance classifies mining operations under two categories: low intensity and high intensity. Low intensity mining operations are limited to no more than 20 acres of area, cannot use on-site processing equipment or explosives, and have a maximum excavation depth of 35 feet if dewatering. The proposed mine is classified as high intensity due to its permitted size (28.10 acres). No use of explosives, on-site processing, or Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 2 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 3 of 10 dewatering are proposed by the applicant. Both low and high intensity mining operations require a special use permit in the I-2 zoning district.  The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR) issued a mining permit for the proposed operation on December 15, 2015. The permit allows for a mining operation of 28.10 acres to take place on the western portion of the property. The permit expires on February 5, 2024.  The state permit includes operation conditions for the proposed mine. Those conditions include, but are not limited to: o Maintaining a 50-foot undisturbed buffer between any affected land and any adjoining waterway or wetland; o Utilizing water trucks or other appropriate method to prevent dust from leaving the permitted area (including the access road); o Prohibiting dewatering activities; and o Requiring the area east of the mining operation (shown as phase 2 on the site plan) to remain as an undisturbed buffer. Per DEQ, no activities associated with the mining operation (outside of the access road) can take place within the undisturbed buffer including the placement of structures or the parking of vehicles. Any future mining activities in the phase 2 area would require revision of the DEQ permit and also a modification of the special use permit.  The issuance of the state permit on December 15, 2015 was a modification of a permit initially issued in February 2014 to “address concerns of groundwater contamination on the neighboring General Electric property.” The modification reduced the size of the mining operation (from 56.63 acres to 28.10), and required monitoring wells to be installed near the contaminated area. The permit states that “mining shall cease immediately upon notification that regulatory limits have been exceeded” at the monitoring wells.  The proposed mine will excavate sand from its highest elevation point of approximately 39 feet down to about zero feet (Mean Sea Level). The applicant estimates the mine will go below the water table at about four to six feet, and a seven-foot-deep lake will be left at the completion of the excavation. Proposed Site Plan Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 3 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 4 of 10 TRANSPORTATION  Access is provided to the subject property by Castle Hayne Road (NC 133) via Sledge Road (private).  Sledge Road is a private gravel road, approximately 10 feet in width, that runs about two miles from the subject site to Castle Hayne Road. About a half mile of the road is adjacent to a residential neighborhood (Wooden Shoe Subdivision). The subdivision contains 68 lots with nine existing single-family dwellings and an equestrian facility directly abutting Sledge Road.  Concerns have been raised by the adjacent residents regarding potential noise, vibration, and dust impacts generated by the trucks traveling to and from the mine.  The number of trips generated by the mine will vary based on the demand, however according to the applicant, the mine will average 60-80 truckloads a day while it is in operation.  The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) does not provide trip generation estimates for mining operations. Based on the applicant’s estimate and the hours of operation, it is expected that the proposed mine will not exceed 100 trips in the peak hours. Staff consulted with NCDOT staff regarding the trip generation for this proposal and they concur based on the information provided by the applicant.  A driveway permit from NCDOT is required for access to Castle Hayne Road. NCDOT has reviewed the proposal and provided preliminary comments. The comments indicate modifications must be made to the Sledge Road driveway, but did not define the specific improvements at this time. Traffic Counts – January 2018 Road Location Volume Capacity V/C Castle Hayne Road Near the 4100 Block 10,232 16,200 0.63 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 4 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 5 of 10 Nearby Planned Transportation Improvements and Traffic Impact Analyses No TIAs are currently being drafted or have been completed for projects within a one-mile radius from the subject site within the last five years, or in the general vicinity of the site in the Castle Hayne area. Regional Transportation Plans:  STIP Project U-5863 o Project to widen Castle Hayne Road to multi-lanes from I-140 to MLK Parkway. Construction is expected to begin in 2023. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 5 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 6 of 10 ENVIRONMENTAL  Portions of the property along the northern property line are within an AE Special Flood Hazard Area.  The property is not within a Natural Heritage Area.  The site is classified as Wetland Resource Protection on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification MAP. Per Section 72-42: Mining, of the Zoning Ordinance, high intensity mining operations are permitted in this classification.  The US Army Corps of Engineers determined in 2013 that the proposed mine will not impact jurisdictional waters or wetlands. However, this determination is no longer valid and a new determination must be issued by the Corps prior to commencing of the mining operation.  The property is within the Cape Fear River (C;Sw) and Prince Georges Creek (C;Sw) watersheds.  Per the Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability, soils on the property consist of Class I (suitable/slight limitation) soils.  The issuance of the state mining permit on December 15, 2015 was a modification of a permit initially issued in February 2014 to “address concerns of groundwater contamination on the neighboring General Electric property.” The modification reduced the size of the mining operation (from 56.63 acres to 28.10), and required monitoring wells to be installed near the contaminated area. The permit states that “mining shall cease immediately upon notification that regulatory limits have been exceeded” at the monitoring wells. 2016 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN  The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representation of the vision for New Hanover County’s future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and function of the different types of development that make up the community. Specific goals of the comprehensive plan are designated to be promoted in each place type, and other goals may be relevant for particular properties. Future Land Use Map Place Type Commerce Zone Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 6 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 7 of 10 Place Type Description Serves to provide areas for employment and production hubs, predominantly composed of light and heavy industrial uses, though office and complementary commercial uses are also allowed. Densities are dependent, in part, on the type of industry, and residential uses are discouraged. Analysis The subject property, located to the northwest of the GE site, was designated Commerce Zone on the Future Land Use Map to allow for future GE expansions and/or other industrial uses. The County’s industrial zoning districts are compatible with this place type. Mining is classified as intensive manufacturing in the Zoning Ordinance and is permitted in industrial districts. Consistency Recommendation The proposed sand mine is generally CONSISTENT with the intent of the Commerce Zone place type to provide areas for industrial uses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON REZONING Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Zoning District. Staff concludes that the request is consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and also the 2016 Comprehensive Plan, finding that the application is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because the property is classified as Commerce Zone, a place type that encourages light and heavy industrial uses. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest because the proposed mining operation site is located adjacent to existing heavy industrial zoning and will provide employment opportunities. Additionally, the mining operation site is located approximately 1.5 miles from an existing single-family subdivision. However, truck traffic generated by the operation could be heavy at times and without sufficient mitigation could impact the nearby homes. STAFF PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS OF FACT: Staff has conducted an analysis of the proposed use and the information provided as part of the application package and has created preliminary findings of fact for each of the conclusions required to be reached to approve the special use permit request. These preliminary findings of fact and conclusions are based solely on the information provided to date, prior to any information or testimony in support or opposition to the request that may be presented at the upcoming public hearing at the Board meeting. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 7 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 8 of 10 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. The site is accessed from Castle Hayne Road, an arterial street and North Carolina highway (NC 133). B. The subject property is located in the New Hanover County North Fire Service District. C. Traffic impacts are reviewed by NCDOT through the driveway permitting process, and any required roadway improvements must be installed in accordance with NCDOT’s standards prior to the mine being in operation. D. According to the applicant, the mine will average 60-80 truckloads a day while it is in operation. E. The proposed operation obtained a mining permit from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. The permit allows for up to 28.10 acres to be utilized for the mining operation. F. The state mining permit, initially issued in February 2014, was modified on December 15, 2015 to “address concerns of groundwater contamination on the neighboring General Electric property.” The permit set operating conditions for the mine, including utilizing monitoring wells and leaving the portion of the property around the contaminated area as an undisturbed buffer. The state mining permit also requires that the mining cease immediately upon notification that regulatory limits have been exceeded at the monitoring wells. G. The state mining permit requires that a water truck or other appropriate means be utilized during mining operations to prevent dust from leaving the permitted area including the access road. H. The operation will use wet mining techniques. No detwatering will occur at the site. Staff Suggestion: Evidence provided by the applicant at this time supports a finding that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety in the location proposed. The state mining permit includes operational conditions to mitigate the environmental impacts of the nearby groundwater contamination. Finding 2: The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. A. The site is proposed to be zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial. B. High intensity mining operation are allowed by special use permit in the I-2 zoning districts. C. The site plan complies with all applicable County technical standards including Zoning Ordinance Section 72-42: Mining. D. The site is classified as Wetland Resource Protection on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification MAP. Per Section 72-42: Mining, of the Zoning Ordinance, high intensity mining operations are permitted in this classification. 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. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 8 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 9 of 10 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 surrounding area is mostly undeveloped. B. The property abuts an approximate 1,600-acre parcel of land that is zoned 1-2, Heavy Industrial. C. The access road to the mine (Sledge Road) runs along nine existing single-family dwellings and an equestrian facility located in the Wooden Shoe subdivision, and a total of 68 lots are located within the neighborhood. D. The applicant provided an analysis of the impacts an active sand mine will have on single- family residential property values within a close proximity to the mining operations (Proposed Sane Mine – What impact does the presence of an active sand mine have on home values in the adjacent neighborhoods? – Prepared by Trevor Tarleton & F. Blynn Beall, Streamline Evaluation Services). The analysis examined three sand mines located near residential neighborhoods and found “no significant economic impacts to home values as result of an active sand mine in close proximity to each neighborhood.” Staff Suggestion: Evidence provided by the applicant 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 is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. A. The property is located in the Commerce Zone place type, as classified in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. B. The Commerce Zone place type areas serve as employment and production hubs, predominantly composed of light and heavy industrial uses. C. The proposal is consistent with the recommended uses of the Commerce Zone place type. D. The property abuts an approximate 1,600-acre parcel of land that is zoned 1-2, Heavy Industrial and an approximate 4,000-acre parcel of land that is zoned RA, Rural Agricultural. E. The access road to the mine (Sledge Road) runs along nine existing single-family dwellings and an equestrian facility located in the Wooden Shoe subdivision, and a total of 68 lots are located within the neighborhood. F. The number of trips generated by the mine will vary based on the demand, however according to the applicant, the mine will average 60-80 truckloads a day while it is in operation. Staff Suggestion: The proposed location of the mining operation is generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan and the Commerce Zone place type. However, the access road to the mine may generate impacts to the abutting residential neighborhood. Without improvements along this section of the road to mitigate those impacts, the potential truck traffic may not be in harmony with the area. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 9 Z18-19 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 10 of 10 POTENTIAL CONDITIONS The Planning Board can recommend reasonable and appropriate conditions be added to the special use permit. The applicant has provided the following conditions they are willing to consider on the special use permit: 1. Maintain hours of operation of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (7 days a week); 2. Enforcing a speed limit of 10 to 15 mph on the section of the access road between the two existing gates to which houses are immediately adjacent; 3. Installation of speed bumps on the section of the access road between the two existing gates to which houses are immediately adjacent; 4. Use of a watering truck or some other means of irrigation on the section of the access road between the two existing gates to which houses are immediately adjacent; 5. Possibly adding some crushed asphalt or rock/aggregate on the section of the access road between the two existing gates to which houses are immediately adjacent; 6. Working with the owners of the houses immediately adjacent to the access road and installing either a wooden fence or vegetative buffer for the impacted properties. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 2 - 10 CUD I-1 B-1 R-15 CUD R-10 O&I B-2I-1I-2 PD RA R-20 R-10 CZD B-2 CZD R-10 Case:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Zoning/Use: Z18-19 4100 block Castle Hayne Rd RA/ Undeveloped (CUD) I-2/ High Intensity Mining 5 Miles Z18-19 Z18-19 5703 DEKKER RD 5712 DEKKER RD 3944 CASTLE HAYNE RD5706 DEKKER RD 4000 CASTLE HAYNE RD5715 DEKKER RD 5711 DEKKER RD 5803 MCDOUGALD DR 4006 CASTLE HAYNE RD5810 DEKKER RD 4004 CASTLE HAYNE RD5723 DEKKER RD 5720 MCDOUGALD DR 5811 DEKKER RD 109 MCDOUGALD DR 2720 BERG LN 5725 MCDOUGALD DR 2717 BERG LN 104 MCDOUGALD DR 5707 DEKKER RD 4012 CASTLE HAYNE RD5701 DEKKER RD 4020 CASTLE HAYNE RD105 MCDOUGALD DR 4120 CASTLE HAYNE RD2710 BERG LN 5823 DEKKER RD 2706 DIRCK RD 5812 DEKKER RD 4117 CASTLE HAYNE RD 2724 BERG LN 4117 CASTLE HAYNE RD 2721 BERG LN 104 MCDOUGALD DR 5716 DEKKER RD 3901 CASTLE HAYNE RD 5719 DEKKER RD 3901 CASTLE HAYNE RD 2719 BERG LN Physical AddressSledge Rd Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 3 - 1 CUD R-10CUD O&I CUD B-2 CUD I-1 B-1 O&I B-2 I-1 I-2 PD RA R-20 R-10 R-15 CZD B-2 New Hanover County, NC Case:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Zoning/Use: Z18-19 4100 block Castle Hayne Rd RA/ Undeveloped (CUD) I-2/ High Intensity Mining 5 Miles Z18-19 R-7 RFMU RA R-20S R-20 R-15 R-10 PD O&I I-2 I-1 EDZD B-2 B-1 AR A-I SC Indicates Conditional Use District (CUD) Indicates Conditional Zoning District (CZD) Incorporated Areas SHOD Zoning Districts Sewer Main Water Main Sledge Rd Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 4 - 1 COMMERCE ZONE GENERAL RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY MIXED USE RURAL RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION URBAN MIXED USE EMPLOYMENT CENTER New Hanover County, NC Case:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Zoning/Use: Z18-19 4100 block Castle Hayne Rd RA/ Undeveloped (CUD) I-2/ High Intensity Mining 5 Miles Z18-19 URBAN MIXED USE RURAL RESIDENTIAL GENERAL RESIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT CENTER CONSERVATION COMMUNITY MIXED USE COMMERCE ZONE Place Types Sledge Rd Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 5 - 1 APPLICANT MATERIALS Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 6 - 1 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 6 - 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 2 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 2 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 2 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 2 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 2 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 2 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 2 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 2 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 2 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 2 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 3 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 3 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 3 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 3 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 3 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 3 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 3 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 3 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 3 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 3 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 4 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 4 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 4 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 4 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 4 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 4 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 46 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 47 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 7 - 48 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 4 9 AT T A C H M E N T 2 - A Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 5 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 5 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 5 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 5 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 5 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 5 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 5 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 5 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 5 8 AT T A C H M E N T N O . 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 5 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 6 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 6 1 AT T A C H M E N T N O . 4 - A Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 6 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 6 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 6 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 6 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 6 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 6 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 6 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 6 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 7 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 7 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 7 2 AT T A C H M E N T N O . 5 - A Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 7 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 7 4 AT T A C H M E N T N O . 5 - B Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 7 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 7 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 7 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 7 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 7 9 AT T A C H M E N T N O . 6 - A Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 8 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 8 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 8 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 8 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 8 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 8 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 8 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 8 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 8 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 8 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 9 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 9 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 9 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 9 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 9 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 9 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 9 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 9 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 9 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 9 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 0 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 0 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 0 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 0 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 0 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 0 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 0 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 0 7 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 0 8 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 0 9 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 1 0 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 1 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 1 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 1 3 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 1 4 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 1 5 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 1 6 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 7 - 1 1 7 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 8 - 1 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 8 - 2 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 8 - 3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 9 - 1 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 1 - 9 - 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 0 - 1 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 0 - 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 1 - 1 0 - 3 NE W HAN O VE R C O UN T Y P LAN N IN G B O AR D R E Q UE S T F OR B OAR D AC T IO N ME E T IN G D AT E : 1/10/2019 R egular D E PART ME N T: P lanning P R E S E N T E R(S ): Ken Vafier, P lanning Manager C O N TAC T (S ): Ken Vafier; Wayne C lark, P lanning & Land Us e Direc tor S UB J E C T: P ublic Hearing S pecial Use Permit Request (S18-06) - Request by Williams Mullen, on behalf of the property owner, Arab Shrine Club H Corp, for a special use permit to develop a telecommunications tower on 4.37 acres of land located at 4510 S . College Road. B R IE F S UMMARY: Williams Mullen, on behalf of Arab S hrine C lub H C o rp , is reques ting a spec ial us e p ermit to d evelop a 154' tall mono p o le s tyle telec o mmunicatio ns to wer and as s o ciated eq uipment sto rage and carrier lease areas at 4510 S C ollege R o ad. T he s ite is currently d eveloped as a s o cial/fraternal o rganization build ing with as s o c iated p arking, land s caping, and b uffering. C urrently, the s ite has exis ting carports which will b e reloc ated further south on the parc el to ac commodate the tower site. P redominant land us es in the vicinity of the sub ject s ite are res id ential, vac ant or open spac e, with institutional and c o mmercial to the s o uth. T he neares t res id ential struc tures range from ap p ro ximately 320’ - 350’ to the north o f the proposed to wer lo catio n. To the west, the tower is approximately 380’ - 400’ feet from the exis ting res id ential struc tures , and o ver 600’ across S C ollege R oad to the residential s tructures to the east of the proposed tower loc ation. A 25’ wide b uffer s urrounding the wes t, south, and eas t s ides o f the tower bas e will p ro vide vis ual sc reening. T he exis ting S hrine C lub b uilding will provid e visual s creening fo r the no rth s id e. T he ap p lic ant and o wner have sub mitted a Land s cape Buffer C ertific atio n that in the event the build ing is d emo lis hed o r no longer provid es an adequate o p aque buffer, the land s c aping req uirements will be met with ins tallatio n and maintenanc e by the applic ant. T he s taff s ummary inc ludes a d etailed analys is o f the s ubmitted doc umentatio n as it relates to meeting ordinanc e requirements . T he s ite is c las s ified as C o mmunity Mixed Us e and G eneral R esidential b y the 2016 C o mp rehens ive Land Us e P lan. T he C o mmunity Mixed Us e plac etype fo c us es o n small-sc ale, c ompac t, mixed us e d evelo p ment p atterns that serve all mo d es o f travel and ac t as an attrac tor for c o unty res idents and vis ito rs . T he G eneral R es idential plac etyp e foc uses on lo wer-dens ity hous ing and as s o c iated civic and commerc ial s ervic es . T he C o mp rehens ive P lan d o es not spec ifically addres s the loc atio n of telecommunic atio ns to wers and other infras truc ture. Ho wever, the C omprehensive P lan’s imp lementation guid elines do aim to s upport b us ines s succ es s , wo rkforc e d evelopment, and ec o nomic p ro s p erity. T hus , infras tructure inc lud ing telecommunic ations towers are ap p ro p riate within thes e plac etyp es when lo cated ap p ro p riately, and this p ro p o s al is generally C O N S IS T E N T with the 2016 C omprehensive P lan. S T R AT E G IC P LAN ALIG N ME N T: Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 Intelligent G rowth and Ec o nomic Develo p ment R E C O MME N D E D MO T IO N AN D R E QUE S T E D AC T ION S : Example Motion for Approval: Mo tion to rec o mmend approval, as the Bo ard finds that this applic atio n for a S p ecial Use P ermit meets the four required c o nc lusions based o n the find ings of fac t inc luded in the S taff S ummary. [O P T I O NAL] Also, that the fo llo wing conditio ns b e added to the develo p ment: [List C ond itions ] Example Motion for Denial: Mo tion to rec o mmend d enial, as the board cannot find that this p ro p o s al: 1. Will not materially endanger the pub lic health or s afety; 2. Meets all required c o nditio ns and s p ecific atio ns o f the Zo ning O rdinanc e; 3. Will not sub s tantially injure the value of ad jo ining o r abutting property; 4. Will b e in harmo ny with the s urro und ing area, and is in general c o nformity of the plans of d evelopment fo r New Hano ver C o unty. [S ta te the fin d ing(s) that th e application does not m eet a n d in clude rea son s to wh y it is not b eing met] C O UN T Y MAN AGE R'S C OMME N T S AN D R E C OMME N DAT ION S : (only Manager) Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 SCRIPT for SPECIAL USE PERMIT Application (S18-06) Request by Williams Mullen, on behalf of the property owner, Arab Shrine Club H Corp, for a Special Use Permit for a telecommunications tower located at 4510 S College Road. 1. Swear witnesses: Announce that “the Special Use Permit process requires a quasi-judicial hearing; therefore, any person wishing to testify must be sworn in. All persons who signed in to speak or who want to present testimony please step forward to be sworn in. Thank you.” 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. Board discussion 6. A Special Use Permit which is denied may only be resubmitted if there has been a substantial change in the facts, evidence, or conditions of the application as determined by the Planning Director. At this time, you may ask to either continue the application to a future meeting, or to proceed with this Board deciding whether to recommend approval or denial of the application. What do you wish to do? 7. Ask Applicant whether he/she agrees with staff findings and any proposed conditions. 8. Vote on the Special Use Permit application. Motion to recommend approval of the permit - All findings are positive. Motion to recommend approval of the permit, subject to conditions specified below: (State Conditions) ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Motion to recommend denial of the permit because the Board cannot find: a. That the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed for the following reason: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ b. That the use meets all required condition and specifications: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 1 - 1 c. That the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ d. 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: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Example Motion for Approval: Motion to recommend approval, as the Board finds that this application for a Special Use Permit meets the four required conclusions based on the findings of fact included in the Staff Summary. Example Motion for Denial: Motion to recommend denial, as the Board cannot find that this proposal: 1. Will not materially endanger the public health or safety; 2. Meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. Will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property; 4. Will be in harmony with the surrounding area, and is in general conformity of the plans of development for New Hanover County. [State the finding(s) that the application does not meet and include reasons to why it is not being met] Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 1 - 2 S18-06 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 1 of 8 STAFF SUMMARY OF S18-06 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION APPLICATION SUMMARY Case Number: S18-06 Request: Special Use Permit in order to develop a telecommunications tower Applicant: Property Owner(s): Tom Johnson of Williams Mullen Arab Shrine Club H Corp Location: Acreage: 4510 S College Road 4.36 PID(s): Comp Plan Place Type: R07110-001-024-000 Community Mixed Use/General Residential Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Social/Fraternal Organization Telecommunications Tower Current Zoning: R-15 SURROUNDING AREA LAND USE ZONING North Single-Family Residential R-15/R-10 East Single-Family Residential R-15 South Religious Institution R-15 West Single-Family Residential R-15 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 1 S18-06 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 2 of 8 ZONING HISTORY October 5, 1969 Initially zoned R-15 (Masonboro Area) COMMUNITY SERVICES Water/Sewer Water and Sewer is available through CFPUA but not necessary for this use Fire Protection New Hanover County Fire Services, New Hanover County Southern Fire District, New Hanover County Myrtle Grove Station Schools College Road Early Childhood, Bellamy Elementary, Myrtle Grove Middle, and Ashley High Schools Recreation Myrtle Grove School Park, Halyburton Park CONSERVATION, HISTORIC, & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Conservation No known conservation resources Historic No known historic resources Archaeological No known archaeological resources Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 2 S18-06 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 3 of 8 Proposed Site Plan  The application proposes a 154’ tall monopole style telecommunications tower and associated equipment storage and carrier lease areas to the south of the existing Arab Shrine Club building. Currently, the site has existing carports which will be relocated further south on the parcel to accommodate the tower site. Proposed Site Plan TRANSPORTATION  Access will be provided via a new access easement to the tower site from Jasmine Cove Way over the existing entrance drive and parking lot. A new asphalt driveway will be constructed on the southern portion of the parcel to provide access to the relocated carports. Trip Generation LAND USE INTENSITY AM PEAK PM PEAK Wireless Communication Facility N/A ≤ 1 ≤ 1  Traffic Impact Analyses are required to be completed for proposals that will generate more than 100 peak hour trips in either the AM or PM peak hours. Existing Building Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 3 S18-06 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 4 of 8  The proposed tower use will have virtually no impact on traffic on the nearby road network due to the very low trip generation. A revised NCDOT Driveway Permit to connect to Jasmine Cove Way for this additional use will be required. ENVIRONMENTAL  The site does not contain any Special Flood Hazard Areas, wetlands, or Natural Heritage Areas.  The subject property is split between two drainage basins. The proposed tower site lies in an area that drains to Barnard’s Creek and the Cape Fear River, while the northern and eastern portions of the site drain to Whiskey Creek and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.  Soils at the site are Lynn Haven Fine Sand, according to the Soil Survey for New Hanover County. 2016 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN The New Hanover County Future Land Use Map provides a general representation of the vision for New Hanover County’s future land use, as designated by place types describing the character and function of the different types of development that make up the community. These place types are intended to identify general areas for particular development patterns and should not be interpreted as being parcel specific. Specific goals of the comprehensive plan are designated to be promoted in each place type, and other goals may be relevant for particular properties. Future Land Use Map Place Type Community Mixed Use and General Residential The subject property is split between two place types. The location of the tower site and existing building is located within Community Mixed Use on the east side of the site closest to College Road, while the western, vacant portion of the property is within General Residential. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 4 S18-06 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 5 of 8 Place Type Description Community Mixed Use focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve all modes of travel and act as an attractor for county residents and visitors. Types of appropriate uses include office, retail, mixed use, recreational, commercial, institutional, and multi-family and single-family residential. General Residential focuses on lower-density housing and associated civic and commercial services. Typically, housing is single-family or duplexes. Commercial uses should be limited to strategically located office and retail spaces, while recreation and school facilities are encouraged throughout. Analysis The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address the location of telecommunications towers and other infrastructure, and the place type descriptions for General Residential or Community Mixed Use do not provide substantive guidance for evaluating the applicant’s petition. However, the Comprehensive Plan’s implementation guidelines do aim to support business success, workforce development, and economic prosperity, and telecommunications infrastructure—placed to best serve the needs of surrounding residents and the adjacent schools—can help to advance those goals. Consistency Recommendation The proposed telecommunications tower is generally CONSISTENT with the goals of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan because it will provide for the communications infrastructure necessary to support the educational and economic activities of nearby residents, businesses, and students. STAFF PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS OF FACT: Staff has conducted an analysis of the proposed use and the information provided as part of the application package and has created preliminary findings of fact for each of the conclusions required to be reached to approve the special use permit request. These preliminary findings of fact and conclusions are based solely on the information provided to date, prior to any information or testimony in support or opposition to the request that may be presented at the upcoming public hearing at the Board meeting. Conclusion 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 available to serve the site, but not necessary for the proposed use. B. The subject property is located in the New Hanover County South Fire Service District. C. Access to the tower site will be provided by a new access easement and will utilize an existing asphalt driveway from Jasmine Cove Way, which is an NCDOT maintained street. D. The subject site does not host any known cultural, archaeological, or environmental resources. E. The proposed use will have virtually no traffic impact on the surrounding transportation network. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 5 S18-06 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 6 of 8 Staff Suggestion: Evidence in the record provided by the applicant at this time supports a finding that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed. Conclusion 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, Residential 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 154’ tall tower is 158’ from the nearest property line, meeting 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 of 50’ 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. Information provided in the application packet meets this requirement. 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 existing Arab Shrine Club building is anticipated to adequately shield the northern side of the tower site and equipment area; therefore, a landscaped buffer is not proposed to be installed on this side. The applicant and owner have submitted a Landscape Buffer Certification stating that in the event the building is demolished or no longer provides adequate buffering for the tower base and equipment area, that the required buffer will be installed and maintained by the applicant. The proposed landscape buffer and Landscape Buffer Certification document meet this requirement. F. Section 63.5-1(D) requires that 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. Documentation provided in the application package meets these requirements. G. Section 63.5-1(E) requires that towers over 150’ tall be engineered to accommodate a minimum of two additional providers. The proposed tower is 154’ tall and has been designed to co-locate five additional providers’ equipment in addition to the proposed carrier as described in the application. H. Section 63.5-1(F) requires that 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 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 6 S18-06 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 7 of 8 comply with current FCC standards. Documentation in the application package meets these requirements. I. Section 63.5-1(I) regulates the signage allowed on the tower and related equipment. Signage proposed on the site consists of identification, registration, and safety signs which are 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 this 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. An FAA Aeronautical Evaluation was included with the application and indicates that the site and proposal are in compliance with FAA regulations. 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. Conclusion 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 telecommunications tower is on an existing commercially developed site adjacent to a residential area along a major thoroughfare. B. The nearest residential structures range from approximately 320’ - 350’ to the north of the proposed tower location. To the west, the tower is approximately 380’ - 400’ feet from the existing residential structures, and over 600’ across S College Road to the residential structures to the east of the proposed tower location. C. Predominant land uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject site are residential, vacant or open space, and institutional and commercial to the south. D. A 25’ wide buffer surrounding the west, south, and east sides of the tower base will provide visual screening. The existing Shrine Club building will provide visual screening for the north side. The applicant and owner have submitted a Landscape Buffer Certification that in the event the building is demolished or no longer provides an adequate opaque buffer, the landscaping requirements will be met with installation and maintenance by the applicant. E. Evidence has been submitted in the form of an impact analysis by David Smith, MAI, SRA, that the proposal will not adversely affect the value of adjoining and abutting properties. F. Evidence has been submitted in the form of an impact study by Michael Berkowitz that the proposal will not substantially injure the value of adjacent or abutting properties. G. No contradictory evidence has been submitted that this project will substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting properties. Staff Suggestion: Evidence in the record provided by the applicant at this time supports a finding that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. Conclusion 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 is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. A. The subject site is currently developed as a social/fraternal organization building with associated parking, landscaping, and buffering. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 7 S18-06 Staff Summary PB 1.10.2019 Page 8 of 8 B. The tower site is located adjacent to a residential area, with the nearest residential properties located approximately 320’ north of the proposed tower location. The tower site is adjacent to an institutional use to the south, approximately 390’ from this structure. C. Evidence has been submitted in the form of an impact study by Michael Berkowitz that the proposal will not substantially detract from the aesthetics or character of the neighborhood because of its location and existing above ground infrastructure and location adjacent to a site improved with a lodge for the Shriner’s Club. D. The site is classified as Community Mixed Use and General Residential by the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Community Mixed Use placetype focuses on small-scale, compact, mixed use development patterns that serve all modes of travel and act as an attractor for county residents and visitors. The General Residential placetype focuses on lower-density housing and associated civic and commercial services. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address the location of telecommunications towers and other infrastructure. However, the Comprehensive Plan’s implementation guidelines do aim to support business success, workforce development, and economic prosperity. Thus, infrastructure including telecommunications towers are appropriate within these placetypes when located appropriately. E. The proposed telecommunications tower is generally CONSISTENT with the Community Mixed Use and General Residential place types from the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Staff Suggestion: Evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Mixed Use and General Residential placetypes. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 2 - 8 SPLITRAILDR GATEPOSTLN XI N G WHI S K E Y B R A N CHDR WIN E C O F F CT ABAC O L N ANDR O S L N GUA N A L N REEGAN CT CLOVERLANDWAY BYTHALHILLCIR PINEHOLLOWDR W HITE I BI SCT STANTIER DR TOLLI NGT O N D R WINDJAM ME R D R D E V O N S H I R E L N CROSSCURRENTPL JASMINECOVEWAY OFFSHORE C T SON G SPA R R O W C T BULLITTLN PRI V A T E BOS TI C WAY EXUM A L N T R O PI C C T T U R TLEDOVECT ELEUT H E R A L N GOOD WOODWAY COLLEGERDS O BERBECKWAY STILLMEADOWDR WEDGEFIEL D D R WEYBRIDGELN CROSSWINDSDR T R U M P E T VINEWAY TESLAPARKDR RUSHINGDR BANNOCK CIR JAYBIRDCIR MOHI C A N T R L CUD B-2 B-1 R-15 CZD O&I CUD R-10 CZD B-2 B-2 R-10 CITY Case:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Use: S18-06 4510 S College Rd R-15/ Lodge/Public Assesmbly Telecommunications Tower 1 Miles S18-06 S18-06 Neighboring Parcels 4618 TURTLE DOVE CT 4515 COLLEGE RD 4409 JASMINE COVE WAY 4600 PINE HOLLOW DR 4411 JASMINE COVE WAY 4537 PINE HOLLOW DR 4611 TURTLE DOVE CT 4614 TURTLE DOVE CT 4600 TURTLE DOVE CT 4622 TURTLE DOVE CT 4616 TURTLE DOVE CT 4503 JASMINE COVE WAY 4624 PINE HOLLOW DR 4510 COLLEGE RD 4405 JASMINE COVE WAY 4601 SONG SPARROW CT 4625 PINE HOLLOW DR 4601 TURTLE DOVE CT 4407 JASMINE COVE WAY 4613 TURTLE DOVE CT 4637 PINE HOLLOW DR 4616 PINE HOLLOW DR 4413 JASMINE COVE WAY 4604 PINE HOLLOW DR 4628 PINE HOLLOW DR 4416 JASMINE COVE WAY 4403 JASMINE COVE WAY 4608 PINE HOLLOW DR 4609 SONG SPARROW CT 4633 PINE HOLLOW DR 4640 PINE HOLLOW DR 4603 SONG SPARROW CT 4620 PINE HOLLOW DR 4624 TURTLE DOVE CT 4615 TURTLE DOVE CT 722 MOHICAN TRL 4607 SONG SPARROW CT 4619 TURTLE DOVE CT 4628 TURTLE DOVE CT 4617 PINE HOLLOW DR 4600 SONG SPARROW CT 4580 COLLEGE RD 4606 TURTLE DOVE CT 4605 PINE HOLLOW DR 4608 TURTLE DOVE CT 4609 TURTLE DOVE CT 4610 TURTLE DOVE CT 4605 SONG SPARROW CT 4603 TURTLE DOVE CT 4613 PINE HOLLOW DR 4551 PINE HOLLOW DR 4626 TURTLE DOVE CT 4414 JASMINE COVE WAY 4412 JASMINE COVE WAY 4617 TURTLE DOVE CT 4621 PINE HOLLOW DR 4613 SONG SPARROW CT 4428 COLLEGE RD 4629 PINE HOLLOW DR 4630 TURTLE DOVE CT 4602 TURTLE DOVE CT 714 MOHICAN TRL 4620 TURTLE DOVE CT 4612 PINE HOLLOW DR 4607 TURTLE DOVE CT 4640 COLLEGE RD 4612 TURTLE DOVE CT 4202 JASMINE COVE WAY 4609 PINE HOLLOW DR 4500 COLLEGE RD 4415 JASMINE COVE WAY 4601 CROSSWINDS DR 718 MOHICAN TRL 717 MOHICAN TRL 4632 PINE HOLLOW DR 721 MOHICAN TRL 4615 SONG SPARROW CT 713 MOHICAN TRL 4604 TURTLE DOVE CT 4600 COLLEGE RD 4605 TURTLE DOVE CT 4702 COLLEGE RD 4532 PINE HOLLOW DR 4606 COLLEGE RD 710 MOHICAN TRL 4616 COLLEGE RD 4611 SONG SPARROW CT 5601 COLLEGE RD 4636 PINE HOLLOW DR Physical Address Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 3 - 1 R-15 CITY SPLITRAILDR GATEPOSTLN X I N G WHI SKE Y B R A N C HDR WIN E C O F F CT ABACOLN ANDR O S L N GUA N A L N REEGAN CT CLOVERLANDWAY BYTHALHILLCIR PINEHOLLOWDR W HITE I B I SCT STANTIERDR TOLLI NG T O N DR WIND J A M M E R D R CROSSCURREN T P L JASMINECOVEWAY OFFSHO R E C T SON G SPA R R O W C T BULLITTLNPRI V A T E BOS T I C WA Y EXUM A L N T R O P I C CT TURTL E DOVECT ELEUT H E R A L N GOODWOODWAY COLLEGERDS O B E R BECKWAY STILLMEADOWDR W E D G E FI ELD D R W E Y B R I D GELN CROSSWINDSDR T R U M P E T VINEWAY TESLA PA R K D R RUSHINGDR BANNOCK CIR JAYBIRDCIR MOHI C A N T R L New Hanover County, NC Case:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Use: S18-06 4510 S College Rd R-15/ Lodge/Public Assesmbly Telecommunications Tower 1 Miles S18-06 R-7 RFMU RA R-20S R-20 R-15 R-10 PD O&I I-2 I-1 EDZD B-2 B-1 AR A-I SC Indicates Conditional Use District (CUD) Indicates Conditional Zoning District (CZD) Incorporated Areas SHOD Zoning Districts Sewer Main Water Main Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 4 - 1 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY MIXED USE SPLITRAILDR GATEPOSTLN X I N G WHI SKE Y B R A N C HDR WIN E C O F F CT ABAC O L N ANDR O S L N GUA N A L N REEGAN CT CLOVERLANDWAY BYTHALHILLCIR PINEHOLLOWDR W HITE I B I SCT STANTIERDR TOLLI NG T O N DR WINDJAMMER D R CROSSCURREN T P L JASMINECOVEWAY OFFSHO R E C T SON G SPA R R O W C T BULLITTLNPRI V A T E BOS T I C WA Y EXUM A L N T R O P I C CT TURTLE DOVECT ELEUT H E R A L N GOODWOODWAY COLLEGERDS O BER BECKWAY STILLMEADOWDR WED G E F I ELD DR W E Y B RIDGELN CROSSWINDSDR T R U M P E T VINEWAY TESLAPARKDR RUSHINGDR BANNOCK CIR JAYBIRDCIR MOHICANTRL New Hanover County, NC Case:Site Address:Existing Zoning/Use:Proposed Use: S18-06 4510 S College Rd R-15/ Lodge/Public Assesmbly Telecommunications Tower 1 Miles S18-06 URBAN MIXED USE RURAL RESIDENTIAL GENERAL RESIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT CENTER CONSERVATION COMMUNITY MIXED USE COMMERCE ZONE Place Types Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 5 - 1 APPLICANT MATERIALS Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 6 - 1 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 6 - 2 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 1 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 2 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 3 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 4 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 5 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 6 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 7 - 7 A B C D E F G H I S COLLEGE RD (NC HWY 132) J A S M I N E C O V E W A Y CU R V E T A B L E CU R V E # LE N G T H RA D I U S BE A R I N G CH O R D 1 SI T E S U R V E Y 1 O F 3 SITE SURVEY VICINITY MAPNNOTESLATITUDE: N 34° 09' 26.16" (NAD '83)LONGITUDE: W 77° 53' 36.50" (NAD '83)GROUND ELEV. (AMSL): 28.50'± (NAVD '88)1A CERTIFICATE n.t.s.LEGEND MO H I C A N T R A I L / AR A B S H R I N E C L U B SI T E I D : C T G - N C 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 14 4 3 3 7 10 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 8 NO . A PA R C E L I D : N/ F PR O P E R T Y O W N E R BCDEF JA S C O V E / S I L V C R K V I L L HO A PR O P E R T Y I N F O R M A T I O N GH BR I A N M A R S H A R O U S E I WI L L I A M & J U D Y F H A R R I S O N SO U T H C O L L E G E A S S O C I A T E S CR A I G P T H E M A N ME L I S S A M & MI C A H R P H E L P S KE V I N D & A M Y F J A V O R S K Y ER I C J G R A F E T A L CH A D M P O R T E R DE E D RE F E R E N C E 26 4 4 - 0 0 4 20 9 1 - 7 5 7 55 7 4 - 2 1 4 3 33 5 7 - 9 0 4 46 3 2 - 0 8 8 57 3 5 - 1 9 2 6 18 2 5 - 5 5 6 31 5 8 - 7 8 9 45 3 2 - 8 2 5 NO R T H C A R O L I N A P L S # L - 4 6 3 1 TI M O T H Y L . F I S H SU R V E Y O R C E R T I F I C A T E TE P E N G I N E E R I N G , P L L C (9 1 9 ) 6 6 1 - 6 3 5 1 RA L E I G H , N C 2 7 6 0 3 - 3 5 3 0 32 6 T R Y O N R O A D CO A # P - 1 4 0 3 Planning Board - January 10, 2019ITEM: 2- 8 - 1 J A S M I N E C O V E W A Y CU R V E T A B L E CU R V E # LE N G T H RA D I U S BE A R I N G CH O R D LE G A L D E S C R I P T I O N S LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF 30' ACCESS & UTILITYEASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF 125' X 80' LEASE AREA 1 2 O F 3 14 4 3 3 7 10 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 8 MO H I C A N T R A I L / AR A B S H R I N E C L U B SI T E I D : C T G - N C 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 NO R T H C A R O L I N A P L S # L - 4 6 3 1 TI M O T H Y L . F I S H SU R V E Y O R C E R T I F I C A T E TE P E N G I N E E R I N G , P L L C (9 1 9 ) 6 6 1 - 6 3 5 1 RA L E I G H , N C 2 7 6 0 3 - 3 5 3 0 32 6 T R Y O N R O A D CO A # P - 1 4 0 3 Planning Board - January 10, 2019ITEM: 2- 8 - 2 TI T L E E X C E P T I O N S TITLE EXCEPTIONS SCHEDULE B - SECTION II EXCEPTIONS TI T L E L E G A L D E S C R I P T I O N 1 3 O F 3 14 4 3 3 7 10 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 8 MO H I C A N T R A I L / AR A B S H R I N E C L U B SI T E I D : C T G - N C 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 NO R T H C A R O L I N A P L S # L - 4 6 3 1 TI M O T H Y L . F I S H SU R V E Y O R C E R T I F I C A T E TE P E N G I N E E R I N G , P L L C (9 1 9 ) 6 6 1 - 6 3 5 1 RA L E I G H , N C 2 7 6 0 3 - 3 5 3 0 32 6 T R Y O N R O A D CO A # P - 1 4 0 3 Planning Board - January 10, 2019ITEM: 2- 8 - 3 PHOTO PRESENTATION Communications Tower Group LLC Wireless Communications Facility Documentation The proposed 150.0’ AGL Telecommunications Facility is to be located at or near 4510 S College Rd, Wilmington, NC 28412. The site coordinates are N 34° 9’ 26.21” W 77° 53’ 36.51”. The site elevation is 28 ft AMSL. The tower as simulated is at One Hundred and Fifty Feet (150 feet in height/altitude) above ground, at the centerline of the proposed tower facility location. GRAHAM HERRING COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE GRAPHIC SERVICES PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY SERVICES TO THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY Page 1 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 1 TOWER CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC Page 2 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 2 ¼ mile TOWER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NV NV NV NV - Not Visible 1 - Looking south by southwest towards site from Pine Hollow Rd. (441ft, 0.08mi) 2 - Looking southwest towards site from South College Rd at Pine Hollow Rd. (627ft, 0.12mi) 3 - Looking west by southwest towards site from South College Rd north of Mohican Trail. (497ft, 0.09mi) 4 - Looking west by northwest towards site from Mohican Trail across South College Rd. (777ft, 0.15mi) 5 - Looking northwest towards site from Crosswinds Dr at South College Rd. (789ft, 0.15mi) 6 - Looking north by northwest towards site from the Global River Church south parking lot. (985ft, 0.19mi) 7 - Looking east by southeast towards site from the end of Turtle Dove Ct. (507ft, 0.10mi) 8 - Looking south by southeast towards site from Pine Hollow Rd. (508ft, 0.10mi) NV = Not Visible CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC Page 3 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 3 ¼ mile TOWER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NV NV NV CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC Page 4 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 4 TOWER 1 CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC VieW From loCation 1 Page 5 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 5 TOWER 1 CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC Simulated VieW From loCation 1 Page 6 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 6 TOWER 2 CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC VieW From loCation 2 Page 7 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 7 TOWER 2 CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC Simulated VieW From loCation 2 Page 8 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 8 TOWER 3 CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC VieW From loCation 3 Page 9 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 9 TOWER 3 CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC Simulated VieW From loCation 3 Page 10 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 10 TOWER 4 CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC VieW From loCation 4 Page 11 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 11 TOWER 4 CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC Simulated VieW From loCation 4 Page 12 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 12 TOWER 5 CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC VieW From loCation 5 Page 13 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 13 TOWER 5 CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC Simulated VieW From loCation 5 Page 14 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 14 TOWER 6 CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC VieW From loCation 6 Page 15 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 15 TOWER 6 CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC Simulated VieW From loCation 6 Page 16 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 16 TOWER 7 CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC VieW From loCation 7 Page 17 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 17 TOWER 7 CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC Simulated VieW From loCation 7 Page 18 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 18 TOWER 8 CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC VieW From loCation 8 Page 19 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 19 TOWER 8 CTG# NC 0010041MOHICAN TRAIL/ARAB SHRINE CLUBWilmington, nC Simulated VieW From loCation 8 Page 20 of 20 • revision 20180913-1033Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 9 - 20 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 1 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 2 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 3 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 4 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 5 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 6 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 7 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 8 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 9 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 10 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 11 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 12 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 13 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 14 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 15 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 16 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 17 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 18 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 19 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 20 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 21 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 22 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 23 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 24 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 25 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 26 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 27 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 28 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 29 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 30 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 31 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 32 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 33 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 34 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 35 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 36 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 37 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 38 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 10 - 39 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 11 - 1 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 12 - 1 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 12 - 2 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 12 - 3 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 12 - 4 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 13 - 1 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 14 - 1 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 15 - 1 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 15 - 2 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 15 - 3 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 15 - 4 IMPACT ANALYSIS OF A PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON THE VALUES OF ADJOINING OR ABUTTING PROPERTY LOCATED ON 4510 SOUTH COLLEGE ROAD WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA AS OF NOVEMBER 16, 2018 FOR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER GROUP LLC 15720 BRIXHAM HILL AVENUE SUITE 300 CHARLOTTE, NC 28277 BY DAVID A SMITH, MAI, SRA POST OFFICE BOX 51597 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27717-1597 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 1 PART ONE - INTRODUCTION Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 2 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA P.O. BOX 51597 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27717-1597 PHONE (919) 493-1534 smithappraiser@verizon.net November 19, 2018 Communications Tower Group, LLC 15720 Brixham Hill Avenue Suite 300 Charlotte, NC 28277 As requested, I have inspected the site of a proposed telecommunications tower and properties that adjoin or abut it. The proposed tower would be located at 4510 South College Road near Wilmington in Hanover County, North Carolina. The purpose of this assignment is to analyze the effect of the value of adjoining or abutting property. The intended use of this assignment is to assist the approving body in determining if the proposed tower should be approved. The intended users of this report are officers and employees of Communications Tower Group, LLC and anyone they designate. As requested, a summary report has been prepared. This is not an appraisal, but is a consulting assignment. This report assumes that the proposed tower has been constructed. The properties were inspected on November 16, 2018 which is the effective date of this report and analysis. I made all necessary investigations and analyses. Based on a set of plans of the proposed tower, an inspection of the proposed tower site and the adjoining and abutting properties, an analysis of data gathered and facts and conclusions as contained in the following report of 19 pages, and subject to the assumptions and limiting conditions as stated, it is my opinion that the proposed tower will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting properties. I certify that I have personally inspected the site of the proposed tower and those properties that adjoin and abut it. I further certify that I have no interest either present or contemplated in the property and that neither the employment to make this analysis nor the compensation is contingent upon the result of the analysis. Respectfully submitted, David A. Smith, MAI, SRA NC State-Certified General Real Estate Appraiser #A281 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 3 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE-INTRODUCTION PAGE Letter of Transmittal 1 Table of Contents 2 Certification of Value 3 PART TWO-PREMISES OF THE ANALYSIS Statement of Competence 4 Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions 4 General Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 4 Purpose, Intended Use and Users of the Report 6 Definition of Value 6 Date of Analysis and Date of Report 7 Property Rights 7 Scope of Work 7 PART THREE-PRESENTATION OF DATA Neighborhood and Locational Data 8 Description of Tower Site Property 8 Description of the Proposed Tower and Leased Area 9 Description of Adjoining and Abutting Properties 9 PART FOUR-ANALYSIS OF DATA AND CONCLUSIONS Effect of the Proposed Telecommunications Tower 10 Conclusion 13 Qualifications of the Appraiser 15 ADDENDA Aerial Map New Hanover Zoning Map Wilmington Zoning Map Tax Card Deed Photographs of Subject Tower Detail Subdivision Location Map Big Cypress Tower – Antenna.com Info Deer Crossing Map Deer Crossing Photographs Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 4 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 3 - CERTIFICATION I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief,... The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this report. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. No one provided significant real property assistance to the person signing this certification. The reported analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. As of the date of the report, I have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. This assignment was not made, nor was the report rendered on the basis of a requested minimum valuation, specific valuation, or an amount, which would result in approval of a credit transaction. Unless otherwise stated in this report, I have not performed any services regarding the subject property within the three year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment as an appraiser or in any other capacity. David A. Smith, MAI, SRA Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 5 PART TWO – PREMISES OF THE REPORT Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 6 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 4 - STATEMENT OF COMPETENCE I have completed all of the requirements to become a state certified general appraiser for the State of North Carolina and all of the requirements for the MAI designation. In addition I have successfully completed USPAP courses and continuing education seminars for over thirty years as well as preparing real estate appraisal reports over the same period. More detailed information about the courses and seminars are in the qualifications section of this report. I have prepared similar analyses and feel competent to perform this analysis. EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS AND HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS An extraordinary assumption is an assumption, directly related to a specific assignment, which if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions. A hypothetical condition is something that is contrary to what exists but is supposed for the purpose of the analysis. This analysis assumes that the proposed tower has been constructed. No other extraordinary assumptions or hypothetical conditions are made. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS The report has been made with the following general assumptions: 1. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. 2. The appraiser by reason of this report is not required to give further consultation or testimony or to be in attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been previously made. 3. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions, the identity of the appraiser, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected) shall be disseminated to the Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 7 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 5 - public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. 4. Definitions used in this report have been taken from The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 5th ed., published by the Appraisal Institute, copyright 2010, unless otherwise stated. 5. I relied on a set of plans identified as “Mohican Trail/Arab Shrine Club Site ID:CTG-NC 0010041 4510 S College Rd, Wilmington, NC 28412,” prepared by Tower Engineering Professionals and last revised September 12, 2018. For purposes of this report this information is assumed to be correct. Copies of pages from these plans are in the addenda. 6. I relied on public records from the New Hanover County GIS and Register of Deeds and antennasearch.com for information regarding properties analyzed in this report. For purposes of this report, this information is assumed to be correct. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 8 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 6 - PURPOSE, INTENDED USE AND USERS OF THE REPORT The purpose of this assignment is to determine the effect of a proposed telecommunications tower on adjoining and abutting properties. The intended use of this assignment is to assist the approving body in determining if the proposed tower should be approved. The intended users of this report are officers and employees of Communications Tower Group, LLC and anyone they designate. DEFINITION OF VALUE The opinions of value in this analysis are the market values. The definition of market value is that used by federally regulated financial institutions. This definition is as follows: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests; 3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 9 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 7 - 5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. DATE OF ANALYSIS AND DATE OF REPORT The effective date of the analysis is November 16, 2018. The date of the report is November 19, 2018. PROPERTY RIGHTS The ownership interest considered in this analysis is the fee simple interest. The properties may be leased or have other property rights transferred, but the effect is for the fee simple value of the properties. The definition of fee simple as used in this report is: Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of the report involves collection and confirmation of data relative to the property with the proposed tower and the contiguous properties. I made an inspection of the proposed tower site and referred to a set of plans for the tower. I also made an exterior inspection, from the street right-of-way of those properties that adjoin or abut the proposed tower property. I researched properties around existing cell towers to locate those that sold for comparison purposes. I located properties in a subdivision, Deer Crossing, near a tower in Big Cypress south of Wilmington. Some of the dwellings had a clear view of the tower and others were further away with no view of the tower. I compared these properties to judge the effect of the proposed tower on property values of the properties that adjoin or abut the proposed tower. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 10 PART THREE – PRESENTATION OF DATA Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 11 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 8 - NEIGHBORHOOD AND LOCATIONAL DATA The proposed tower is located in New Hanover County. It is not located in any municipality but it is a short distance both north and south from the Town of Wilmington. This area is primarily residential in nature and primarily single family. There are also townhouse units, residential apartments, parks and undeveloped land. To the south are several commercial uses at the intersection of US 132 and US 421. Other commercial uses are further west of US 421. The primary influence in the area is College Street which is also US 132 at this point. This highway connects the area and areas further south with the City of Wilmington. DESCRIPTION OF TOWER SITE PROPERTY Since the purpose of this report is to estimate the effect of the proposed tower on contiguous properties and not the property the tower is on, only a brief description of the site where the tower is proposed will be given. More detail of the site is in the addenda. According to public records, the property where the tower will be located is owned by Arab Shrine Club Holding Corporation. The New Hanover County tax office identifies the property with a parcel ID of R07110-001-024-000. The zoning for the property is R-15 Residential District. The site has trees along its northern, southern and western boundaries but it otherwise cleared of trees. It is improved with a Shrine Club with a reported area of 8,000 square feet built in 1985, and other on-site improvements. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 12 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 13 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 9 - DESCRIPTION OF THE LEASED AREA AND THE PROPOSED TOWER The leased area will be 125 feet x 80 feet with a 50 foot by 50 foot fenced area. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer will be around the fenced area on three sides. The other side will be adjacent to an existing building. Access will be from Jasmine Cove Way across an existing parking lot and a new asphalt drive east and south of the tower site. The tower will be of monopole design 150 feet in height with a four foot lightning rod. It will be unlit and the antennas will be completely enclosed within the tower. In addition to the tower there will be a 6 foot 6 inch service rack and equipment sheds all lower than the proposed fence. DESCRIPTION OF ADJOINING AND ABUTTING PROPERTIES There are twelve properties that directly adjoin and abut the property. A brief description based on tax information and observation of the properties follows: Address Owner Parcel ID Type Size Year Blt Tax Value 4600 S College Korean Baptist R07100-003-045 Church 4470 1970 $443,800 4515 S College Jasmine Cove HOA R07100-001-025 Rec NA NA $0 4202 Jasmine Jasmine Cove/Silver Creek Village HOA R07110-001-094 Com Area NA NA $0 4500 S College S College Associates R07110-003-011 Buffer NA NA $200 4640 Pine Hollow Kevin Javorsky R07110-001-055 SFD 2202 2005 $258,400 4636 Pine Hollow William Harrison R07110-001-056 SFD 2631 1993 $274,200 4632 Pine Hollow Brian Rouse R07110-001-057 SFD 2180 1994 $234,300 4628 Pine Hollow Micah Phelps R07110-001-058 SFD 2135 1993 $236,900 4624 Pine Hollow Craig Thieman R07110-001-059 SFD 2208 1994 $239,500 4620 Pine Hollow Chad Porter R07110-001-060 SFD 2160 1993 $234,500 4616 Pine Hollow Erik Graf R07110-001-061 SFD 2073 1994 $242,400 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 14 PART FOUR – ANALYSIS OF DATA AND CONCLUSIONS Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 15 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 10 - EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER The potential adverse effects from any proposed improvement are: environmental hazards, noise, odor, lighting, traffic and visual impact. Based on the plans of the proposed tower and conversations with those associated with it, there will be no environmental hazards associated with the proposed use. Also after construction there should be no significant adverse noise since the site is unmanned and none of the proposed items produce any significant noise. The improvement should also not produce any adverse odors. Also traffic should not cause any significant adverse impact since the facility requires only periodic maintenance. If the tower is visible this has the potential to cause adverse impacts to other properties. The tower site will be fenced and landscaped as required. All of the non-tower improvements will be screened by the fencing and not be visible off of the property. The only potential adverse effect is the visual impact of the tower itself on other properties. The tower will be much shorter than most cell towers, 150 feet in height, unlit with no exterior antenna. Adjoining the property to the east is College Street which will be 364+ feet at its closest from the tower. College Street is a busy four lane thoroughfare and the area between the tower and the street is mostly cleared. Adjoining the property to the south is a two lane street, Jasmine Cove Way, 154+ from the tower at its closest. Beyond Jasmine Cove Way is a wooded parcel also owned by the Shriner’s Club. Adjoining the parcel to the west, about 158 feet from the tower, is a recreation/park owned by Jasmine Cover Homeowners. There is a row of trees on the subject tract and there is also a stand of trees on the adjoining property between the tower and properties further west. To the north, eight properties along Pine Hollow Drive adjoin the subject tower parcel. Seven of these have single family dwellings and the eighth is a narrow unbuildable parcel used as common area. The closest property line is about 246 feet from the tower and the dwelling on this lot is about 80 feet from the property line for a total distance of about 326 feet. There is a row of trees along the subject’s northern property line and the rear lots of the dwellings are wooded. On the north side of Pine Hollow Drive near College Street is an existing cell tower and there appear to be cellular antenna on an overhead power line tower also. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 16 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 11 - Of the properties that adjoin or abut the property the ones most likely to be affected are the single family dwellings. The existing Shriner Club is between the tower and these properties and will block all of the equipment for the tower. The tower itself will be visible but partially blocked by the trees. To determine potential effects of the proposed tower I did an analysis of single family dwellings near an existing tower. Using a national web site that locates communications towers, AttennaSearch.com I located a tower on 1300 Big Cypress Drive in Hanover County about 3 miles south of the tower site. This tower is 147 feet in height and was built in 2009. It is unlit, of monopole design like the subject but has a triangular platform with exterior antenna unlike the subject. There is a neighborhood, Deer Crossing, about 300 feet from this tower. Deer Crossing contains some 130 single family dwellings mostly two stories in height. I did an analysis of the initial sales of these dwellings to determine if they are adversely affected by the proximity of this tower. I adjusted the properties for all significant differences: closing date, land value, year built, garage size, porch size, decks, patios number of baths, fireplaces and dwelling size. I then divided the adjusted dwelling value by its square footage. I analyzed the properties on two basis, proximity and visibility. Proximity – I separated the dwellings into four groups based on their proximity to the tower and analyzed them on an attached chart. There are five properties in close proximity to the tower and they gave an average adjusted per square foot value of $80.93 per square foot. The 25 properties a block away gave an average per square foot value of $77.28 per square foot. The next 35 were two blocks away and gave a per square foot average of $77.00 per square foot and the final 42 gave a value of $78.01. The overall average for all of the properties is $77.63. The indications are very close and the properties closest to the tower actually have the higher per square foot value. This indicates that the cell tower does not adversely affect property value. Visibility – I also considered whether the tower is visible from each dwelling and whether that visibility is from the front yard or back yard and whether the view is clear or partially obscured. 25 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 17 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 12 - properties have a clear view of the tower from their backyards and gave an average adjusted per square foot value of $76.39. 14 properties have a clear view of the tower from their front yards and gave a per square foot value of $77.50. 6 have an obscured view of the tower from their backyard and have an average value of $79.36. 4 have an obscured view from their front yard and have an average value of $79.95. 58 have no view of the tower and have an average per square foot value of $77.85. Again the per square foot indications are quite close indicating that the cell tower does not adversely affect property value. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 18 PROXIMITY Address Closeness Sold Price Closing Date Year Built Garage Open Porch Deck Patio Full Baths Half Baths FP Total Adjust Adjusted Sales Price Living Area SF Per SF 1117 Deer Hill Same Block $187,000 8/24/2011 2011 420 48 120 2 1 1 31,005 $130,305 1592 $81.85 1113 Deer Hill Same Block $287,000 3/29/2012 2012 484 272 3 1 0 40,542 $263,582 3072 $85.80 1109 Deer Hill Same Block $265,000 6/29/2011 2011 484 120 210 3 1 1 40,555 $238,464 3072 $77.63 1105 Deer Hill Same Block $204,000 9/29/2011 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $159,837 2070 $77.22 1101 Deer Hill Same Block $211,000 7/14/2011 2011 462 85 120 2 1 1 33,462 $162,100 1973 $82.16 $80.93 1013 Deer Hill One Block $252,500 6/13/2011 2011 484 210 120 3 1 1 42,941 $219,617 3072 $71.49 1009 Deer Hill One Block $250,000 5/20/2011 2011 462 108 120 3 1 1 38,912 $219,487 3024 $72.58 1005 Deer Hill One Block $264,000 12/16/2011 2011 462 108 506 108 3 1 0 45,705 $226,729 3036 $74.68 1004 Deer Hill One Block $233,500 3/30/2011 2011 484 102 204 3 1 1 39,918 $201,224 3072 $65.50 1008 Deer Hill One Block $203,000 10/31/2011 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $155,110 1980 $78.34 1001 Deer Hill One Block $179,500 10/28/2011 2011 260 105 120 2 1 1 28,209 $120,422 1455 $82.76 1221 Deer Hill One Block $206,000 5/20/2011 2011 462 102 120 2 1 1 34,027 $155,600 2004 $77.64 1217 Deer Hill One Block $200,000 10/12/2011 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $151,596 1980 $76.56 1213 Deer Hill One Block $195,000 7/7/2014 2013 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $131,301 1592 $82.48 1205 Deer Hill One Block $248,000 5/25/2011 2011 484 102 120 3 1 1 39,357 $217,902 3072 $70.93 1201 Deer Hill One Block $204,000 12/30/2011 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $156,282 1980 $78.93 1209 Deer Hill One Block $191,000 5/28/2013 2013 260 105 120 2 1 0 24,554 $131,016 1455 $90.05 1229 Deer Hill One Block $200,000 4/26/2011 2010 420 85 2 1 1 31,431 $151,222 1994 $75.84 1225 Deer Hill One Block $241,000 3/12/2012 2011 462 108 120 3 1 0 35,257 $209,369 3024 $69.24 6402 New Hope One Block $213,000 4/5/2013 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $156,318 1980 $78.95 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 19 6406 New Hope One Block $194,000 8/10/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $138,713 1980 $70.06 6410 New Hope One Block $199,000 8/21/2012 2012 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $143,541 1592 $90.16 6414 New Hope One Block $176,000 3/30/2012 2011 260 105 120 2 1 1 28,209 $117,327 1455 $80.64 6409 New Hope One Block $251,000 3/18/2011 2011 484 96 160 3 0 1 36,145 $229,880 3240 $70.95 6405 New Hope One Block $207,500 4/26/2012 2012 420 168 120 2 1 0 31,331 $148,994 1592 $93.59 6401 New Hope One Block $221,000 9/11/2012 2012 440 100 160 2 1 0 29,927 $174,546 2120 $82.33 6413 Fawn Settle One Block $221,000 5/24/2012 2012 420 220 120 2 1 0 33,056 $169,722 1990 $85.29 6417 Fawn Settle One Block $247,000 9/24/2012 2012 484 102 120 3 1 1 39,357 $210,973 3072 $68.68 6409 Fawn Settle One Block $238,000 5/12/2011 2011 462 99 120 3 1 1 38,613 $204,452 3018 $67.74 1621 Soaring Spirit One Block $202,000 4/4/2012 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $151,826 1980 $76.68 $77.28 1304 Deer Hill Two Blocks $202,000 1/27/2011 2010 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $158,165 1980 $79.88 1308 Deer Hill Two Blocks $239,200 1/3/2011 2010 484 96 120 3 0 1 35,878 $214,724 3240 $66.27 1312 Deer Hill Two Blocks $232,000 5/16/2011 2010 483 99 120 3 1 1 39,229 $197,410 3063 $64.45 1320 Deer Hill Two Blocks $195,000 6/22/2011 2010 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $143,954 1980 $72.70 1324 Deer Hill Two Blocks $253,000 6/26/2013 2013 462 99 120 3 1 1 38,613 $212,196 3024 $70.17 1325 Deer Hill Two Blocks $204,000 1/14/2013 2010 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $152,014 1980 $76.77 1321 Deer Hill Two Blocks $224,000 6/28/2013 2013 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $169,756 2120 $80.07 1317 Deer Hill Two Blocks $190,000 12/1/2010 2010 441 277 675 2 1 0 39,266 $133,194 1973 $67.51 1309 Deer Hill Two Blocks $195,000 3/11/2011 2010 420 388 2 1 0 37,830 $140,659 1980 $71.04 1305 Deer Hill Two Blocks $174,000 1/25/2011 2010 274 299 2 1 1 34,256 $111,105 1399 $79.42 1301 Deer Hill Two Blocks $195,000 6/23/2011 2010 463 108 120 2 1 0 30,599 $146,183 2003 $72.98 6425 Fawn Settle Two Blocks $200,000 3/22/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $147,412 1980 $74.45 6421 Fawn Settle Two Blocks $202,000 5/29/2013 2013 420 48 120 2 1 1 31,005 $139,175 1592 $87.42 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 20 1009 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $220,000 6/21/2012 2012 441 85 120 2 1 0 29,192 $172,603 1973 $87.48 1005 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $213,000 7/30/2012 2012 462 205 120 2 0 1 34,164 $159,275 2004 $79.48 1001 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $226,000 3/27/2014 2013 441 85 120 2 1 0 29,192 $172,477 1973 $87.42 1004 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $263,000 8/20/2012 2012 484 102 204 3 1 1 39,918 $230,607 3072 $75.07 1008 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $226,000 5/13/2013 2012 420 100 266 2 1 1 33,704 $170,120 1987 $85.62 1100 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $199,000 9/26/2012 2012 441 85 192 2 1 0 29,672 $147,717 1973 $74.87 1104 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $174,000 11/15/2012 2012 260 225 0 2 1 0 27,735 $111,437 1455 $76.59 1108 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $177,000 8/30/2012 2012 260 105 120 2 1 0 24,554 $120,292 1462 $82.28 1112 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $195,000 11/30/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $141,658 1980 $71.54 1116 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $193,000 9/27/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $141,376 1980 $71.40 1120 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $222,000 11/5/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $172,725 1980 $87.24 1124 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $244,000 8/8/2013 2013 484 48 120 3 0 1 34,285 $208,822 3233 $64.59 1129 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $200,000 2/10/2012 2012 462 102 182 2 1 0 30,785 $149,807 2004 $74.75 1125 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $263,500 4/19/2013 2013 484 102 120 3 1 1 39,357 $225,865 3072 $73.52 1121 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $202,000 8/22/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $148,002 1980 $74.75 1117 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $213,000 8/8/2013 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $156,318 1990 $78.55 1113 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $171,500 8/9/2012 2012 260 105 120 2 1 0 24,554 $114,268 1462 $78.16 1109 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $223,000 10/19/2012 2012 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $170,960 2130 $80.26 1000 Whispering Doe Two Blocks $199,000 5/13/2014 2013 420 48 120 2 1 1 31,005 $131,925 1592 $82.87 1609 Soaring Spirit Two Blocks $268,000 2/16/2012 2012 484 222 120 3 1 1 43,339 $236,097 3072 $76.85 1605 Soaring Spirit Two Blocks $223,000 2/21/2013 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $170,052 1980 $85.89 1601 Soaring Spirit Two Blocks $284,000 10/25/2012 2012 484 120 120 3 1 1 39,955 $253,933 3072 $82.66 $77.00 6432 Fawn Settle More $225,000 1/4/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $178,606 2150 $83.07 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 21 6436 Fawn Settle More $205,000 12/27/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $153,165 1980 $77.36 6440 Fawn Settle More $239,000 12/20/2012 2012 484 102 220 120 2 1 1 39,249 $194,241 2786 $69.72 6500 Fawn Settle More $255,000 12/19/2012 2012 484 102 120 3 1 1 39,357 $218,199 3072 $71.03 6504 Fawn Settle More $208,000 5/22/2013 2013 420 48 120 2 1 1 31,005 $145,715 1592 $91.53 6508 Fawn Settle More $237,000 11/29/2012 2012 440 100 192 2 1 0 32,855 $187,700 2130 $88.12 6516 Fawn Settle More $209,000 12/3/2012 2012 462 102 120 2 1 1 34,027 $152,587 2004 $76.14 6520 Fawn Settle More $196,000 12/31/2012 2012 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $138,251 1592 $86.84 6524 Fawn Settle More $246,000 2/5/2013 2012 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $197,661 2130 $92.80 6528 Fawn Settle More $228,000 12/20/2012 2012 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $176,764 2130 $82.99 6532 Fawn Settle More $274,000 12/31/2012 2012 484 102 120 3 1 0 35,702 $246,231 3072 $80.15 6536 Fawn Settle More $234,000 7/9/2013 2013 440 100 2 1 0 28,859 $185,964 2120 $87.72 6533 Fawn Settle More $234,000 9/16/2014 2014 441 85 120 2 1 0 29,192 $179,067 1973 $90.76 6527 Fawn Settle More $224,000 12/18/2014 2014 440 100 120 2 1 0 29,660 $166,522 2120 $78.55 6521 Fawn Settle More $182,000 9/4/2013 2014 484 119 120 3 0 0 32,985 $131,729 3064 $42.99 6515 Fawn Settle More $225,000 12/6/2013 2013 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $168,532 2120 $79.50 6509 Fawn Settle More $287,000 10/27/2014 2014 484 102 120 2 1 0 31,015 $259,540 3408 $76.16 6503 Fawn Settle More $283,000 10/7/2013 2013 484 96 300 3 0 1 37,079 $251,220 3233 $77.70 1508 Soaring Spirit More $267,000 11/9/2012 2012 484 96 120 3 0 1 35,878 $238,055 3145 $75.69 1604 Soaring Spirit More $191,000 7/2/2012 2012 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $134,661 1592 $84.59 1608 Soaring Spirit More $230,000 9/27/2012 2012 484 96 120 3 0 0 32,222 $198,940 3233 $61.53 1616 Soaring Spirit More $199,000 5/30/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $148,343 1990 $74.54 1513 Soaring Spirit More $224,000 8/4/2013 2013 462 102 120 2 1 0 30,371 $171,327 2004 $85.49 1509 Soaring Spirit More $194,000 9/25/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $142,537 1980 $71.99 1505 Soaring Spirit More $193,000 12/31/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 0 1 29,449 $138,965 1990 $69.83 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 22 1501 Soaring Spirit More $200,000 8/9/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $149,504 1980 $75.51 1413 Soaring Spirit More $218,000 1/3/2013 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $168,123 1980 $84.91 1409 Soaring Spirit More $225,000 12/11/2012 2012 484 102 208 2 1 0 34,543 $182,279 2786 $65.43 1405 Soaring Spirit More $186,000 12/13/2012 2012 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $127,251 1592 $79.93 1401 Soaring Spirit More $224,000 12/10/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 0 0 25,794 $173,772 1990 $87.32 1202 Whispering Doe More $194,000 3/1/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $144,564 1980 $73.01 1206 Whirpering Doe More $253,500 11/21/2012 2012 484 96 140 3 0 1 36,011 $221,650 3233 $68.56 1210 Whispering Doe More $190,000 9/6/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $132,663 1980 $67.00 1209 Whispering Doe More $227,000 9/19/2014 2014 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $171,355 1980 $86.54 1205 Whispering Doe More $244,000 6/25/2012 2012 484 96 120 3 0 1 35,878 $212,600 3233 $65.76 1201 Whispering Doe More $238,000 1/4/2013 2012 484 102 120 2 1 0 31,015 $202,220 2786 $72.58 6502 Settles Dream More $242,000 11/13/2013 2013 440 100 280 2 1 1 34,384 $186,783 2130 $87.69 6506 Settlers Dream More $201,000 9/18/2013 2013 440 40 120 2 0 1 28,044 $144,514 1832 $78.88 6510 Settlers Dream More $225,000 9/17/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $173,824 1980 $87.79 6514 Settlers Dream More $212,000 11/15/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $152,960 1980 $77.25 6518 Settlers Dream More $262,000 5/14/2013 2013 462 108 108 3 1 0 35,177 $227,215 3024 $75.14 6521 Settlers Dream More $231,000 8/21/2014 2014 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $170,602 1980 $86.16 $78.01 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 23 VISIBILITY Address Sold Price Closing Date Year Built Garage Open Porch Deck Patio Full Bath Half Bath FP Total Adjust Adjusted Sales Price Living Area SF Total 6409 Fawn Settle Backyard $238,000 5/12/2011 2011 462 99 120 3 1 1 38,613 $204,452 3018 $67.74 6425 Fawn Settle Backyard $200,000 3/22/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $147,412 1980 $74.45 6421 Fawn Settle Backyard $202,000 5/29/2013 2013 420 48 120 2 1 1 31,005 $139,175 1592 $87.42 6417 Fawn Settle Backyard $247,000 9/24/2012 2012 484 102 120 3 1 1 39,357 $210,973 3072 $68.68 6413 Fawn Settle Backyard $221,000 5/24/2012 2012 420 220 120 2 1 0 33,056 $169,722 1990 $85.29 6533 Fawn Settle Backyard $234,000 9/16/2014 2014 441 85 120 2 1 0 29,192 $179,067 1973 $90.76 6527 Fawn Settle Backyard $224,000 12/18/2014 2014 440 100 120 2 1 0 29,660 $166,522 2120 $78.55 6521 Fawn Settle Backyard $182,000 9/4/2013 2014 484 119 120 3 0 0 32,985 $131,729 3064 $42.99 6515 Fawn Settle Backyard $225,000 12/6/2013 2013 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $168,532 2120 $79.50 6509 Fawn Settle Backyard $287,000 10/27/2014 2014 484 102 120 2 1 0 31,015 $259,540 3408 $76.16 6503 Fawn Settle Backyard $283,000 10/7/2013 2013 484 96 300 3 0 1 37,079 $251,220 3233 $77.70 1513 Soaring Spirit Backyard $224,000 8/4/2013 2013 462 102 120 2 1 0 30,371 $171,327 2004 $85.49 1509 Soaring Spirit Backyard $194,000 9/25/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $142,537 1980 $71.99 1505 Soaring Spirit Backyard $193,000 12/31/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 0 1 29,449 $138,965 1990 $69.83 1501 Soaring Spirit Backyard $200,000 8/9/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $149,504 1980 $75.51 1413 Soaring Spirit Backyard $218,000 1/3/2013 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $168,123 1980 $84.91 1409 Soaring Spirit Backyard $225,000 12/11/2012 2012 484 102 208 2 1 0 34,543 $182,279 2786 $65.43 1405 Soaring Spirit Backyard $186,000 12/13/2012 2012 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $127,251 1592 $79.93 1401 Soaring Spirit Backyard $224,000 12/10/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 0 0 25,794 $173,772 1990 $87.32 1129 Whispering Doe Backyard $200,000 2/10/2012 2012 462 102 182 2 1 0 30,785 $149,807 2004 $74.75 1125 Whispering Doe Backyard $263,500 4/19/2013 2013 484 102 120 3 1 1 39,357 $225,865 3072 $73.52 1121 Whispering Doe Backyard $202,000 8/22/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $148,002 1980 $74.75 1117 Whispering Doe Backyard $213,000 8/8/2013 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $156,318 1990 $78.55 1113 Whispering Doe Backyard $171,500 8/9/2012 2012 260 105 120 2 1 0 24,554 $114,268 1462 $78.16 1109 Whispering Doe Backyard $223,000 10/19/2012 2012 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $170,960 2130 $80.26 $76.39 1117 Deer Hill Backyard Obsured $187,000 8/24/2011 2011 420 48 120 2 1 1 31,005 $130,305 1592 $81.85 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 24 1113 Deer Hill Backyard Obsured $287,000 3/29/2012 2012 484 272 3 1 0 40,542 $263,582 3072 $85.80 1109 Deer Hill Backyard Obsured $265,000 6/29/2011 2011 484 120 210 3 1 1 40,555 $238,464 3072 $77.63 1105 Deer Hill Backyard Obsured $204,000 9/29/2011 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $159,837 2070 $77.22 1101 Deer Hill Backyard Obsured $211,000 7/14/2011 2011 462 85 120 2 1 1 33,462 $162,100 1973 $82.16 1013 Deer Hill Backyard Obsured $252,500 6/13/2011 2011 484 210 120 3 1 1 42,941 $219,617 3072 $71.49 $79.36 6432 Fawn Settle Frontyard $225,000 1/4/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $178,606 2150 $83.07 6436 Fawn Settle Frontyard $205,000 12/27/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $153,165 1980 $77.36 6440 Fawn Settle Frontyard $239,000 12/20/2012 2012 484 102 220 120 2 1 1 39,249 $194,241 2786 $69.72 6500 Fawn Settle Frontyard $255,000 12/19/2012 2012 484 102 120 3 1 1 39,357 $218,199 3072 $71.03 6504 Fawn Settle Frontyard $208,000 5/22/2013 2013 420 48 120 2 1 1 31,005 $145,715 1592 $91.53 6508 Fawn Settle Frontyard $237,000 11/29/2012 2012 440 100 192 2 1 0 32,855 $187,700 2130 $88.12 1508 Soaring Spirit Frontyard $267,000 11/9/2012 2012 484 96 120 3 0 1 35,878 $238,055 3145 $75.69 1100 Whispering Doe Frontyard $199,000 9/26/2012 2012 441 85 192 2 1 0 29,672 $147,717 1973 $74.87 1104 Whispering Doe Frontyard $174,000 11/15/2012 2012 260 225 0 2 1 0 27,735 $111,437 1455 $76.59 1108 Whispering Doe Frontyard $177,000 8/30/2012 2012 260 105 120 2 1 0 24,554 $120,292 1462 $82.28 1112 Whispering Doe Frontyard $195,000 11/30/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $141,658 1980 $71.54 1116 Whispering Doe Frontyard $193,000 9/27/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $141,376 1980 $71.40 1120 Whispering Doe Frontyard $222,000 11/5/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $172,725 1980 $87.24 1124 Whispering Doe Frontyard $244,000 8/8/2013 2013 484 48 120 3 0 1 34,285 $208,822 3233 $64.59 $77.50 6402 New Hope Frontyard Obscured $213,000 4/5/2013 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $156,318 1980 $78.95 6406 New Hope Frontyard Obscured $194,000 8/10/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $138,713 1980 $70.06 6410 New Hope Frontyard Obscured $199,000 8/21/2012 2012 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $143,541 1592 $90.16 6414 New Hope Frontyard Obscured $176,000 3/30/2012 2011 260 105 120 2 1 1 28,209 $117,327 1455 $80.64 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 25 $79.95 6516 Fawn Settle No $209,000 12/3/2012 2012 462 102 120 2 1 1 34,027 $152,587 2004 $76.14 6520 Fawn Settle No $196,000 12/31/2012 2012 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $138,251 1592 $86.84 6524 Fawn Settle No $246,000 2/5/2013 2012 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $197,661 2130 $92.80 6528 Fawn Settle No $228,000 12/20/2012 2012 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $176,764 2130 $82.99 6532 Fawn Settle No $274,000 12/31/2012 2012 484 102 120 3 1 0 35,702 $246,231 3072 $80.15 6536 Fawn Settle No $234,000 7/9/2013 2013 440 100 2 1 0 28,859 $185,964 2120 $87.72 6409 New Hope No $251,000 3/18/2011 2011 484 96 160 3 0 1 36,145 $229,878 3240 $70.95 6405 New Hope No $207,500 4/26/2012 2012 420 168 120 2 1 0 31,331 $148,992 1592 $93.59 6401 New Hope No $221,000 9/11/2012 2012 440 100 160 2 1 0 29,927 $174,543 2120 $82.33 1325 Deer Hill No $204,000 1/14/2013 2010 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $152,014 1980 $76.77 1321 Deer Hill No $224,000 6/28/2013 2013 440 100 120 2 1 1 33,316 $169,756 2120 $80.07 1317 Deer Hill No $190,000 12/1/2010 2010 441 277 675 2 1 0 39,266 $133,194 1973 $67.51 1309 Deer Hill No $195,000 3/11/2011 2010 420 388 2 1 0 37,830 $140,659 1980 $71.04 1305 Deer Hill No $174,000 1/25/2011 2010 274 299 2 1 1 34,256 $111,105 1399 $79.42 1301 Deer Hill No $195,000 6/23/2011 2010 463 108 120 2 1 0 30,599 $146,183 2003 $72.98 1229 Deer Hill No $200,000 4/26/2011 2010 420 85 2 1 1 31,431 $151,222 1994 $75.84 1225 Deer Hill No $241,000 3/12/2012 2011 462 108 120 3 1 0 35,257 $203,700 3024 $67.36 1304 Deer Hill No $202,000 1/27/2011 2010 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $158,165 1980 $79.88 1308 Deer Hill No $239,200 1/3/2011 2010 484 96 120 3 0 1 35,878 $214,724 3240 $66.27 1312 Deer Hill No $232,000 5/16/2011 2010 483 99 120 3 1 1 39,229 $197,410 3063 $64.45 1320 Deer Hill No $195,000 6/22/2011 2010 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $143,954 1980 $72.70 1324 Deer Hill No $253,000 6/26/2013 2013 462 99 120 3 1 1 38,613 $212,196 3024 $70.17 1221 Deer Hill No $206,000 5/20/2011 2011 462 102 120 2 1 1 34,027 $155,600 2004 $77.64 1217 Deer Hill No $200,000 10/12/2011 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $151,596 1980 $76.56 1213 Deer Hill No $195,000 7/7/2014 2013 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $131,301 1592 $82.48 1205 Deer Hill No $248,000 5/25/2011 2011 484 102 120 3 1 1 39,357 $217,902 3072 $70.93 1201 Deer Hill No $204,000 12/30/2011 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $156,282 1980 $78.93 1009 Deer Hill No $250,000 5/20/2011 2011 462 108 120 3 1 1 38,912 $219,487 3024 $72.58 1005 Deer Hill No $264,000 12/16/2011 2011 462 108 506 108 3 1 0 45,705 $226,727 3036 $74.68 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 26 1004 Deer Hill No $233,500 3/30/2011 2011 484 102 204 3 1 1 39,918 $201,221 3072 $65.50 1008 Deer Hill No $203,000 10/31/2011 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $155,107 1980 $78.34 1001 Deer Hill No $179,500 10/28/2011 2011 260 105 120 2 1 1 28,209 $120,418 1455 $82.76 1209 Deer Hill No $191,000 5/28/2013 2013 260 105 120 2 1 0 24,554 $131,011 1455 $90.04 1621 Soaring Spirit No $202,000 4/4/2012 2011 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $151,826 1980 $76.68 1604 Soaring Spirit No $191,000 7/2/2012 2012 420 48 120 2 1 0 27,349 $134,661 1592 $84.59 1608 Soaring Spirit No $230,000 9/27/2012 2012 484 96 120 3 0 0 32,222 $198,940 3233 $61.53 1616 Soaring Spirit No $199,000 5/30/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $148,343 1990 $74.54 1609 Soaring Spirit No $268,000 2/16/2012 2012 484 222 120 3 1 1 43,339 $236,097 3072 $76.85 1605 Soaring Spirit No $223,000 2/21/2013 2012 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $170,052 1980 $85.89 1601 Soaring Spirit No $284,000 10/25/2012 2012 484 120 120 3 1 1 39,955 $253,933 3072 $82.66 1009 Whispering Doe No $220,000 6/21/2012 2012 441 85 120 2 1 0 29,192 $172,603 1973 $87.48 1005 Whispering Doe No $213,000 7/30/2012 2012 462 205 120 2 0 1 34,164 $159,275 2004 $79.48 1001 Whispering Doe No $226,000 3/27/2014 2013 441 85 120 2 1 0 29,192 $172,477 1973 $87.42 1004 Whispering Doe No $263,000 8/20/2012 2012 484 102 204 3 1 1 39,918 $230,607 3072 $75.07 1008 Whispering Doe No $226,000 5/13/2013 2012 420 100 266 2 1 1 33,704 $170,120 1987 $85.62 1202 Whispering Doe No $194,000 3/1/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $144,564 1980 $73.01 1206 Whirpering Doe No $253,500 11/21/2012 2012 484 96 140 3 0 1 36,011 $221,650 3233 $68.56 1210 Whispering Doe No $190,000 9/6/2012 2012 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $132,663 1980 $67.00 1209 Whispering Doe No $227,000 9/19/2014 2014 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $171,355 1980 $86.54 1205 Whispering Doe No $244,000 6/25/2012 2012 484 96 120 3 0 1 35,878 $212,600 3233 $65.76 1201 Whispering Doe No $238,000 1/4/2013 2012 484 102 120 2 1 0 31,015 $202,220 2786 $72.58 1000 Whispering Doe No $199,000 5/13/2014 2013 420 48 120 2 1 1 31,005 $131,925 1592 $82.87 6502 Settles Dream No $242,000 11/13/2013 2013 440 100 280 2 1 1 34,384 $186,783 2130 $87.69 6506 Settlers Dream No $201,000 9/18/2013 2013 440 40 120 2 0 1 28,044 $144,514 1832 $78.88 6510 Settlers Dream No $225,000 9/17/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $173,824 1980 $87.79 6514 Settlers Dream No $212,000 11/15/2013 2013 420 100 120 2 1 1 32,730 $152,960 1980 $77.25 6518 Settlers Dream No $262,000 5/14/2013 2013 462 108 108 3 1 0 35,177 $227,215 3024 $75.14 6521 Settlers Dream No $231,000 8/21/2014 2014 420 100 120 2 1 0 29,074 $170,602 1980 $86.16 $77.85 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 27 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 13 - CONCLUSION To consider the effect of a proposed 150 foot monopole tower, I researched the New Hanover area and located a subdivision near a 147 foot tower. This tower had exterior antenna and is much more visible than the subject tower. I located qualified sales in a subdivision and compared those closer to the tower with those further from the tower. I also compared those with various view of the tower with those that did not have a view. After adjusting, all of the dwellings gave very similar per square foot indications showing that the properties are not adversely affected by a cell tower. The dwellings near the proposed subject tower are similar to those near the existing Big Cypress tower and would be similarly affected by it. The other properties that adjoin or abut the proposed tower site are vacant and are less likely to be adversely affected by a cell tower. Based on this it is my opinion that the proposed tower would not have an adverse effect on the property values of adjoining or abutting properties. Cellular telephones have become a necessary and desired item in today’s world. Many potential buyers of real estate expect cellular communications just as they expect electric service and lack of this service or poor service could adversely affect value. In order to meet this need, telecommunications towers have become a common part of the landscape in much the same way that overhead power lines, telephone lines and other utilities have. Like these utilities, telecommunications towers are needed in locations throughout the country. As such they are in harmony with the area in the same way that other utilities are. There have been surveys that show that visibility of cell towers are undesirable. However, they do not ask the right question. The real question is: “Does the presence of a cell tower adve rsely affect property values?” I have not found that to be the case. View of a cell tower is only one of many factors that a prospective buyer would consider. Factors such as location, floor plan, condition, size, etc. are much more important and tend to completely negate the impact of a cell tower. Many residents did not realize there was a tower for several months and others forget they are there in a short period. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 28 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 14 - Based on a set of plans of the proposed tower, an inspection of the proposed tower site and the adjoining and abutting properties, an analysis of data gathered and facts and conclusions as contained in this report and subject to the assumptions and limiting conditions as stated, it is my opinion that the proposed cell tower will not adversely affect the value of adjoining and abutting properties. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 29 - 15 - DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA DAVID A SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. BOX 51597 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27717-1597 PHONE (919) 493-1534 smithappraiser@frontier.com QUALIFICATIONS OF DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA The appraiser, David A. Smith, has been involved in the appraisal of real estate for over thirty years. He worked with his father, Charles W. Smith, from 1976 to 2003. After the retirement of Charles W. Smith in 2003 he formed Smith & Whitfield, Inc. and later David A. Smith & Associates. In 1988 he was awarded the RM designation. With the merger of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and the Society of Real Estate Appraisers in January of 1991, the RM designation was changed to the SRA designation. In 1991 he was awarded the MAI designation of the Appraisal Institute. He became a state-certified real estate appraiser in 1991 the year the state first began licensing real estate appraisers and his certification number is A281. He has also trained and supervised several appraisers and has prepared all types of appraisal reports. His primary focus is Durham County and the adjoining counties of Orange, Person, Granville and Chatham. EDUCATION: Graduate Episcopal High School, Alexandria, VA, 1976 A.B., Duke University, Durham, NC, 1981 APPRAISAL INSTITUTE COURSES: Real Estate Appraisal Principles (Exam 1A-1/8-1), University of North Carolina, 1981 Residential Valuation (Exam 8-2), University of North Carolina, 1981 Basic Valuation Procedures (Exam 1A-2), University of North Carolina, 1983 Standards of Professional Practice (Exam SPP), University of North Carolina, 1983 Capitalization Theory & Techniques, A (Exam 1B-A), University of Colorado, 1984 Capitalization Theory & Techniques, B (Exam 1B-B), University of Colorado, 1984 Valuation Analysis and Report Writing (Exam 2-2), University of North Carolina, 1987 Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation (Exam 2-1), University of North Carolina, 1987 Advanced Sales Comparison & Cost Approaches, Atlanta, Georgia, 2002 General Appraiser Market Analysis and Highest and Best Use, Atlanta, Georgia, 2007 Online Business Practices and Ethics, Chicago, Illinois, 2007 Appraisal Curriculum Overview, 2009 Condemnation Appraising: Principles & Applications, Greensboro, NC, 2011 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 30 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 16 - APPRAISAL INSTITUTE SEMINARS: Highest and Best Use, 1988 Industrial Valuation, 1988 Rates, Ratios and Reasonableness, 1988 Valuation of Leased Fee Interests, 1989 Current Problems in Industrial Valuation, 1989 Methods of Subdivision Analysis, 1989 Expert Witness in Litigation, 1989 Discounted Cash Flow, 1990 RTC Appraisal Standards, 1990 Preparation and Use of the UCIAR Form, 1990 Standards of Professional Practice Update, 1990 Commercial Construction Overview, 1991 Appraising Troubled Properties, 1991 Appraisal Regulations of the Federal Banking Agency, 1992 Real Estate Law for Appraisals, 1992 Appraising Apartments, 1993 Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, 1994 Appraiser's Legal Liabilities, 1994 Understanding Limited Appraisals, 1994 Analysis Operating Expenses, 1995 Future of Appraisals, 1996 Highest and Best Use Applications, 1996 Standards of Professional Practice, Parts A & B, 1997 Litigation Skills for the Appraiser, 1997 Eminent Domain & Condemnation Appraising, 1998 Matched Pairs/Highest & Best Use/Revisiting Report Options, 1998 Valuation of Detrimental Conditions, 1998 Appraisal of Nonconforming Uses, 2000 How GIS Can Help Appraisers Keep Pace with Changes in R E Industry, 2001 Feasibility Analysis, Market Value and Investment Timing, 2002 Analyzing Commercial Lease Clauses, 2002 Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2002 Effective Appraisal Writing, 2003 Supporting Capitalization Rates, 2004 National USPAP Update, 2004 Rates and Ratios: Making Sense of GIMs, OARs, and DCFs, 2005 The Road Less Traveled: Special Purpose Properties, 2005 National USPAP Update, 2006 Appraisal Consulting: A Solutions Approach for Professionals, 2006 What Clients Would Like Their Appraisers to Know, 2007 Valuation of Detrimental Conditions, 2007 Business Practice and Ethics, 2007 Office Building Valuation: A Contemporary Perspective, 2008 Subdivision Valuation, 2008 National USPAP Update, 2009 Effective Appraisal Writing, 2009 Appraisal Curriculum Overview, 2009 Discounted Cash Flow Model: Concepts, Issues and Apps., 2010 National USPAP Update, 2010 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 31 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 17 - Rates and Ratios: Making sense of GIMs, OARs and DCFs, 2011 National USPAP Update, 2012 Business Practices and Ethics, 2012 Marketability Studies: Advanced Considerations & Applications, 2013 Real Estate Valuation Conference, 2013 National USPAP Update, 2014 2014 RE Valuation Conference: National, Regional and Local Economy and RE Markets 2014 RE Valuation Conference: Economic Insights for 2014 and Beyond Analyzing the Effects of Environmental Contamination on Real Property, 2015 National USPAP Update Course, 2016 OTHER SEMINARS: Commercial Segregated Cost Seminar, Marshall & Swift, 1988 Appraisal Guide and Legal Principles, Department of Transportation, 1993 The Grammar Game, Career Track, 1994 Property Tax Listing and Assessing in NC, 2014 MEMBERSHIPS: Appraisal Institute, MAI #09090 Appraisal Institute, SRA/RM #2248 Durham Board of Realtors North Carolina Association of Realtors National Association of Realtors CERTIFICATION: State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser for North Carolina, #A281 OTHER: NC Property Tax Commission, 2013 – Present Durham Civilian Police Review Board, 2009 - Present, Past Chair Durham County Board of Equalization and Review, 2013 – Present Durham Public Schools Zero Based Budget Committee, 2013 - Present City of Durham Audit Oversight Committee, 2002 – 2006 Durham Board of Adjustment, 1994 - 2002 Durham City/County Zoning Commission, 1990 – 1995 John Avery Boys and Girls Club, 1994-2002 Historical Preservation Society, 1992 - 1995 Vice President of the Candidates, 1989, NC Chapter 40 President of the Candidates, 1990, NC Chapter 40 Candidate of the Year, 1990, NC Chapter 40 RECENT CLIENTS: Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 32 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 18 - LENDING INSTITUTIONS American National Bank & Trust Company AMEX Financial BB&T Citizens National Bank CommunityOne Bank NA Fidelity Bank First South Bank KeySource Commercial Bank Live Oak Banking Company Mechanics & Farmers Bank Pacific International Bank PNC Bank RBC Bank Self-Help State Farm Bank SunTrust Bank Wells Fargo Bank MUNICIPALITIES AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Chapel Hill Transit City of Durham NC Department of Administration Durham County Durham Public Schools Durham Technical Community College Housing Authority of the City of Durham NCDOT Orange County Orange Water and Sewer Authority Person County Town of Chapel Hill OTHER Allenton Management AND Associates Builders of Hope BCG Properties Blanchard, Miller, Lewis & Styers Attorneys at Law Blue Cross & Blue Shield of NC Boulevard Proeprties Bugg & Wolf Attorneys at Law Carolina Land Acquisitions CRC Health Corporation Development Ventures Inc. Duke Energy Durham Academy Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 33 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 19 - Durham Rescue Mission Durham Technical Community College Edward Jones Trust Company Farrington Road Baptist Church Forest History Society GBS Properties of Durham, LLC Hayden Stanziale Georgia Towers, LLC Hawthorne Retail Partners Integral Investors Title Insurance IUKA Development Joelepa Associates LP John and Mary Hebrank LCFCU Financial Partners Manor Associates McDonald's USA Northgate Realty, LLC Property Advisory Services, Inc. Rand Enterprises Research Triangle Foundation Sehed Development Corporation Simba Management Southwest Durham Partners, LLC Stirling Bridge Group, LLC Styers, Kemerait & Mitchell, PLLC Talbert & Bright Attorneys at Law Teer Associates Thalle Construction The Bogey Group TKTK Accountants Treyburn Corporate Park, LLC Trinity Properties UNC Hospitals Voyager Academy Wilhekan Associates In addition, Mr. Smith has made appraisals for other lending institutions, municipalities, individuals, corporations, estates and attorneys. Appraisal assignments have been made throughout the Triangle, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Properties appraised include all types of single family residential, multi -family residential, office, retail, commercial, industrial, churches, schools and other specialty type uses, vacant and improved, existing and proposed. Appraisal assignments were for a variety of purposes including: mortgage loans, estate planning, condemnation, bankruptcy and equitable distribution. Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 34 ADDENDA Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 35 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 36 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 37 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 38   1 of 3   PARID: R07110-001-024-000 ARAB SHRINE CLUB H CORP 4510 COLLEGE RD S Parcel Alt ID 313518.40.7153.000 Address 4510 S COLLEGE RD Unit City WILMINGTON Zip Code - Neighborhood I5C01 Class LODG-Excluded Clubs/Posts/Lodges Land Use Code 792-Public Assembly Living Units Acres Zoning R-15-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Legal Legal Description CLUB TRACT - SHRINE PARK Tax District FD Owners (On January1st) Owner ARAB SHRINE CLUB H CORP City WILMINGTON State NC Country Zip 28412 THE DATA IS FROM 2018 Sales Sale Date Sale Price Grantee Grantor Book Page Sale Key 18-OCT-01 $2,000 WILMINGTON CITY OF ARAB SHRINE CLUB H CORP 3075 0660 294852 22-DEC-93 $0 CAPE FEAR UTILITIES INC ARAB SHRINE CLUB H CORP 1732 1239 294851 01-OCT-77 $0 ARAB SHRINE CLUB H CORP * NOT IN SYSTEM *1116 0245 294850 Sale Details Sale Date 18-OCT-01 Sale Key 294852 Sale Price $2,000.00 Grantee WILMINGTON CITY OF Grantor ARAB SHRINE CLUB H CORP Sale Source - Book 3075 Page 0660 Sale Type VACANT Sale Validity U-Unqualified Sale Flag STEB Instrument # Instrument Type Easement Adj. Reason Adj. Price Adj. Amount Link Click Here to view the deed for this parcel Commercial Page 1 of 5New Hanover County 11/5/2018https://etax.nhcgov.com/pt/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=R07110-001-024-000&gsp=PR... Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 39   1 of 4   Card 1 Building Number 1 Structure Code/Description REL-REL Improvment Name SHRINE CLUB Units 1 Year Built 1985 Effective Year Built 1996 Grade C+ Class E-EXMPT Other Improvements Other Imp Value Total Under Roof 8000 Building Factor 1 Percent Complete % Percent Good 69% Notes Other Feature Details Card 1 Int/Ext Line 1 Area Measurement 1 1 Measurement 2 440 Identical Units 1 Summary of Interior/Exterior Data Card Line Number Section From Floor To Floor Area 1 1 1 01 01 8,000 Interior/Exterior Details Card 1 Line Number 1 Section 1 From Floor 01 To Floor 01 Area 8,000 Use Group REL Class Physical Condition A Construction 5-5 Wall Height 12 Interior Wall 3-3 Air 1-1 Plumbing 1-1 Units Functional Depr. Economic Depr. Summary of All Other Features Card Int/Ext Line Area 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 THE DATA IS FROM 2018 Misc. Improvements Card Desc Year Built Grade Width Length Area 1 CP-CP 1999 D 20 58 1,160 Page 2 of 5New Hanover County 11/5/2018https://etax.nhcgov.com/pt/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=R07110-001-024-000&gsp=PR... Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 40 1 UB-UB 1998 B 18 36 648 1 PA-PA 1991 C 240 100 24,000 1 YL-YL 1991 C 9 1 1 THE DATA IS FROM 2018 Permits Permit #Permit Date Flag Purpose Amount 31967 01-FEB-1990 C $800.00 69745 01-AUG-1997 C $20,000.00 32563 01-DEC-2005 C CELL $60,000.00 12-4382 01-MAY-2012 C MISC $12,500.00 Land Line Number 1 Land Type A-ACREAGE Land Code R3 Square Feet 190357 Acres THE DATA IS FROM 2018 Values Year 2018 Total Land $248,900 Total Buildings $614,400 Appraised Total $863,300 MARKET VALUE SHOWN - EXEMPTIONS TO BE REFLECTED IN AUG BILLS THE DATA IS FROM 2018 Legal Description Legal Description CLUB TRACT - SHRINE PARK Tax District FD Subdivision Code Subdivision Name Exemption Code EX Exemption Amount 863300 Sub-parcel(s) Info PARENT BOOK PARENT PAGE CHILD PARCEL CHILD BOOK CHILD PAGE SPLIT/COMBO #TAX YEAR R07110-001-025-000 19460 1991 Sub-parcel(s) Info Page 3 of 5New Hanover County 11/5/2018https://etax.nhcgov.com/pt/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=R07110-001-024-000&gsp=PR... Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 41 SPLIT/COMBO #19460 CODE T PARENT PARCEL R07110-001-024-000 PARENT BOOK PARENT PAGE CHILD PARCEL R07110-001-025-000 CHILD BOOK CHILD PAGE WHO CONVERT Original Parcel Info PARENT PARCEL PARENT BOOK PARENT PAGE ACRES SQ. FT.CODE SPLIT/COMBO #TAX YEAR R07110-001-025-000 S 19513 1991 Item Area PVMT/ASP - PA:PAVEMENT / ASPHALT 24000 CANOPY - CPY:CANOPY 440 RELIGIOUS - REL:RELIGIOUS 8000 YARD/LGHTG - YL:YARD LIGHTING 1 CPY OV SLAB - COT:CANOPY OVER CONC SLAB 252 UTIL/BLDG - UB:UTILITY BUILDING 648 UTL ADDN - UTL:UTILITY ADDITION 216 CARPORT - CP:CARPORT 1160 UTL ADDN - UTL:UTILITY ADDITION 120 Page 4 of 5New Hanover County 11/5/2018https://etax.nhcgov.com/pt/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=R07110-001-024-000&gsp=PR... Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 42 Page 5 of 5New Hanover County 11/5/2018https://etax.nhcgov.com/pt/Datalets/PrintDatalet.aspx?pin=R07110-001-024-000&gsp=PR... Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 43 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 44 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 45 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 46 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 47 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Street Scene along College Street in front of Site Street Scene along Jasmine Cove Way in front of Site Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 48 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT View of Shriner Improvements Area of Tower (Tower Site in Carport on Left) Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 49 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Park to the West of Tower Property View of Tower Site from Park Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 50 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT View of Townhouses West of Park Existing Cell Antenna Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 51 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT View of Pine Hollow Street Dwellings on Pine Hollow Street Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 52 A B C D E F G H I JAS M I N E C O V E W A Y NOTES: LEGEND NO. A PARCEL ID:N/F PROPERTY OWNER B C D E F JAS COVE/SILV CRK VILL HOA PROPERTY INFORMATION G H BRIAN MARSHA ROUSE I WILLIAM & JUDY F HARRISON SOUTH COLLEGE ASSOCIATES CRAIG P THEMAN MELISSA M & MICAH R PHELPS KEVIN D & AMY F JAVORSKY ERIC J GRAF ETAL CHAD M PORTER DEED REFERENCE 2644-004 2091-757 5574-2143 3357-904 4632-088 5735-1926 1825-556 3158-789 4532-825 5 144337 TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 326 TRYON ROAD RALEIGH, NC 27603-3530 OFFICE: (919) 661-6351 www.tepgroup.net MOHICAN TRAIL/ ARAB SHRINE CLUB SITE ID:CTG-NC 0010041 DO N O T U S E F O R CON S T R U C T I O N LE A S E E X H I B I T N.C. LICENSE # C-1794 2 09-05-18 LEASE EXHIBIT 3 09-06-18 LEASE EXHIBIT 4 09-06-18 LEASE EXHIBIT 5 09-12-18 LEASE EXHIBIT JKW JKW L-1SITE PLAN LEASE EXHIBIT Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 53 5 144337 TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 326 TRYON ROAD RALEIGH, NC 27603-3530 OFFICE: (919) 661-6351 www.tepgroup.net MOHICAN TRAIL/ ARAB SHRINE CLUB SITE ID:CTG-NC 0010041 DO N O T U S E F O R CON S T R U C T I O N LE A S E E X H I B I T N.C. LICENSE # C-1794 2 09-05-18 LEASE EXHIBIT 3 09-06-18 LEASE EXHIBIT 4 09-06-18 LEASE EXHIBIT 5 09-12-18 LEASE EXHIBIT JKW JKW L-2COMPOUND DETAIL COMPOUND DETAIL Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 54 NO T E S : JKW JKW L-3 TOWER ELEVATION TO W E R E L E V A T I O N 4 144337 TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 326 TRYON ROAD RALEIGH, NC 27603-3530 OFFICE: (919) 661-6351 www.tepgroup.net MOHICAN TRAIL/ ARAB SHRINE CLUB SITE ID:CTG-NC 0010041 DO N O T U S E F O R CON S T R U C T I O N LE A S E E X H I B I T N.C. LICENSE # C-1794 1 09-05-18 LEASE EXHIBIT 2 09-05-18 LEASE EXHIBIT 3 09-06-18 LEASE EXHIBIT 4 09-06-18 LEASE EXHIBIT Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 55 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 56 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 57 Tower Detail (Not Registered) - Tower (8) •Ownership Info Owner Company: AMERICAN TOWERS, INC. Contact: Not Recorded Phone: Not Recorded Email: Not Recorded Address:Not Recorded •Structure Characteristics Filing #: 2012-ASO-7284-OE Latitude: 34.117 Longitude: -77.889 Structure Type: Tall Structure Status: Unknown Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Ground Elev: 19.0 feet Height Of Structure: 147.0 feet Overall Height: 166.0 feet Structure Address:Not Recorded © 2004-2009 by General Data Resources, Inc. For development purposes onlyFor development purposes only For development purposes only For development purposes only For development purposes only For development purposes only Map data ©2018 Google  Imagery ©2018 , DigitalGlobe, New Hanover County, NC, U.S. Geological SurveyReport a map error Page 1 of 1AntennaSearch -Search for Cell Towers, Cell Reception, Hidden Antennas and more. 11/6/2018http://www.antennasearch.com/sitestart.asp?sourcepagename=antennachecktowerreview&... Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 58 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 59 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Deer Crossing Dwellings with Tower Through Woods Deer Crossing Dwellings with Tower Through Woods Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 60 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Deer Crossing Dwellings with Tower Through Woods Deer Crossing Properties Adjacent to Cell Tower Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 61 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Cell Tower as seen from Fawn Settle Drive View of Tower Across Backyard Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 62 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT View of Tower Across Backyard Cell Tower as seen from Fawn Settle Drive Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 63 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Cell Tower as seen from Fawn Settle Drive View of Tower Across Backyard Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 64 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT View of Tower Across Backyard View of Tower Across Backyard Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 65 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT View of Tower Across Backyard Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 16 - 66 PROPOSED SITE PLAN Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 17 - 1 Planning Board - January 10, 2019 ITEM: 2 - 17 - 2 Pl a n n i n g B o a r d - J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 9 IT E M : 2 - 1 8 - 1