Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
S21-02 full app2
1 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEFORE THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD NEW HANOVER COUNTY AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TOWERCO 2013 LLC’S APPLICATION ) PROJECT NARRATIVE FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ) AND CONSTRUCT A 150-FOOT MONOPOLE ) STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY ) WITH WITH A FIVE-FOOT LIGHTNING ROD FOR) NEW HANOVER COUNTY OVERALL TOWER HEIGHT OF 155 FEET ) UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE I. STATEMENT OF APPLICATION TowerCo 2013 LLC (“TowerCo” or “Applicant”), pursuant to the requirements set forth in the New Hanover County Unified Development Ordinance (“Ordinance”), files this Special Use Permit Application seeking approval to construct and operate a 150-foot monopole antenna wireless communication facility (150-foot monopole tower with a five-foot lightning rod for an overall height of 155 feet). The monopole wireless communication tower will be located within a 110-foot by 110-foot leased area of a 12-acre parcel owned by Cornelia Nixon Davis, Inc. and located at 1011 Porters Neck Road, Wilmington, North Carolina (Tax Parcel Identification Number R03700-002-002-001). The property is zoned R-20. The new 155-foot monopole wireless communication facility is necessary so that AT&T Mobility (“AT&T”), T-Mobile, Verizon, the First Responder Network Authority (“FirstNet”), and another potential wireless provider may attach their antennas to the tower and continue to provide wireless services to the area pursuant to their licenses issued by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon currently have their antennas located on an existing water tank on the adjacent property to the west that is located at the 1000 block of Porters Neck Road. The property where the water tank is located is comprised of 67.38 acres, is owned by the same property owner as the site for the new monopole tower (Cornelia Nixon Davis, Inc.), and is where The Davis Community, a senior care campus, is located (“he Davis Community Property”). The Davis Community was constructed on the property in 1966, and has been expanded several times since 1966. Currently The Davis Community consists of a 179-bed skilled nursing facility, a 123- unit assisted living facility, a pharmacy, administrative buildings, a water tank, parking areas, and open space areas. On June 15, 2020, the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners approved a conditional use rezoning request (Z20-07) for the Davis Community Property so that the main campus could be expanded to an adjacent 17.91-acre parcel that will consist of a four-story 150- unit independent living multi-family building, 32 assisted living duplexes, a wellness center, a central services building, and a memorial garden. The existing storm water retention pond will be removed from the Davis Community Property, and a new infiltration basin will be constructed on 2 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 the adjacent 12-acre parcel to the southeast where the monopole wireless community facility will be located. As part of the expansion of the Davis Community, the water tank on the Davis Community Property will be removed to accommodate the expansion. Therefore, AT&T, T- Mobile, and Verizon will have to remove their antennas from the water tank, and the carriers need to locate their antennas on the proposed 155-foot monopole on the adjacent property in order to continue providing wireless service in this area of the County. It is important to emphasize that this application is for a replacement tower for the water tank where the wireless carriers’ antennas are currently located. With the relocation of the antennas from the water tank to the proposed monopole, Verizon will move its existing antennas to the 120-foot position on the monopole, T- Mobile will move its antennas to the 130-foot position on the monopole, and AT&T will move its antennas to the 145-foot position on the monopole. With the new monopole, coverage will therefore be continued and enhanced in the area. The monopole will be located 859.5 feet from the property to the north, 279.4 feet from the property to the east, 155.1 feet from the property to the south, and 258.5 feet to the property to the west. The site will be accessed by a proposed 30-foot wide ingress-egress and utility easement off of the Porters Neck Road. Please refer to the Overall Parcel Plan, Sheet C1, of the construction drawings located under Tab 7 of the application binder. The tower compound will be secured by an eight-foot tall chain link fence with three strands, one additional foot, of barbed wire around the top of the perimeter of the fenced compound. Please refer to Sheets C3 and C4 of the construction drawings for the fence details. The monopole will comply with all FAA regulations and federal, state, and local regulations, as well as all applicable regulations of the County’s Ordinance. In short, this site is an ideal location for a wireless communication facility so that the antennas for AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon can be relocated from the water tank. The proposed site will ensure that the wireless carriers will be able to continue providing service to this part of New Hanover County. III. BACKGROUND Modern wireless communications include far more than cellular and digital phone networks. Today, wireless communications include a great number of services, such as voice, advanced messaging, data, real-time information (news, weather, sports, etc.), photographs, video, entertainment, and connections to social media. The number of services that are available continues to increase. The convenience, safety and efficiency benefits--as well as the “connectedness” with the world -- achieved through digital phones (and especially the latest generation of “smart phones”) has created a tremendous demand for these and other burgeoning services. It is projected that within the next few years, fully three-quarters of the American population will utilize a wireless device to communicate on a daily basis. It is clear that wireless infrastructure is needed to serve a growing population of wireless customers, especially since roughly one of five traditional U.S. landline phone users has switched to “wireless-only.” Today, more than 247 billion emails and 90 billion “tweets” are sent each day, and it is projected that video-over-instant messaging and video calling will increase seven-fold in the next few years. Individuals and households are not the only ones who are going wireless. Businesses increasingly depend on wireless service to conduct their businesses, and more people are working remotely from their homes and away from their businesses’ physical locations. For example, more than three times as many small businesses 3 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 today strongly agree that wireless technology is key to staying competitive -- 49 percent versus 16 percent in 2007. The FCC has designated and auctioned a limited number of radio spectra for wireless communication providers to deliver wireless communications services across the United States. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon hold those licenses. The FCC’s grant of wireless licenses comes with a mandate that the licensees substantially complete construction of their respective communication systems expeditiously. To complete their systems, licensees must develop an infrastructure or system of strategically placed, low-powered antennas. The signal for the antennas is limited by factors such as variations of the terrain and the finite capacity of signals at any given time; therefore, each antenna covers a limited geographic area. The antennas are, thereby, placed in such a way as to provide contiguous coverage and fill the gaps throughout a given region, as well as to provide sufficient and consistent capacity. In addition, in 2017, the Department of Commerce and FirstNet signed a 25-year contract with AT&T to build the first nationwide wireless network for America’s first responders. The FirstNet network is planned to cover all 50 states, five U.S. territories, the District of Columbia, rural communities, and tribal lands. The proposed tower will be utilized by AT&T to support the deployment of FirstNet as well as their existing wireless network needs. For further information about the FirstNet deployment, please refer to Tab 6 of the application binder or online at https://www.firstnet.gov. IV. STATEMENT OF NECESSITY The voice and data signals for mobile wireless telecommunications systems travel through the air to receiving and transmitting antennas. The antennas must be at a height sufficient to simultaneously provide coverage for users in the surrounding territory. In unserved areas (or where the antennas’ capacity has been reached), calls are “dropped” when a caller enters such areas and calls cannot be made. In selecting the proposed site, it was determined that constructing a new tower on property adjacent to the Davis Community Property where the water tank is located would be ideal and would provide consistent, needed and expanded coverage. TowerCo, a build-to-suit vendor, has applied for the Special Use Permit to construct the wireless communication facility upon approval from the County to do so. The proposed tower is required so that wireless coverage may continue to be provided by the wireless carriers in the surrounding area. 4 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 V. RELATIONSHIP OF PROPERTY OWNER TOWER OWNER / APPLICANT CARRIER AND AUTHORIZED AGENT The property owner, Cornelia Nixon Davis, Inc., entered into a Ground Lease Agreement with TowerCo on September 17, 2020 to allow TowerCo to lease a 110-foot by 110-foot (12,100 square foot) area of the property to construct a wireless communication facility within the lease area. Upon approval by the County, TowerCo will construct, own, operate, and maintain the wireless communication facility. Karen Kemerait with Fox Rothschild, LLP has been retained by TowerCo to assist with the New Hanover County permitting and approval process, to submit the application to the County, and to represent the Applicant and the property owner before the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners at the hearings. TowerCo and its agents will at all times cooperate with the County in the permitting, construction, maintenance, and operation of this proposed facility. VI. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE ARTICLE 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.2.7. – Residential 20 (R-20) District A. Purpose The purpose of the Residential-20 (R-20) District is to provide lands that accommodate primarily very low-density residential development and recreational uses. District regulations discourage development that substantially interferes with the quiet residential and recreational nature of the district. B. Concept C. Use Standards Allowed uses and use-specific standards for principal, accessory, and temporary uses are established in Article 4: Uses and Use-Specific Standards. ARTICLE 4: USES AND USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS Section 4.2. – Allocation of Principal Uses 5 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 Section 4.2.1. - Principal Use Permissions Wireless Communication Facilities including Wireless Support Structures and Substantial Modifications are permitted by Special Use Permit in the R-20 zoned district of New Hanover County. The monopole wireless communication facility is proposed to be constructed on property located at 719 Champ Davis Road in Wilmington, North Carolina. The property is located in a R-20 zoned district of the County. Section 4.3.3. – Civic and Institutional Uses Section 4.3.3.C. – Communication and Information Facilities 1. General Requirements for all Communication and Information Facilities. The following standards shall apply to all communication and information facilities: a. Setbacks Except for amateur radio antenna up to 90 feet, any tower, antenna, or related wireless support structure in any zoning district shall be set back from any existing residential property line or residential zoning district boundary a distance equal to the height of the tower as measured from the base of the tower. In no case shall the setback for any tower, antenna, or related structure be less than 50 feet. The proposed 155-foot monopole will meet and exceed the setback requirement. The monopole will be located 859.5 feet from the property to the north, 279.4 feet from the property to the east, 155.1 feet from the property to the south, and 258.5 feet to the property to the west. Please refer to the Overall Parcel Plan, Sheet C1, of the construction drawings provided under Tab 7 of the application binder. b. Certification Required 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 Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §332, as amended, section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. §1455(a), in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 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 6 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 facility will comply with current FCC standards. In accordance with NCGS 160D-932, the county cannot base its permitting decision on public safety implications of radio frequency emissions of wireless facilities. Please refer to Applicant’s January 19, 2021 affidavit of certifications provided under Tab 10 of the application binder. c. Expert Review Outside experts and disputes are subject to the following provisions: 1. Siting of telecommunications facilities may involve complex technical issues that require review and input by outside experts. Staff may require the applicant to pay the reasonable costs of a third- party technical study for a proposed facility. Selection of expert(s) to review the proposal shall be at the sole discretion of the decision- making body. 2. If the applicant for a telecommunications facility claims that one or more standards of this ordinance are inconsistent with federal law as applied to a particular property, or would prohibit the effective provision of wireless communications within the relevant market area, the decision-making body may require that the applications be reviewed by a qualified engineer for a determination of the accuracy of such claims. Any costs shall be charged to the applicant. Acknowledged. d. Signage Signage shall comply with the following standards. 1. Attaching commercial messages for off-site or on-site advertising shall be prohibited. Acknowledged. 2. The only signage that is permitted upon an antenna, wireless support structure, equipment cabinet, or fence shall be information and for the purpose of identifying: i. The antenna support structure (such as ASR registration number); ii. The party responsible for the operation and maintenance of the facility; iii. Its current address and telephone number; 7 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 iv. Security or safety signs; v. Property manager signs for the tower (if applicable); and vi. Signage appropriate to warn the general public as to the use of the facility for radio frequency transmissions. Applicant acknowledges the above. Please see Sheet C4 of the construction drawings provided under Tab 7 of the application binder for the site signage details. 2. Amateur Radio Antenna Not Applicable. 3. Antenna & Towers Ancillary to the Principal Use Not Applicable. 4. Collocations 5. Non-Substantial Modification Not Applicable. 6. Other Wireless Communication Facilities including New Wireless Support Structures and Substantial Modifications a. Where Special Use Permits are required, all of the following standards shall be applied, and all requirements must be met. Additional conditions may be determined to mitigate negative impacts, and the permit shall be approved only if all negative impacts can be mitigated. No reduction in setbacks may be granted for this use for increased buffers. 1. The minimum distance between the wireless support structure and any other adjoining parcel of land or road must be equal to the minimum setback described in Subsection 4.3.C.1.a. above, plus any additional distance necessary to ensure that the wireless support structure, as designed, will fall within the wireless support structure site. The 155-foot monopole will be located 859.5 feet from the property to the north, 279.4 feet from the property to the east, 155.1 feet from the property to the south, and 258.5 feet to the property to the west. Please refer to the Overall Parcel Plan, Sheet C1, of the construction drawings provided under Tab 7 of the application binder. 8 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 2. The applicant shall provide simulated photographic evidence of the proposed appearance of the wireless support structure and wireless facilities from four vantage points and a statement as to the potential visual and aesthetic impacts on all adjacent residential zoning districts. The simulation shall include overall height; configuration; physical location; mass and scale; materials and color (including proposals for stealth structures); and illumination. While not required by the Ordinance, the Applicant conducted a balloon test prior to preparing the photographic simulations. The balloon test demonstrated that the monopole will not be visible in many of the surrounding vantage points. In those areas where the monopole will be visible, only the top of tower will be visible. Please refer to Tab 15 of the application binder for the photographic simulations. 3. Concealed (stealth) or camouflaged facilities are encouraged when the method of concealment is appropriate to the proposed location. Attached stealth facilities may include but are not limited to: painted antenna and feed lines to match the color of a building or structure, faux windows, dormers, or other architectural features that blend with an existing or proposed building or structure. Freestanding stealth facilities typically have a secondary, obvious function such as a church steeple, windmill, silo, light standards, flagpole, bell/clock tower, water tower, or tree. A monopole is proposed for this site. 4. The proposed appearance of concealed or non-concealed facilities shall be evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding community prior to submission of the special use permit application. Applicants shall meet with Planning and Land Use staff for a preliminary review of proposed appearance in order to assure each facility will impose the least obtrusive visual impact. Acknowledged. b. A landscaped buffer with a base width not less than 25 feet and providing 100 percent opacity shall be required within the wireless support structure site to screen the exterior of protective fencing or walls. The base station and equipment compound of the wireless support structure and each guy wire anchor must be surrounding by a fence or wall not less than eight feet in height. The area surrounding the tower site is wooded, and a 25-foot vegetative buffer will be preserved around the fenced compound area to provide a natural buffer. Please refer to the Site Plan, Sheet C2, and the Landscaping Plan, Sheet L1, of the construction drawings provided under Tab 7 of the application binder. 9 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 There will be an eight-foot high chain link fence surrounding the 60-foot by 60-foot compound within the 110-foot by 110-foot leased area. Around the top perimeter of the fence, there will be three strands of barbed wire (1- foot), and there will be a locked gate to the fenced compound. Please refer to the fencing details provided on Sheets C3 and C4 of the construction drawings provided under Tab 7 of the application binder. The proposed wireless antenna support structure will be a 155-foot monopole, and it will not require guy wire anchors. c. All wireless support structures shall be constructed to accommodate collocation. Structures over 150 feet in height shall be engineered to accommodate at a minimum two additional providers. Structures 150 feet or less in height shall be engineered to accommodate at a minimum one additional providers. The proposed 155-foot monopole will be structurally designed to accommodate the antennas of four wireless carriers. AT&T’s antennas will be located at the 145-foot position on the tower, T-Mobile’s antennas will be located at the 130-foot position on the tower, Verizon’s antennas will be located at the 120-foot position on the tower, and there will be room to accommodate the antennas of an additional carrier at the 110-foot position on the tower. Please refer to Sheet C5 of the construction drawings provided under Tab 7 of the application binder. d. Equipment compounds shall comply with the following standards: 1. Shall not be used for the storage of any equipment or hazardous waste (e.g., discarded batteries) or materials not needed for the operation. No outdoor storage yards shall be allowed in a tower equipment compound. Acknowledged. 2. Shall not be used as a habitable space. Acknowledged. e. The applicant shall submit form 7460 to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to assure compliance with all FAA standards and to resolve issues of concern, including required lighting, possible transmission interference or other conflicts when the proposed wireless support structure site is located within 10,000 feet of an airport or within any runway approach zone. Please see the FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation provided under Tab 12 of the application binder. 10 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 7. Nonconforming Wireless Support Structures Not Applicable. ARTICLE 10: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES Section 10.2 – Standard Review Procedures 10.2.2. – Pre-Application Conference A. Purpose The purpose of the pre-application conference is to provide an opportunity for the applicant and staff to review submittal requirements, procedures, and schedules for an anticipated development application. A pre-application conference is also intended for the applicant and staff to discuss the scope, features, and impacts of the proposed development. B. Applicability A pre-application conference is required for applications for planned development (see Section 10.3.4.). A pre-application conference may be requested and held at the applicant’s option for any other development application reviewed under this ordinance. C. Effect The pre-application conference is intended as a means of facilitating the review process. Discussions held in accordance with this section are not binding on the county or the applicant. Official reviews of development applications do not begin until a form application is submitted and determined to be complete. A pre-application conference was held on January 7, 2021 with Ken Vafier, Planning Manager, and Marty Little, Long Range Planner, of the New Hanover County Planning and Land Use Department, Karen Kemerait of Fox Rothschild LLP, and David Hockey, Director of Zoning for TowerCo. 10.2.3. – Community Meeting A. Purpose The purpose of a community information meeting is to inform owners and residents of nearby lands about a proposed development application, and to provide the applicant an opportunity to hear comments and concerns about the development proposal as a means of resolving conflicts and outstanding issues, where possible. B. Applicability 1. Unless a report is submitted in accordance with subsection 2 below, a community information meeting that complies with the requirements in this section is required prior to submittal of any of the following applications: 11 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 a. Conditional rezonings; b. Planned developments; and c. Special use permits for uses classified as intensive industry. 2. An applicant may submit an application identified in subsection 1 above without first holding a community information meeting if the applicant submits with the application a report documenting efforts that were made to arrange such a meeting and stating the reasons such a meeting was not held. 3. The adequacy of a meeting held or report submitted shall be considered by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners, as appropriate, in their decisions, but shall not be subject to judicial review. 4. For applications other than those identified in subsection 1 above, a community information meeting may be held in accordance with this section at the option of the applicant. While not required by the Ordinance, the Applicant intends to conduct a community information meeting after submittal of the Special Use Permit. C. Procedure 1. Notification a. The applicant shall provide written notice by mail or other agreed upon measure at least ten days prior to the date of the community information meeting. Notice shall be provided to the Planning Department and to each owner of record of land within 500 feet of and on the property subject to the application. b. The County shall provide notice of the community information meeting by e-mail to the Sunshine List. 2. Conduct of Meeting and Written Summary. a. The community information meeting shall be open to the public. At the meeting, the applicant shall explain the development proposal and application, inform attendees about the application review process, respond to questions or concerns neighbors raise about the proposed application, and discuss ways to resolve any conflicts or concerns. b. The applicant shall prepare a written summary of the meeting. The summary shall be included with the application materials and contain the following information: 1. Date, time and location of the meeting; 2. List of meeting attendees; 3. Summary of issues discussed; 12 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 4. Description of any changes or adjustments made to the proposal as a result of the comments and concerns received by the applicant; and 5. Any other information the applicant deems appropriate. Acknowledged. 10.2.4. – APPLICATION SUBMITTAL AND ACCEPTANCE A. Authority to File Applications 1. Unless expressly stated otherwise in this Ordinance, development applications reviewed under this Ordinance shall be submitted by: a. The owner, contract purchaser, or any other person having a recognized property interest in the land on which development is proposed; or b. A person authorized to submit the application on behalf of the owner, contract purchaser, or other person having a recognized property interest in the land, as evidenced by a letter or documentation signed by the owner, contract purchaser, or other person having a recognized property interest in the land. The application will be submitted by Karen M. Kemerait of Fox Rothschild LLP, Authorized Agent, on behalf of the Applicant, TowerCo 2013 LLC, and Property Owner, Cornelia Nixon Davis, Inc. Karen Kemerait’s acknowledgement as agent is evidenced in the Special Use Permit Application. 2. Applications for text amendments and zoning map amendments may be submitted by any person, organization, or interested party, including the Board of Commissioners, the Planning Board, or County Staff. 10.3.5. – SPECIAL USE PERMIT A. Purpose A use designated as a special use in Table 4.2.1.: Principal Use Table, in a particular zoning district, is a use that may be appropriate in the district, but because of its nature, extent, and external impacts, requires special consideration of its location, design, and methods of operation before it can be deemed appropriate in the district and compatible with its surroundings. The purpose this section is to establish a uniform mechanism for the review of special uses to ensure they are appropriate for the location and zoning district where they are proposed. The construction of the proposed 155-foot monopole wireless communication facility is permitted with a Special Use Permit in the R-20 zoned district where proposed. This tower is essential and necessary to continue to provide the coverage that is currently being provided from the adjacent water tank. As the water tank will be removed from the Davis Community Property, the wireless carriers’ antennas on the water tank need to be moved to the proposed monopole. 13 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 This tower will ensure that continued wireless coverage is provided to support the surrounding residences, businesses, and those traveling through this area of the County. Also, this tower will ensure that emergency services coverage is available to the area, including The Davis Community and the Plantation Village independent senior living facility. The proposed tower will be helpful to this area of the County, as it will be utilized by AT&T to support the deployment of FirstNet. B. Applicability Approval of a special use permit in accordance with this section is required before development of any use identified as a special use in Table 4.2.1.: Principal Use Table. Acknowledged. C. Special Use Permit Procedure D. Special Use Permit Review Standards The Board of County Commissioners shall approve an application for a special use permit only if it reaches each of the following conclusions based on findings of fact supported by competent, substantial, and material evidence presented at the hearing: 1. The use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and approved. The proposed 155-foot monopole will not endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed on the 12-acre parcel. Not only will the proposed monopole not endanger the public health or safety, but it will instead enhance the public health and safety of the community in the surrounding area by ensuring that coverage remains in the area. The monopole is needed as a replacement site for the water tank where the antennas of AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon are currently located. As mentioned previously, as part of the expansion of The Davis Community, the water tank on the Davis Community Property will be removed to accommodate the expansion of the facility. Therefore, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon will have to remove their antennas from the water tank, and the carriers need to locate their antennas on the proposed monopole in order to continue providing wireless service in this area of the County. With the relocation of the antennas from the water tank, Verizon will move its antennas to the 120-foot position on the monopole, T-Mobile will move its antennas to the 130-foot position on the monopole, and AT&T will move its antennas to the 145-foot position on the monopole. The wireless carriers will thus be able to continue providing coverage to the area. Thousands of facilities such as this one are located throughout the State of North Carolina (and tens of thousands nationwide). None presents any threat or danger to public health or safety. Radio emissions from the facility will comply with all federal laws, including those established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the emissions will fall well below emission standards for this type of facility, as established by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Please refer to the statement of certification that this facility will be in 14 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 compliance with FCC emission standards located under Tab 10 of the application binder. In addition, the proposed monopole will increase the public safety because this tower is strategically located for FirstNet’s broadband network for first responders. Residents and those traveling through the proposed coverage area will be able to place and receive calls during emergencies. Wireless communications is a public safety necessity. Seventy-four percent of Americans who own mobile phones say that they have used their hand-held devices in emergency situations and gained valuable help. Most importantly, in times of natural disasters, wireless communication consistently emerges as the essential – and often only – means for emergency communication. New Hanover County first responders, residents, businesses, and travelers in the coverage area will be able to access 911 emergency services in the event that severe weather or other unforeseen circumstances down traditional landline communication services. Thus, the first responders, residents, businesses, and travelers in this area of the County will directly benefit from the availability of continued wireless telecommunications services. 2. The use meets all required conditions and specifications of this Ordinance. The proposed monopole meets or exceeds all required conditions and specifications of the Ordinance. A wireless communication facility is permitted as a Special Use in the R-20 zoning district of the County. The Applicant confirms that it will comply with all state, federal, and local laws, including the rules and regulations listed in the Ordinance, regarding the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed wireless communication facility. 3. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or the use is a public necessity; and The proposed monopole will not injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. The tower will be located on a large 12-acre parcel, and mature trees will surround the tower site. Because the tower is located on a large parcel with mature trees, the tower will not be visible from many of the surrounding vantage points. In the areas where the monopole will be visible, only the top of tower will be visible. (Please refer to Tab 15 of the application binder for the photographic simulations.) Also, the monopole will be located a great distance from all adjoining properties: 859.5 feet from the property to the north, 279.4 feet from the property to the east, 155.1 feet from the property to the south, and 258.5 feet to the property to the west. A 25- foot vegetative buffer will be preserved around the fenced compound area to buffer the tower. (Please refer to the Site Plan, Sheet C2, and the Landscaping Plan, Sheet L1, of the construction drawings located under Tab 7 of the application binder.) 15 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 The proposed tower is necessary so that AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon may continue to provide wireless coverage and services when the water tank on the Davis Community Property is removed. The continued coverage will benefit those who live and work in the surrounding area. David A. Smith, NC State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, provides his expert opinion that the proposed monopole will not have an adverse effect on the property values of adjoining or abutting properties. Please refer to the property report prepared by David Smith provided under Tab 16 of the application binder. 4. 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 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for New Hanover County. The proposed monopole is an allowable use in the R-20 zoned district with a Special Use Permit. The proposed tower will be in harmony with the area and in general conformity with the County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, as the proposed tower will fit in well on the property and the area, and will benefit the surrounding area, as wireless coverage and services will continue to be available to those who live, work, and travel through the area. Furthermore, the site for the tower is a 12-acre tract of land, and mature trees will surround the tower site. The monopole will be located a great distance from all adjoining properties: 859.5 feet from the property to the north, 279.4 feet from the property to the east, 155.1 feet from the property to the south, and 258.5 feet to the property to the west. The proposed tower is a low impact use, as it is an unmanned facility that is not open to the public. It will generate no more than two to four vehicle trips per month (for maintenance purposes), and it will not generate any odor or noise. The tower will not generate additional traffic or be of any significant impact to the nearby roads. Accordingly, the tower will be in harmony with the area. The proposed monopole is in general conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan because it will provide the wireless communication infrastructure necessary to support the educational and economic activities of nearby residents, businesses, and students. 10.3.6. SITE PLAN A. Purpose B. Applicability C. Major and Minor Site Plans Distinguished D. Major Site Plan Procedure 16 Active\118799466.v1-2/3/21 E. Minor Site Plan Procedure F. Site Plan Review Standards 1. The proposed development and uses in the site plan comply with Article 3: Zoning Districts, and Article 4: Uses and Use-Specific Standards. 2. The development proposed in the site plan and its general layout and design comply with all the standards in Article 5: General Development Standards, and Article 6: Subdivision Design and Improvement. 3. The development proposed in the site plan complies with all conditions of approval in any development approval or permit to which the plan is subject; and 4. The development proposed in the site plan complies with all other applicable standards in this Ordinance and all other County regulations. Applicant has reviewed all of the above referenced site plan review standards and acknowledges that the development plans submitted with this application under Tab 7 of the application binder comply with all of the above. VII. CONCLUSION The proposed wireless communication facility (a 150-foot monopole with a five-foot lightning rod, for an overall height of 155 feet) meets all requirements of the New Hanover County Zoning Unified Development Ordinance and is in conformity with the County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The proposed monopole will be an integral part of continuing AT&T’s, T- Mobile’s, Verizon’s wireless communication service and providing service for FirstNet in this area of the County. TowerCo hereby respectfully requests that this Special Use Permit Application be approved. Respectfully submitted on this 3rd day of February, 2021. /s/ Karen M. Kemerait Karen M. Kemerait NC Zoning Counsel for TowerCo 2013 LLC COVER SHEET T1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING AND LAND USE PERMIT INFORMATION PHONE: ATTN.: 230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVE WILMINGTON, NC 28403 (910) 798-7165 KEN VAFIER NORTH DRIVING DIRECTIONS VICINITY MAP CONSULTANT NUMBER OF CARRIERS: USE: TOWER TYPE: TOWER HEIGHT: MUNICIPALITY: STATE: PROJECT SUMMARY NEW HANOVER COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA MONOPOLE TOWER 150' (155' TO HIGHEST APPURTENANCE) 3 PROPOSED, 1 FUTURE PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND UNMANNED EQUIPMENT SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 PROPERTY OWNER CONTACTS PHONE: ATTN.: CORNELIA NIXON DAVIS INC 1011 PORTERS NECK RD WILMINGTON, NC 28411 (910) 686-7195 CHARLES LONG POWER COMPANY PHONE: ATTN.: CUSTOMER SERVICE DUKE ENERGY (800) 452-2777 DEVELOPER TOWERCO 2013 LLC 5000 VALLEYSTONE DR #200 CARY, NC 27519 ATTN: DWAYNE LYERLY FLOOD INFO SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN FEMA FLOOD MAP AREA 3720317900K DATED 08/28/2018 WITHIN FLOOD ZONE X. SHEET NO.SHEET TITLE T1 COVER SHEET --SITE SURVEY (SHEET 1 OF 2) --SITE SURVEY (SHEET 2 OF 2) T2 APPENDIX N1 GENERAL NOTES C1 OVERALL PARCEL PLAN C1.1 OVERALL SITE PLAN C2 SITE PLAN C3 FENCE, GATE, AND COMPOUND DETAILS C4 SITE SIGNAGE DETAILS C5 ANTENNA AND TOWER ELEVATION DETAILS L1 LANDSCAPING PLAN SHEET INDEX NEW HANOVER COUNTY SHERIFF PHONE: ATTN.: 316 PRINCESS ST WILMINGTON, NC 28411 (910) 798-4200 CUSTOMER SERVICE NEW HANOVER COUNTY FIRE RESCUE STATION 14 PHONE: ATTN.: 8310 SHIRAZ WAY WILMINGTON, NC 28411 (910) 798-7420 CUSTOMER SERVICE FROM NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE: HEAD SOUTH TOWARD NC-1613/DAVIS DR 144 FT; TURN LEFT ONTO BOULDERSTONE WAY 236 FT; TURN RIGHT ONTO NC-1613/DAVIS DR 0.7 MI; TURN LEFT ONTO WALDO ROOD BLVD 0.7 MI; TURN RIGHT ONTO SW CARY PKWY 5.2 MI; USE THE RIGHT LANE TO MERGE ONTO US-1 N/US-64 E VIA THE RAMP TO RALEIGH 0.2 MI; MERGE ONTO US-1 N/US-64 E 2.1 MI; USE THE RIGHT 2 LANES TO TAKE EXIT 1A TO MERGE ONTO I-40 E TOWARD US-64 E/BENSON/ROCKY MT 8.4 MI; KEEP RIGHT AT THE FORK TO STAY ON I-40 E, FOLLOW SIGNS FOR BENSON/WILMINGTON 115 MI; TAKE EXIT 416A-416B TOWARD TOPSAIL ISLAND/NEW BERN 0.9 MI; MERGE ONTO I-140 E 04 MI; CONTINUE ONTO NC-140 4.9 MI; CONTINUE ONTO US-17 N/MARKET ST 0.4 MI; TURN RIGHT ONTO FUTCH CREEK RD/MARKET ST 1.3 MI; CONTINUE ONTO CHAMP DAVIS RD, DESTINATION WILL BE ON THE LEFT 0.4 MI. WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE ADDRESS (E-911 TBD) 719 CHAMP DAVIS RD WILMINGTON, NC 28411 NEW HANOVER COUNTY LATITUDE: 34° 17' 30.97" N LONGITUDE: 77° 46' 08.73" W TAX/PIN #: R03700-002-002-001 ZONING: R-20 TOWERCO SITE ID: NC0281 at t & SITE KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 421 FAYETTEVILLE ST, SUITE 600 RALEIGH, NC 27601 PHONE: (919) 653-2942 ATTN.: AVERY FANN PARENT PARCEL: R03700-002-002-001 ZONING: R-20 APPENDIX T2 SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 N/A N/AN/A N/AN/AN/A N/AN/A N/AN/A NOTE: SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE PAD, PREFABRICATED EQUIPMENT CABINETS AND GENERATOR. NO NEW BUILDING BEING CONSTRUCTED. 1.00 GENERAL NOTES GENERAL NOTES N1 SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 SURVEY NOTE: NORTH SCALE: 1" = 450' OVERALL PARCEL PLAN1 C1 OVERALL PARCEL PLAN C1 SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 NORTH SCALE: 1" = 80' OVERALL SITE PLAN1 C1.1 OVERALL SITE PLAN C1.1 SURVEY NOTE: SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 NORTHSCALE: 1" = 20' SITE PLAN1 C2 SITE PLAN C2 SITE NOTES: SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 FENCE NOTES: FENCE, GATE, AND COMPOUND DETAILS C3 NOT TO SCALE CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE ELEVATION1 C3 NOT TO SCALE MUSHROOM STOP2 C3 NOT TO SCALE SITE COMPOUND SURFACE DETAIL3 C3 NOT TO SCALE SECTION AT FENCE4 C3 SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 YELLOW BACKGROUND w/ BLACK LETTERING 3 NOTICE-RFE SIGN Beyond this point:Radio frequency fields at this site may exceed FCCrules for human exposure. For your safety, obey all posted signs and site guidelines for working in radio frequency environments. All personnel should have electromagnetic energy (EME) awareness training. All personnel entering this site must be authorized. Obey all posted signs. Assume all antennas are active. Before working on antennas, notify owners and disable appropriatetransmitters. Maintain minimum 3 feet clearance from all antennas. Do not stop in front of antennas. Use personal RF monitors while working near antennas. Never operate transmitters without shields during normal operation. Do not operate base station antennas in equipment room. NOTICE In accordance with Federal CommunicationsCommission rules on radio frequency emissions 47 CFR 1.1307(b) NOTICE 1 NO-TRESPASSING SIGN BLACK LETTERING WHITE BACKGROUND w/ BLACK LETTERING WHITE BACKGROUND w/ RADIO FREQUENCY ENVIRONMENT AREAAUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY BEYOND THIS POINT! Personnel proceeding beyond this poinrt must obey all posted signs, site guidelines and Federal Regulations for working in radio frequency environments. In accordance with Federal Regulationson radio frequency emissions. WHITE LETTERING BLUE BACKGROUND w/NOTICE 6 NOTICE-RF SIGN (BLUE) 12" WIDE X 18" HIGH BLACK LETTERING YELLOW BACKGROUND w/ BLACK LETTERING WHITE BACKGROUND w/ Beyond this point:Radio frequency fields at this site may exceed FCCrules for human exposure. For your safety, obey all posted signs and site guidelines for working in radio frequency environments. In accordance with Federal Communications Commission rules on radio frequencyemissions 47 CFR 1.1307(b) BLACK LETTERING YELLOW BACKGROUND w/!CAUTION BLACK LETTERING WHITE BACKGROUND w/ BLACK LETTERING RED BACKGROUND w/ BLACK LETTERING RED BACKGROUND w/! NO TRESPASSING VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED WARNING XXXXXXX RED LETTERING WHITE BACKGROUND w/ WHITE W/BLACK LETTERING 4 WARNING-RF SIGN (RED) 7 FCC REGISTRATION SIGN 12" WIDE X 18" HIGH 20 WIDE X 4" HIGH 5 CAUTION-RF SIGN (YELLOW) 12" WIDE X 18" HIGH WHITE BACKGROUND w/ BLACK LETTERING WHITE BACKGROUND w/ BLACK LETTERING WHITE LETTERING GREEN BACKGROUND w/ This is a TowerCo Antenna Site Site ID: For information call: 2 TOWERCO - SITE ID SIGN 12" HIGH X 24" WIDE (OPERATIONS PROVIDED) 844-218-8549 INFORMATION 18" HIGH X 24" WIDE (OPERATIONS PROVIDED) 12" HIGH X 18" WIDE (OPERATIONS PROVIDED) FCC TOWER REGISTRATION NO. NC0281 SITE SIGNAGE DETAILS C4 NOT TO SCALE SIGN PLACEMENT PLAN VIEW1 C4 NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL SIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS2 C4 NOT TO SCALE SIGN PLACEMENT FRONT GATE VIEW3 C4NORTH SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY- NO SIGNATURE REQUIRED ANTENNA AND TOWER ELEVATION DETAILS C5 NOT TO SCALE MONOPOLE TOWER ELEVATION1 C5 NOT TO SCALE ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE2 C5 NOT TO SCALE ANTENNA ORIENTATION PLAN3 C5 SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 NOTES: LANDSCAPING PLAN L1 SITE NAME: WILMINGTON WT RELO SITE #: NC0281 GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1.THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION OF HIS WORK WITH THAT OF ALL OTHER CONTRACTORS. THIS PLAN DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF ANY UTILITIES. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK, THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATIONS OF ALL ABOVE GROUND AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2.THE QUALITY AND SIZE OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO THE MOST CURRENT STANDARDS AS SET FORTH IN ANSI Z60.180 - AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. 3.ALL DISTURBED AREAS NOT COVERED BY HARDSCAPE OR PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE COVERED WITH SEED AND STRAW. 4.PLANT SUBSTITUTION MAY BE PERMITTED ONLY AFTER PROOF THAT SPECIFIED PLANTS ARE UNAVAILABLE AND THE REQUEST HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE NEAREST EQUIVALENT OBTAINABLE SIZE AND VARIETY OF THE PLANT HAVING THE SAME ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS AS THE PLANT SPECIFIED 5.MINOR PLANT LOCATION ADJUSTMENTS MAY BE MADE IN THE FIELD TO ENSURE ACCESS TO UTILITY JUNCTION BOXES, FREE SITE LIGHTING OF FUTURE TREE CANOPY INTERFERENCE AND ALLOW UNINHIBITED PEDESTRIAN / VEHICULAR CIRCULATION ON ALL PAVEMENTS OR FOUNDATIONS. 6.ALL SHRUB MASSES OF TWO OR MORE SHALL BE EDGED INTO A PLANTING BED AND MULCHED PER DETAIL. ALL INDIVIDUAL TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL HAVE A MULCH SAUCER EQUAL IN DIAMETER TO THE PLANTING PIT DIAMETER AND SHALL BE MULCHED AS SHOWN ON THE DETAILS. UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ALL BED EDGES SHALL BE A DEEP CUT CLEAN SPADE EDGE. 7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THAT EACH TREE OR SHRUB PIT WILL DRAIN BEFORE INSTALLING PLANT MATERIAL. HE SHALL FILL THE HOLE WITH SIX INCHES (6") OF WATER THAT SHOULD PERCOLATE OUT WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS. SHOULD ANY AREA NOT DRAIN PROPERLY, A PERFORATED DRAIN LINE SHALL BE INSTALLED, OR THE PLANTS RELOCATED. 8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER IMMEDIATELY IF HE ENCOUNTERS ANY UNSUITABLE SURFACE OR SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS, SOIL DEPTH, LATENT SOILS, HARD PAN, UTILITY LINES, OR OTHER CONDITIONS THAT WILL JEOPARDIZE THE HEALTH AND VIGOR OF THE PLANTS. SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR NOT NOTIFY THE OWNER OF A PROBLEM AREA, HE WARRANTS THAT THE AREAS ARE SUITABLE FOR PROPER GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF ALL PLANTS INSTALLED. 9.THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD VERIFY LANDSCAPING/TREE PLANTING LOCATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH WATER, SEWER, AND GAS LINES. 10.PLANTS SHALL BE SO TRAINED IN DEVELOPMENT AND APPEARANCE AS TO BE UNQUESTIONABLE SUPERIOR IN FORM, COMPACTNESS AND SYMMETRY. THEY SHALL BE SOUND, HEALTHY, VIGOROUS, WELL BRANCHED AND DENSELY FOLIATED WHEN IN LEAF, AND FREE OF DISEASE AND INSECT ADULT EGGS, PUPAE OR LARVAE. THEY SHALL HAVE HEALTHY, WELL-DEVELOPED ROOT SYSTEMS AND SHALL BE FREE FROM PHYSICAL DAMAGE OR OTHER CONDITIONS THAT WOULD PREVENT THRIVING GROWTH. 11.THERE SHALL BE NO CIRCLING OR GIRDLING ROOTS. CIRCLING ROOTS SHOULD BE CUT IN AT LEAST ONE PLACE. 12.THERE SHOULD BE ONE DOMINANT LEADER TO THE TOP OF THE TREE WITH THE LARGEST BRANCHES SPACED AT LEAST 6 INCHES APART. THERE CAN BE TWO LEADERS IN THE TOP 10% OF THE TREE IF IT IS OTHERWISE OF GOOD QUALITY. 13.THE TREE CANOPY SHOULD BE SYMMETRICAL AND FREE OF LARGE VOIDS. CLEAR TRUNK SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN 40% OF TREE HEIGHT UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS. CLEAR TRUNK SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT HEIGHT TO CLEAR SURROUNDING USES THAT MAY BE IMPACTED BY THE FUTURE GROWTH OF THE TREE. 14.OPEN TRUNK AND BRANCH WOUNDS SHALL BE LESS THAN 10% OF THE CIRCUMFERENCE AT THE WOUND AND NO MORE THAN 2 INCHES TALL. PROPERLY MADE PRUNING CUTS ARE NOT CONSIDERED OPEN TRUNK WOUNDS. THERE SHOULD BE NO CONKS OR BLEEDING, AND THERE SHOULD BE NO SIGNS OF INSECTS OR DISEASE ON MORE THAN 5% OF THE TREE. 15.IF ANY OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE NOT MET, TREES MAY BE REJECTED. 16.TREE PROTECTION DEVICES MUST BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING, GRUBBING, OR GRADING OF THE SITE BY THE LOCAL ARBORIST. LANDSCAPING TO BE REMOVED SYMBOL QTY. NAME ORDINANCE SCALE: 1" = 20' LANDSCAPING PLAN1 L1 NORTH IMPACT ANALYSIS OF A PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON ADJOINING OR ABUTTING PROPERTIES LOCATED ON 719 CHAMP DAVIS ROAD NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA AS OF JANUARY 22, 2021 FOR KAREN KEMERAIT FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 434 FAYETTEVILLE STREET SUITE 2800 RALEIGH, NC 27601 BY DAVID A SMITH, MAI, SRA 2007 FRONT STREET DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27705 PART ONE - INTRODUCTION DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA 2007 FRONT STREET DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27705 PHONE (919) 493-1534 smithappraiser@verizon.net January 26, 2021 Karen Kemerait Fox Rothschild LLP 434 Fayetteville Street Suite 2800 Raleigh, NC 27601 As requested, I have inspected the site of a proposed telecommunications tower and the adjoining or abutting properties. The proposed tower would be located at 719 Champ Davis Road in New Hanover County, North Carolina. The purpose of this assignment is to determine if the proposed tower would substantially injure the value of adjoining or 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 Fox Rothschild LLP 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 January 22, 2021 which is the effective date of this 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, the adjoining or abutting properties, an analysis of data gathered and facts and conclusions as contained in the following report of 28 pages and addenda, and subject to the assumptions and limiting conditions as stated, it is my opinion that the proposed tower would not have significant adverse impact on adjoining or abutting properties. I certify that I have personally inspected the site of the proposed tower and those properties that adjoin or abut the property. 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 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE-INTRODUCTION PAGE Letter of Transmittal 1 Table of Contents 2 Certification 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 5 Definition of Value 5 Date of Analysis and Date of Report 6 Property Rights 6 Scope of Work 7 PART THREE-PRESENTATION OF DATA Description of Tower Site Property 8 Description of the Proposed Tower and Leased Area 8 Description of Adjoining and Abutting Properties 9 PART FOUR-ANALYSIS OF DATA AND CONCLUSIONS Effect of the Proposed Telecommunications Tower 11 Conclusion 22 Qualifications of the Appraiser 23 ADDENDA Area Map Neighborhood Map Aerial Map Tax Card Zoning Map Deed Tower Details Photographs of Proposed Tower Site Photographs of Adjoining Properties and Across the Road Deer Crossing Location Map Deer Crossing Aerial Big Cypress Tower Details Deer Crossing Photographs 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 PART TWO – PREMISES OF THE REPORT 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 forty 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 as planned. 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 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 “Tower Co, at&t, Wilmington WT RELO, SITE ADDRESS (E-911 TBD), 719 CHAMP DAVIS RD, WILMINGTON, NC 28411, NEW HANOVER COUNTY prepared by Kimley Horn and last dated December 9, 2020. For purposes of this report this information is assumed to be correct. Copies of pages from these plans are in the addenda. These plans were supplied by Trisha Butler of Fox Rothschild LLP. 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. PURPOSE, INTENDED USE AND USERS OF THE REPORT The purpose of this assignment is to determine if the proposed tower would have significant adverse impact on adjoining or 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 Fox Rothschild, 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: DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 6 - 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 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 January 22, 2021. The date of the report is January 26, 2021. 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: DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 7 - 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 adjoining or abutting 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 that adjoin or abut the proposed tower. PART THREE – PRESENTATION OF DATA DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 8 - DESCRIPTION OF TOWER SITE PROPERTY Since the purpose of this report is to estimate the impact of the proposed tower on adjoining and abutting 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 from New Hanover County, the property where the tower will be located is located at 719 Champ Davis Road. It is owned by Cornelia Nixon Davis, Inc. The tax office identifies the property with a record number of R03700-002-002-001 and the property is located in a CUD R-20 zoning district for New Hanover County. The property is located on the north side of Porters Neck Road, the east side of Champ Davis Road and the south side of Jeanelle Moore Boulevard. The property is reported to be 12 acres in size. The site is unimproved. Part of the property is in the process of being cleared for a storm retention pond. This area is on the northern part of the property and the area around the tower will continue to be wooded. Photographs of the subject are in the addenda. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TOWER AND LEASED AREA The tower will be located in the southern portion of the site near Porters Neck Road. At its closest points it will be 155.1 feet from Porters Neck Road, 258.5 feet from Champ Davis Road, 859.5 feet from Jeanelle Moore Boulevard and 279.4 feet from the eastern boundary. The leased area will be 110 by 110 feet with a 30 foot wide gravel ingress-egress and utility easement leading from Porters Neck Road to the tower site. There will be a 60 by 60 foot area enclosed with an eight foot high chain link fence with 3 strand barbed wire. The site will be landscaped as required by the zoning ordinance. DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 9 - The tower will be 150 feet high with a 5 foot lightning rod. It will be of monopole design and have space for four platforms. It will be unlit. The equipment structures for the tower will be below the level of the chain link fence. ADJOINING AND ABUTTING PROPERTIES Since the property is bordered on three sides by streets only two properties adjoin or abut the property. A chart of these properties follows: Abutting and Adjoining Properties Owner Plantation Village Inc Plantation Village Inc Tax Reference R03700-002-011-000 R03700-002-012-000 Land Use Unused Land Unused Land Zoning Residential Residential Land Size 1.8 1.83 Improvements None None Properties directly across the streets are: Across Champ Davis Across Porters Neck Across Jeanelle Moore Owner Cornelia Nixon Davis Nursing Home Forest Creek Plantation, Inc Cornelia Nixon Davis, Inc Tax Reference R03700-001-005-000 R03700-003-146-000 R03700-002-319-000 Land Use Nursing Convalescent Unused Land Unused Land Zoning Office & Institutional Residential Residential Land Size 37.45 15.84 6.51 Nearby is Plantation Village, a senior living community and Forest Creek @ Porters Neck Planation part of a larger residential development with a country club and golf course. Another golf course, Eagle Point, is also nearby. Photos of several of properties in the area are in the addenda. PART FOUR – ANALYSIS OF DATA AND CONCLUSIONS DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 11 - 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. The only adjoining or abutting properties are two vacant residential tracts owned by a senior living facility located further east. Immediately across the streets are two properties owned by the owners of the tower site or a related party. A third property immediately across the street is another vacant residential tract. The property to the north is owned by the same owner as the tower site and is 859.5 feet from the northern property boundary plus the right-pf-way of Jeanelle Moore Boulevard. The property to the west is owned by a related party. It is 258.5 feet from the tower plus the right-o-way of Champ Davis Road. The property to the south is undeveloped and is 155.1 feet from the tower plus the right-of- way of Porters Neck Road. The property to the east is 279.4 feet from the tower and is undeveloped. The area of the site where the tower will be located is heavily wooded and only the tower itself will be visible. 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 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 12 - I located a tower on 1300 Big Cypress Drive in Hanover County south of Wilmington. This tower is 147 feet in height and was built in 2009. It is unlit, of monopole design like 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 were 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, deck size, patio sizes, number of baths and fireplaces. 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 a chart on the 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 that were next closest gave an average per square foot value of $77.28 per square foot. The next 35 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 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. - 13 - 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 - 14 - 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 - 15 - 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 - 16 - 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 - 17 - 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 - 18 - 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 - 19 - 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 - 20 - $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 - 21 - 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 DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA - 22 - CONCLUSION To consider the effect of a proposed 150 foot monopole tower, I researched the New Hanover area and located a subdivision with a 147 foot tower. I located qualified sales in a subdivision that adjoins or abuts this tower 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. 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 and 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 adversely 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 proximity to work, schools, 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. . - 23 - DAVID A. SMITH, MAI, SRA DAVID A SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2007 FRONT STREET DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27705 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 24 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 25 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 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 2014 Real Estate Valuation Conference, 2014 7-Hour National USPAP Update Course, 2014 2014 Real Estate Valuation Conference, 2014 Analyzing the Effects of Environmental, 2015 7-Hour National USPAP Update Course, 2016 Online Business Practices and Ethics, 2017 Commercial Real Estate Finance, 2017 Spring 2017 Real Estate Valuation, 2017 7-Hour National USPAP Update Course, 2018 The End of Experts: Mission Battleground and the Intelligent Layperson, 2018 Ignorance Isn’t Bliss: Understanding and Investigation by a State Appraiser Regulatory Board or Agency, 2018 Advanced Land Valuation: Sound Solutions to Perplexing Problems, 2019 Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, 2019 7-Hour National USPAP Update Course, 2020 2020 Real Estate Valuation Conference, 2020 Business Practices and Ethics, 2020 OTHER SEMINARS AND COURSES: 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 26 OTHER: Durham Sheriff’s Community Advisory Board 2019 - Present Durham County Board of Equalization and Review, 2013 – Present, Current Chair Durham Citizens Police Review Board 2010- Present, Past Chair. Durham Public Schools Budget Advisory Committee, 2013 - 2018 NC Property Tax Commission, 2013 – 2017 City of Durham Audit Oversight Committee, 2002 – 2006 Durham Board of Adjustment, 1994 - 2002 Durham Planning 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: LENDING INSTITUTIONS American National Bank & Trust Company AMEX Financial BB&T Citizens National Bank CommunityOne Bank NA Fidelity Bank Live Oak Banking Company Mechanics & Farmers Bank PNC Bank RBC Bank Self-Help State Farm Bank SunTrust Bank Wells Fargo Bank MUNICIPALITIES AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES City of Durham Town of Chapel Hill Town of Hillsborough NC Department of Administration Durham County Orange County Durham Public Schools Durham Technical Community College Housing Authority of the City of Durham NCDOT Orange Water and Sewer Authority 27 Person County OTHER Allenton Management Builders of Hope BCG Properties Blanchard, Miller, Lewis & Styers Attorneys at Law Blue Cross & Blue Shield of NC Boulevard Proeprties Carolina Land Acquisitions CRC Health Corporation Development Ventures Inc. Duke Energy Durham Academy 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 LCFCU Financial Partners McDonald's USA Mt. Gilead Baptist Church Northgate Realty, LLC Property Advisory Services, Inc. Research Triangle Foundation Sehed Development Corporation Simba Management 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 28 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, and North Carolina. Properties appraised include all types of 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, equitable distribution and impact analyzes. ADDENDA DeLorme Street Atlas USA® 2013 Data use subject to license. © DeLorme. DeLorme Street Atlas USA® 2013. www.delorme.com TN MN (9.6°W) 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 mikm Scale 1 : 200,000 1" = 3.16 mi Data Zoom 10-0 Aerial New Hanover County, NC Addresses Major Roads Municipal Boundaries Real Property Owners Parcel Boundaries Dimensions ROW Dimensions Property 1/18/2021, 1:52:12 PM 0 0.03 0.060.01 mi 0 0.06 0.110.03 km 1:2,000 New Hanover County, NC NHC GIS Services !"!#$%&"’()"*%%$ !""’+,-’+,- !"#$#%&’(’)’#$#%*!( #$#%’#$+’!(’,!(’)’!’,--(,./)’*(!-#,!0’’)’.’+,-)’!,(1+-, /! 2! ! )’3(! )),,% !’/! !!/45!2--446’76’56 +05! -5! 28!+(8!0 5 6!!(!(+0/ !6!!(,/ ’!9 "28!5* ’ ’/(6*-(,’’6+("5 6!5+!,3 5 6!. *3!:,!6)!;+,!’; ,()0&+0,!)7+0,! ,2,’)72,’ ,9).’ !$%0<=450(!2--450(!*7’’7’6).’45!462--48*(! ’’ !9!+0,!76)77+0,)2,’):+,!2$$5;4$!" #$%!&’$!1"234$5!%67/"585!9":;4<48"4* )+ ,()!(’’+,-)((+.!,,)!+,!29!’ ’,!(( 28,9!+8’>%>>?>>$?>>$?>>$>$>;=*477:6:66’+,--!,3 +,!’/)*&! 6!.0)’ 6’0!!!6!!’+,-)*&.)9%<>,9>"?(9? $+//!""%<(%.,99@.,99<+.>&’()*>)!""%<(%.,99@.,99<.)?)!"(%.,999%,,)-!-!"-’)- *&-A+>-"&,’%*’:0 !5 06(5 6!!(!!(,0!’!* +,!’#7* 6’0!(5 (!(’ ’!+,!’(0’’ 0’’:0!-!0 7,’6)!’/9+,!’+,!’!’/(!+,!’’ !0,!+,!’:0 !!(,#("’>)..>>)+.))+>+),+’))+.>’>+.>’+..++.’.,.)>’+>BC4BC4BC4BC4BC4BC4BC4 ( !’/!8!%%%.%.""9%D9>9?9)9(<9)+9?B999)’9!9+’’! :(, /) 9/)//+,!’7’’//>/>/???’EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE()()()()+,!’/(+,!’/ ,’06+,!’ COVER SHEETT1NEW HANOVER COUNTY PLANNING AND LAND USEPERMIT INFORMATIONPHONE:ATTN.:230 GOVERNMENT CENTER DRIVEWILMINGTON, NC 28403(910) 798-7165KEN VAFIERDRIVING DIRECTIONSVICINITY MAPCONSULTANTNUMBER OF CARRIERS:USE:TOWER TYPE:TOWER HEIGHT:MUNICIPALITY:STATE:PROJECT SUMMARYNEW HANOVER COUNTYNORTH CAROLINAMONOPOLE TOWER150' (155' TO HIGHEST APPURTENANCE)3 PROPOSED, 1 FUTUREPROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERAND UNMANNED EQUIPMENTSITE NAME:WILMINGTON WT RELOSITE #: NC0281PROPERTY OWNERCONTACTSPHONE:ATTN.:CORNELIA NIXON DAVIS INC1011 PORTERS NECK RDWILMINGTON, NC 28411(910) 686-7195CHARLES LONGPOWER COMPANYPHONE:ATTN.: CUSTOMER SERVICEDUKE ENERGY(800) 452-2777DEVELOPERTOWERCO5000 VALLEYSTONE DR #200CARY, NC 27519ATTN: DWAYNE LYERLYFLOOD INFOSITE IS LOCATED WITHIN FEMA FLOOD MAPAREA 3720317900K DATED 08/28/2018 WITHINFLOOD ZONE X.SHEET NO. SHEET TITLET1COVER SHEET--SITE SURVEY (SHEET 1 OF 2)--SITE SURVEY (SHEET 2 OF 2)T2APPENDIXN1GENERAL NOTESC1 OVERALL PARCEL PLANC1.1 OVERALL SITE PLANC2 SITE PLANC3FENCE, GATE, AND COMPOUND DETAILSC4 SITE SIGNAGE DETAILSC5 ANTENNA AND TOWER ELEVATION DETAILSL1 LANDSCAPING PLANSHEET INDEXNEW HANOVER COUNTY SHERIFFPHONE:ATTN.:316 PRINCESS STWILMINGTON, NC 28411(910) 798-4200CUSTOMER SERVICENEW HANOVER COUNTY FIRE RESCUE STATION 14PHONE:ATTN.:8310 SHIRAZ WAYWILMINGTON, NC 28411(910) 798-7420CUSTOMER SERVICEFROM NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE: HEAD SOUTH TOWARDNC-1613/DAVIS DR 144 FT; TURN LEFT ONTO BOULDERSTONE WAY 236FT; TURN RIGHT ONTO NC-1613/DAVIS DR 0.7 MI; TURN LEFT ONTOWALDO ROOD BLVD 0.7 MI; TURN RIGHT ONTO SW CARY PKWY 5.2 MI;USE THE RIGHT LANE TO MERGE ONTO US-1 N/US-64 E VIA THE RAMPTO RALEIGH 0.2 MI; MERGE ONTO US-1 N/US-64 E 2.1 MI; USE THE RIGHT2 LANES TO TAKE EXIT 1A TO MERGE ONTO I-40 E TOWARD US-64E/BENSON/ROCKY MT 8.4 MI; KEEP RIGHT AT THE FORK TO STAY ONI-40 E, FOLLOW SIGNS FOR BENSON/WILMINGTON 115 MI; TAKE EXIT416A-416B TOWARD TOPSAIL ISLAND/NEW BERN 0.9 MI; MERGE ONTOI-140 E 04 MI; CONTINUE ONTO NC-140 4.9 MI; CONTINUE ONTO US-17N/MARKET ST 0.4 MI; TURN RIGHT ONTO FUTCH CREEK RD/MARKET ST1.3 MI; CONTINUE ONTO CHAMP DAVIS RD, DESTINATION WILL BE ONTHE LEFT 0.4 MI.WILMINGTON WT RELOSITE ADDRESS (E-911 TBD)719 CHAMP DAVIS RDWILMINGTON, NC 28411NEW HANOVER COUNTY LATITUDE: 34° 17' 30.97" NLONGITUDE: 77° 46' 08.73" WTAX/PIN #: R03700-002-002-001ZONING: R-20TOWERCO SITE ID: NC0281SITEKIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.421 FAYETTEVILLE ST, SUITE 600RALEIGH, NC 27601PHONE: (919) 653-2942ATTN.: AVERY FANNPARENT PARCEL:R03700-002-002-001ZONING:R-20 SURVEY NOTE:NORTHSCALE: 1" = 450'OVERALL PARCEL PLAN1C1OVERALLPARCEL PLANC1SITE NAME:WILMINGTON WT RELOSITE #: NC0281 NORTHSCALE: 1" = 80'OVERALL SITE PLAN1C1.1OVERALLSITE PLANC1.1SURVEY NOTE:SITE NAME:WILMINGTON WT RELOSITE #: NC0281 SCALE: 1" = 20'SITE PLAN1C2SITE PLANC2SITE NOTES:SITE NAME:WILMINGTON WT RELOSITE #: NC0281 FENCE NOTES:FENCE, GATE, ANDCOMPOUNDDETAILSC3NOT TO SCALECHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE ELEVATION1C3NOT TO SCALEMUSHROOM STOP2C3NOT TO SCALESITE COMPOUND SURFACE DETAIL3C3NOT TO SCALESECTION AT FENCE4C3SITE NAME:WILMINGTON WT RELOSITE #: NC0281 FOR ILLUSTRATIVEPURPOSES ONLY-NO SIGNATUREREQUIREDANTENNA ANDTOWER ELEVATIONDETAILSC5NOT TO SCALEMONOPOLE TOWER ELEVATION1C5NOT TO SCALEANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE2C5NOT TO SCALEANTENNA ORIENTATION PLAN3C5SITE NAME:WILMINGTON WT RELOSITE #: NC0281NOTES: PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Street Scene along Porter’s Neck Road (Property on Left) Street Scene along Champ Davis Road (Property on Right) PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Approximate View of Tower Site from Porter’s Neck Road Street Scene along Jeanelle Moore Road (Property on Right) PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Street Scene along Champ Davis Road (Property on Left) Clearing and Grading Underway on the North Side of Property PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Entrance into Senior Facility Across Champ Davis Road Entrance to Subdivision Across Porter’s Neck Road PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Wooded Property to the east of Subject Entrance into Community to the East from Jeanette Moore Road PHOTOGRAPHS OF ADJOINING AND NEARBY PROPERTY Entrance into Senior Facility Across Champ Davis Road Entrance to Subdivision Across Porter’s Neck Road PHOTOGRAPHS OF ADJOINING AND NEARBY PROPERTY Wooded Property to the east of Subject Entrance into Community to the East from Jeanette Moore Road 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: 34.117Longitude: -77.889 Structure Type: Tall Structure Status: Unknown Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Ground Elev: 19.0 feet Height Of Structure: 147.0 feetOverall 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&... PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Deer Crossing Dwellings with Tower Through Woods Deer Crossing Dwellings with Tower Through Woods PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Deer Crossing Dwellings with Tower Through Woods Deer Crossing Properties Adjacent to Cell Tower PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Cell Tower as seen from Fawn Settle Drive View of Tower Across Backyard PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT View of Tower Across Backyard Cell Tower as seen from Fawn Settle Drive PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT Cell Tower as seen from Fawn Settle Drive View of Tower Across Backyard PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT View of Tower Across Backyard View of Tower Across Backyard PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT View of Tower Across Backyard