Loading...
2014-11 November 6 2014 PBM Page 1 of 21 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board November 6, 2014 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, November 6, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Historic County Courthouse, Wilmington, NC to hold a public meeting. Planning Board Present: Staff Present: Donna Girardot, Vice Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director Lisa Mesler Ken Vafier, Planning Manager Tamara Murphy Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Anthony Prinz Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney Jordy Rawl David Weaver Absent: Chairman Ted Shipley, III Vice Chair Donna Girardot opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing. Ken Vafier led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Vice Chair Donna Girardot reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of October 2014 Planning Board Minutes Anthony Prinz made a motion to approve the October Planning Board minutes. Tamara Murphy seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to approve the October 2, 2014 Planning Board meeting minutes. Item 1: Special Use Permit Request (S-622, 11/14) – Request by Nexsen Pruet, PLLC on behalf of UNCW Endowment Fund to develop a 195 ft. tall telecommunications tower in the CREST Research Park on Marvin K. Moss Lane. The property is currently zoned R- 15, Residential District, and classified as Watershed Resource Protection Area according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Ben Andrea provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Andrea presented the following staff report: Page 2 of 21  Nexsen Pruet, PLLC, on behalf of UNCW Endowment Fund, is requesting a Special Use Permit for the development of a telecommunications tower in the CREST Research Park on Marvin K. Moss Lane.  The 52.83 acre site is located off of Masonboro Loop Road, and the area proposed for the tower site is classified as Watershed Resource Protection according to the 2006 Wilmington-New Hanover County Joint CAMA Land Use Plan.  The property currently hosts the UNCW Center for Marine Science/CREST Research Park that was originally approved by Special Use Permit in 1991 and subsequently modified in 2000, 2003, 2007, and 2010.  The development on site encompasses the development approved with the original SUP approval and modifications.  The property is currently zoned R-15, as is the majority of the area surrounding the property.  Land uses in the vicinity of the site are mostly single family residential. The large parcel to the south is currently under development for residential, and the parcels to the north of the site are undeveloped at this time.  The proposal includes a 70’ x 136’ leased area which encompasses the 195’ tall tower, equipment compounds, fencing, and a 25’ wide landscaped buffer area.  Access to the site for maintenance would be provided by a connection to Marvin K. Moss Lane.  Existing vegetation buffers the parcels to the north of the site.  Staff has been in contact with only one member of the public about the request. We have provided some information and answered questions, but have not heard any specific concerns or opposition.  Staff recommends a motion to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit request, which is supported by the four findings of fact detailed in the Staff Summary.  Staff is available to address any questions, and the petitioner is also prepared to provide a presentation. Vice Chair Girardot asked if board members had questions for staff; and hearing none, recognized the applicant. Tom Johnson of Nexsen Pruet, PLLC spoke on behalf of the applicant, American Towers, LLC and the UNCW Endowment, for the construction of the proposed 195 foot monopole wireless telecommunications tower for the marine science facility. Explaining the tower site is being built at the request of AT&T, he presented maps of existing sites that AT&T has in the area and explained why AT&T needs the coverage. He reported that subsequent to this application, AT&T had been approached by T-Mobile regarding co-location on the proposed tower. He pointed out areas on the map surrounding the proposed tower site without coverage, with outdoor coverage only, with in-building residential coverage, and with in-building commercial coverage. Mr. Johnson stated with the public dropping land line phones and relying on wireless phones to communicate, it has become more important for those signals to be able to penetrate the walls of buildings, especially at this facility, which is the site of the UNCW Center for Marine Science. Per UNCW’s request, Mr. Johnson reported that UNCW is required to have an emergency services plan under federal legislation. Part of that emergency services plan is to communicate with students and employees at UNCW in the event of an emergency. That emergency response Page 3 of 21 is done largely through text messages or other notifications on wireless devices. If there isn’t a good enough signal, that communication can’t occur. For that reason, UNCW is very supportive of locating the telecommunications tower at this facility, which currently has poor coverage. Mr. Johnson stated the tower will also provide good coverage over the water, which will benefit the large amount of boat traffic in the area, particularly the boat traffic for the Center for Marine Science. Mr. Johnson pointed out the tower facility is located on the UNCW Endowment property where the recently completed office building is located. The tower site will be adjacent to the stormwater pond related to that project. The tower is located in the middle of the compound and the square equipment shelter is to the right. A generator is planned for the site so that in the event of a loss of power the tower can remain in operation. Mr. Johnson provided photo simulations, which reflect the existing vegetation. He pointed out it will be hard to see the tower. He explained the photo simulations are done on public rights-of- way because the applicant doesn’t have permission to trespass on private property. He provided a photo which showed what the tower will actually look like, noting they purposely showed where the added antennas would be located for multiple carriers. Four carriers would be located on the tower if it is completed on this site. The AT&T antenna would be located at the top, the T- Mobile antenna would be below it, and any other carriers would be located below the T-Mobile antenna. He explained the tower does not have to be lighted because it is less than 200 feet, noting the FAA does not require lighting below that height unless the tower is located close to an airport, which it is not at this location. He reported there were only two locations in the photo simulations where the tower was visible. One of those locations is directly across Masonboro Loop Road where the tower is visible just above the trees. Mr. Johnson completed the presentation and asked that the application and the associated documents be admitted into evidence in support of their application. He acknowledged the applicant concurs with the staff’s findings and agrees to the conditions requested by staff in the staff report. He offered to answer questions from the board. Vice Chair Girardot announced that no one had signed up to speak in opposition of the request; therefore, she would close the public hearing and entertain questions from board members. Hearing no questions or comments from the board, Vice Chair Girardot read the required statement into the record: The staff concludes that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal complies with Section 63.5-1 of the zoning ordinance, as well as the Findings of Fact specified in Section 71 of the ordinance. Staff also concludes that, with the information submitted, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal is not in conflict with the management strategy for the Watershed Resource Protection land use classification or in conflict with any other policies of the CAMA Land Use Plan. Mr. Johnson has stated his agreement with staff’s findings. Page 4 of 21 The board must find the proposal does not endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the zoning ordinance, that the use will not affect the value of adjoining property, and that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. Vice Chair Girardot then entertained a motion from the board. Anthony Prinz made a motion to recommend the commissioners grant Special Use Permit S-622 and that the planning board finds it in concurrence with all the findings contained within the staff report. David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-622 as recommended in the staff report. Item 2: Special Use Permit Request (S-623, 11/14) – Request by Hellman, Yates, and Tisdale on behalf of Angela W. Steele Life Estate to develop a 150 ft. tall telecommunications tower at 6516 Murrayville Road. The property is currently zoned R- 15, Residential District, and classified as Transition Area according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Ben Andrea provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Andrea presented the following staff report:  Hellman, Yates, and Tisdale, PA, on behalf of Angela W. Steele Life Estate, is requesting a Special Use Permit for the development of a telecommunications tower at 6516 Murrayville Road.  The 7.32 acre parcel is located on the south side of Murrayville Road, east of Interstate 40 in the northern part of the county.  The area proposed for the tower site is classified as Transition.  Low to medium density residential uses exist northwest and west of the site.  The area to the southwest of the site is preserved as undeveloped open space for a residential community.  To the east of the site is a low density single family residential use with an agricultural (horse farm) accessory use.  Areas to the immediate south are undeveloped, due in part to the environmental and flood area constraints.  Areas further surrounding the site consist of medium density residential uses and undeveloped areas, in addition to Murrayville Elementary School which is to the northwest across Murrayville Road from the subject site.  The property is currently zoned R-15, as is the majority of the area surrounding the property, in addition to an R-10 district to the west of the site. Page 5 of 21  The Murrayville Road area has been subject to several telecommunication tower Special Use Permit requests, as shown on the slide.  In 2006, an SUP for a 168’ tall tower adjacent to Quail Woods was approved by the Planning Board but denied by the Board of Commissioners.  In 2009, an SUP for a 90’ tall tower on the Murrayville Elementary School site was approved, but the tower was never built because the School Board backed out of the proposal.  In 2011, an SUP for a 90’ tall tower east of Mabee Way was approved, and that tower has been constructed.  Access to the site would be from a new easement connecting to Murrayville Road. The tower is set back approximately 530’ from the road right of way.  The site plan includes the 60’ x 60’ compound area and tower site, as well as a profile of the monopole style tower design.  The landscaping plan depicts the required 25’ wide buffer outside of the compound area.  One of the accessory buildings near the tower site shelters tractors and other equipment.  Staff has been in contact with numerous people about this request Two people expressed opposition to the tower citing health concerns and others merely requested more information.  The staff summary indicated that there was a small noncompliant vegetative debris landfill was discovered in operation on the site when staff visited to post the public hearing notice sign.  Since the agenda package was prepared, staff conducted further site visits and was able to make contact with the property owner, who indicated that they would cease operation of the debris landfill and begin cleanup of the site.  The staff summary also included information that positively supports the four findings of facts required for granting a Special Use Permit.  With the positive four findings as well as the resolution of the unpermitted landfill, at this time Staff recommends a motion to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit request.  Staff is available to answer questions and the petitioner is also prepared to provide a presentation. Vice Chair Girardot inquired if the board had questions for staff. She then asked Mr. Andrea to clarify the status of the landfill cleanup and closing. Ben Andrea explained the property owner of the landfill site is working with the zoning staff toward the resolution of the landfill, which to date has not been cleaned up, but is in the process. Vice Chair Girardot asked Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman to provide guidance on the health aspect of telecommunication towers. Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman explained for a number of years federal legislation has been in place that clearly states that a local board is not able to consider testimony regarding the possible health impacts of the presence of a telecommunication tower. If the applicant has met the requirements of the FCC and those documents have been provided to the Planning staff, Page 6 of 21 which they have indicated has been done the applicant has met their burden in regard to any consideration related to health or safety concerns. Ms. Huffman explained in the past during public hearings regarding cell towers, property owners in the area have come to the podium and talked about their concern for their children’s health. She noted that was a particular issue with the cell tower in the Murrayville area that was proposed on the school property People stated concerns about their children perhaps developing some type of cancer because of the cell tower. She explained that the local boards have allowed witnesses to come to the stand and speak their piece, but clearly the law says the board cannot consider that testimony in making their decision. Vice Chair Girardot asked if there is also a prohibition on traffic being considered. Ms. Huffman stated that any special use permit is a quasi-judicial action. The board must determine four findings under the ordinance to issue a special use permit. Those findings, which are listed on the scripts distributed to board members by the attorney, are the issues regarding public health and safety, meeting the conditions of the ordinance, not substantially devaluing an adjoining property, and whether the use is in harmony with the area. In considering the evidence in making a decision about those four issues, board members of course listen to testimony from the witnesses that come forward. Ms. Huffman reported that several years ago the North Carolina legislature provided that with regard to issues related to traffic and whether the special use is going to devalue adjoining property board members are not allowed to use the testimony of a lay person in making those determinations. For example, if the board denies a special use permit because of traffic or because they feel like the special use is going to devalue adjoining property, that decision must be based on testimony from an expert such as a traffic expert or an appraiser and not on the testimony of an adjoining property owner. Vice Chair Girardot thanked Ms. Huffman; then opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Gray Styers of 1101 Haynes Street, Raleigh, NC appeared in place of Jonathan Yates of the Hellman Yates firm on behalf of the applicants. He noted he didn’t realize this was the second site that T-Mobile was trying to develop in Wilmington, but he wasn’t surprised. T-Mobile is not nearly as large as AT&T or Verizon, but is the fastest growing wireless telecommunications company over the past quarter. Although not as well known in this part of the country, T-Mobile has over 53 million customers. Of those, 10 million customers joined within the last year and 2.3 million joined within the last three months so it is a very rapidly growing wireless choice that customers now have. Mr. Styers explained in order for T-Mobile to provide coverage to its customers it must have its antennas working on its frequencies so it is looking to build out its network in this area, whether as a collocator on the tower as previously heard or on its own tower. Collocation on another tower is always T-Mobile’s first choice. Towers are nothing more than support structures for the antennas and there are stringent ordinance provisions that govern the support structures. He stated the proposal is a 7.25 acres tract zoned R-15 owned by Angela Steele, who is also present tonight to answer questions. There is existing vegetation to the west, south, and southeast on Ms. Steele’s property and also extending further south, further southeast and to the west. Picture B of Page 7 of 21 the staff report shows mature trees completely around Ms. Steele’s property, a driveway from Murrayville Road, and the tractor sheds. The proposed tower will be located in the middle of the site. Mr. Styers stated the ordinance has a number of very stringent requirements including setback requirements. The tower setback from Murrayville Road is 228 feet, which is a little more than 2/3 of a football field past Ms. Steele’s house. From the tower to the creek to the south is 624 feet, which is further than two football fields to the south. As shown in an earlier photo, all of that area consists of vegetated woods. The landscaping plan was presented earlier by staff. The site will be landscaped around the fence inside the area on Ms. Steele’s property that is again surrounded by completely mature trees on her property. Mr. Styers presented a drawing reflecting T-Mobile’s plans and needs for the site, noting they currently have two sites on I-40. The more northwest site is on top of the water tank. He was unsure of the location of the southern site, but explained there is less coverage as you get off I- 40. He explained the yellow indicates sporadic outdoor coverage which is unreliable for making and receiving telephone calls. The light green indicates coverage may work inside a vehicle and if you were traveling and had a hands free device in your vehicle you could probably continue on the lightest green; however, you would not be able to make calls inside your home. As Mr. Johnson explained earlier, more and more people are now replacing their land line telephones with wireless phones. Only with the second shade of green, which reflects the Negative 98 to Negative 90 coverage, would you be able to get consistent coverage inside your home so the primary coverage for this site is in fact the residents of Murrayville. T-Mobile’s goal is to provide in-home coverage for this very nice area which has a lot of homes and where the level of coverage is indicated by yellow or the lightest green on the map which doesn’t get in-building coverage. The secondary goal is to improve coverage on the US-17 extension or I-140, the road to the north over to US-17. With this site in place with the orientation of the sectors as proposed, there would be strong in-building coverage throughout the Murrayville area providing coverage to the residents of Murrayville, as well as connecting further to the east. He was certain T-Mobile was seeking a site up Highway 17 that will tie in for better vehicular coverage. Mr. Styers commented that photo simulations from four locations were contained in the agenda packets. He noted the tower is fairly visible above the tree line from the location where the trees are cut. From the other sites, the photographer struggled to find where the tower was visible between the trees. There were places where it was visible, but once you get to other locations off Murrayville Road right in front of the site quite frankly it is just in the distance within the trees. Mr. Styers reported the applicant has provided a structural analysis by a registered engineer regarding the strength of the tower and provided confirmation by N.C. Registered Engineer Samuel Curtis of the compliance with all the FCC safety and health regulations so we certainly meet all of the standards. Mr. Curtis’ resume which is extensive in the industry was attached to the application. T-Mobile has filed the FAA Form 7460 as required by the ordinance. He noted the applicant cannot and does not build a structure unless it is cleared by the FAA as being no hazard to navigation. T-Mobile has met each requirement of the application. In regard to the four criteria identified by the county attorney, the proposal certainly will not materially endanger the public health and safety if located where proposed. Mr. Styers stated he was unsure how many Page 8 of 21 tower sites are located in New Hanover County; however, in his home county they are currently approaching 500 cell towers. Cell towers are part of living in any city or suburban area. He has been representing cell tower companies for twenty years. While anything can be found on the internet, the issue has been studied and the scientific community is pretty much in unanimity that there are no health or safety impacts from this type of facility. It does meet all the required conditions and specifications as identified in the staff report. In this location, the proposed tower is completely surrounded by trees on all sides with very limited visibility and is only 150 feet tall. Most of the monopoles in New Hanover County are 195 feet tell like the first application heard earlier in the evening. That is not by coincidence; it is because if a monopole is less than 200 feet, it is not required to be lit and that is a standard monopole height. Monopoles above 200 feet in height become very expensive and customized to develop. He reiterated the proposed T- Mobile monopole will be shorter than most other monopole towers at only 150 feet. Finally, the proposal will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development. As previously identified, there are many, many towers already in other locations throughout New Hanover County, which are certainly part of the modern landscape with the services that are expected and needed. He commented that his children will never have a landline phone. The cell phone is the only form of communication they will ever have for voice and text. Mr. Styers completed his presentation, noting T-Mobile tries to find good sites and they feel this is a good site. He expressed appreciation for the board’s consideration of their application. He acknowledged there were some people with strong feelings about the tower, noting the tower opposition signs posted in the neighborhood. He stated he didn’t expect that and regretted that. He then offered to answer any questions the board may have. Vice Chair Girardot opened the rebuttal portion of the public hearing. John Wessell, a Wilmington attorney, spoke on behalf of Dr. Melissa Stoll who is the adjacent property owner to the east and owns six acres. He stated Dr. Stoll is strongly opposed to the special use permit for the construction of the cell tower. Mr. Wessell offered three points. First, it is incumbent on the applicant to satisfy the four findings of fact for the special use permit. It is not the role of the opposition to put evidence on against that necessarily. It is first the applicant’s job to put on evidence to show that those four findings are satisfied. He stated he had seen no evidence presented by the applicant in their presentation or in their application to indicate whether the tower would have an impact on the value of the adjoining property. Second, the applicant is required to demonstrate that the proposed use is consistent and in harmony with the surrounding property. The opposition strongly believes that is not the case. The Murrayville Road area is a predominantly residential area. Mr. Wessell stated he would not argue with the presentation that the lots owned by Ms. Steele and his client, Dr. Stoll, are predominantly wooded lots, but noted they tend to be an exception and not a rule on Murrayville Road. The area is almost exclusively single family and some multi-family residential. He stated this use is simply not appropriate in the middle of that neighborhood. Third, there are four cell towers already in the immediate vicinity of this location as shown on the application submitted by T-Mobile. One of the requirements that the applicant has is to demonstrate under the ordinance is that they cannot collocate on another tower. The Page 9 of 21 applicant’s representative clearly demonstrated as to the impact this tower will have on the improved service in the area; however, he hadn’t seen anything in the agenda package or presented tonight that says the applicant can’t locate somewhere else. That is a requirement the applicant has to meet under the ordinance. Mr. Wessell then asked his client, Dr. Stoll, to speak briefly in regard to those three concerns. Dr. Melissa Stoll stated she currently resides elsewhere, but purchased the property at 6532 Murrayville Road with the intent to develop that property as not only a private residence, but also to establish a horse riding stable, which is why she obtained the agricultural application prior to purchasing the property. The goal is to develop the property as a private residence and as a place where they can pair girls in the foster care system or that have emotional needs and try to give them a location where they can ride horses in Wilmington, which is necessary here. Dr. Stoll pointed out the proposed photos the applicant provided are from quite a distance. If those same photos were taken near the location, the 150 foot tower would absolutely be seen towering at least 50 feet above the mature tree line there. She didn’t know how that would be in harmony with the area or blend with the area. Dr. Stoll reported there are 22 cell towers in a four mile radius, which certainly have to have antenna space available. Her efforts to develop that property and that kind of program at that location is not going to be desirable if there is a structure that is an eyesore and can clearly be seen above the tree lines. Dr. Stoll pointed out the applicant had shown an aerial image and stated the tower site was surrounded by tree line owned strictly by Mrs. Steele; however, she purchased the property in August and still has a stake survey on that property. She would argue that a large portion of those mature trees are actually located on her property. Although she has no intention of tearing them down, there is absolutely no guarantee that the tree line will stay long term; thereby, making that tower much more of a visual obstruction. She expressed appreciation for the board’s consideration of her concerns and explained for her, the property is residential. She commented she had searched long and hard in both Pender County and New Hanover County for that exact location for the development, as well as the programs she would like to establish there. Dr. Stoll stated she felt that allowing the special use permit would be setting precedent to take down some of the beautiful property that we have in New Hanover County that could be developed residentially. Dave Spetrino of Plantation Building Corporation at 314 Walnut Street stated he was very involved in the site acquisition and now in the actual design and planning of the compound. The property is quite an impressive re-development being done by Dr. Stoll, with not only a single family residential structure, but also a high level of outdoor spaces, including not just the stables and riding circle, but also recreational pieces like a swimming pool. He stated as someone who has been in this profession all of his adult life, it is very challenging and difficult to not acknowledge that any type of visual pollution, billboard or tower, directly adjacent to and upon your property isn’t something that devalues the property very quickly. It is something you may be able to mitigate around, but you can catch the shadow or shade or the light in your eye line. He commented the site is stupendous. There are very few sites in our area with this kind of topography, mature trees, and acreage. It is very exciting to be able to redevelop this site. He doesn’t want to see this project not happen and not bring new people and vibrancy into the area because of something that hurts everybody. Page 10 of 21 Shari Cutting, a realtor and broker with Coldwell Banker Seacoast Advantage Realty, stated she is an award winning realtor, who has been passionate about real estate for over 25 years. She is highly respected by her clients, peers, and industry leaders, and is considered an expert in real estate. She was recently elected to serve in 2015 on the Wilmington Regional Realtors Association Board of Directors. She stated as an expert in the real estate industry, she was present to recommend the Planning Board deny the application for special use permit requesting to install a 150 foot tall telecommunications tower at 6516 Murrayville Road. She explained it is without a shadow of a doubt the tower will negatively impact hundreds of property owners. They would now become victims to an unhealthy potential marketability of their properties which they do not deserve and a very unsightly tower that is unfriendly to the landscape. She asked if the board was aware that over 17,000 people reside within one mile of the proposed telecommunications tower. She noted the severest impact is to those property owners that live within 500 feet of 6516 Murrayville Road. Property owners will be unfairly impacted and unable to receive the same potential increase in values compared to someone who is not affected by a telecommunications tower. She asked them to join together as a community to protect the values of over 17,000 innocent people. In closing, Ms. Cutting asked the board to vote no on the special use permit request and leave a legacy they can be proud of today, tomorrow, and in the years to come. She reiterated she would recommend a no vote on the request and compel the applicant to find a suitable area for the use. She thanked the board for their time. Charlie Skipper, owner of 6539 Murrayville Road located across the road from the proposed tower, stated opposition to the tower, noting land values would go down. They don’t know whether the tower does or doesn’t cause cancer because it is still up in the air. He had read many articles concerning the issue. He cited an instance of a child living next to a telephone tower who developed a cancerous tumor in South Carolina, where he also owns property and noted five people had died right around that tower. Whether the tower had anything to do with their deaths can’t be proved. Mr. Skipper asked the board to give consideration to the school nearby and the children in the neighborhood rather than the almighty dollar. He felt they wanted the rent off the tower. He asked why they couldn’t put the tower somewhere else where the land is not valuable and isn't owned by them. He pointed out the retired people in the neighborhood who had lived there all their lives. He asked the board to not approve the proposed tower. Mr. Skipper then asked if the trash dump found there had been approved by the State of North Carolina. He felt the State needed to get involved and condemn the land to make sure it’s filled in appropriately and dug out. He stated he would turn the issue over to the State the next day to get something done if the county hadn’t checked on it. Ben Andrea stated he had personally not seen authorization or permit issued by the State for the dump. The property owner did indicate an approval was indicated by the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The issue was brought up in this hearing because the landfill was not approved by the County so regardless of whether or not it was approved by the state; it still remains an issue that needs to be resolved by County Zoning. He agreed that it may potentially be an issue with the State also; however, he couldn’t attest to that at this time. Page 11 of 21 Mr. Skipper stated the county needs to get the dump straight instead of approving it like that. He wanted the State involved because trash shouldn’t have been dumped there in a residential area. The landfill should have had a permit from the beginning. Mr. Weaver recommended the board not consider Mr. Skipper’s statements about the health impacts of the radio transmission tower. While he respects Mr. Skipper, if anyone else brings up discussion about the health impacts of the tower the board should not allow them to present it because to listen to it is to consider it. Matthew Brenneman of 6622 Creek Ridge Road located on the other side of the proposed site stated three of the four main criteria had not been met by the applicant. In regard to the pictures in the applicant materials, he didn’t believe the photographer couldn’t find a way to take a picture that portrayed where the tower is going to go. The site is on his running loop and the way the trees are every single picture seems like the tower is right in the tree line. You can see exactly where the tower is going to be located. One of the proposed pictures is actually outside of the selected area that they want to put a tower in. He also didn’t feel they had made any attempt to collocate on another tower. He was not aware there was a site on Mabee Way, but according to his research there is a new T-Mobile tower at 6222 Gordon Road. None of the coverages are shown on the coverage map presented to the board and he found that ridiculous. There is also protected land designated on the map as Conservation area, as well as a portion of the parcel that is designated as Urban. It is not all a Transition area. Based on his measurements, the fall zone for the tower falls directly into a Conservation area. Mr. Brenneman stated he found that to be inconsistent with the Land Use Plan for New Hanover County and Wilmington. Jake Wessell of 6615 Creek Ridge Road stated he is a professional engineer in the State of North Carolina and is employed with Catlin Engineers and Scientists. He is a civic engineer and also practices geotechnical and environmental engineering. Noting his comments were reflected in many of the comments previously heard, he addressed the geotechnical and environmental concerns. He understood there had not been a subsurface exploration on the proposed site to determine the soil strength profile for support of a tower foundation. That is probably later in the detailed design phase. The drawings provided in the applicant’s package didn’t present any type of anticipated foundation. Based on his fifteen years of experience, he stated these towers are typically either on a large concrete mat, reinforced mat, a shallow type foundation, typically with some type of soil anchors to prevent overturning from large wind loads consistent with hurricanes that we get in this area. The other type of foundation is a deep foundation with a large diameter drilled shaft typically six feet in diameter or so. There is one on Market Street at the overpass at College Road. One of the risks involved with these deep foundations and the mat type shallow foundations is the soil characteristics which are not discussed at all. There was a report within the applicant’s package which addressed the structural integrity of the tower itself. While it is great that the tower is extremely strong, the steel and the connections and the buckling factor of safety don’t matter if the foundation can’t support the tower. With the knowledge that there was a vegetative debris landfill in the area, he felt it was probably quite unknown the extent and depth of the vegetative debris and other materials might have been deposited there. Mr. J. Wessell felt that may present some rather serious concerns during foundation construction. He stated these are concerns the board may need to consider when approving the tower request so maybe the item should be pushed back to the later date before the board makes a decision. Page 12 of 21 Vice Chair Girardot opened the rebuttal portion of the public hearing. Mr. Styers stated the county attorney can vouch that R-15 is a zoning district in which towers can be located if they meet all of the conditions and requirements of the ordinance. This tower meets those requirements so there is a presumption under the law that this use is in harmony absent evidence to the contrary. He wished they could build a tower in the ocean or in the desert where no one lives, but that would defeat the purpose. He humbly argued that towers need to be located, have been located, and will continue to be located in residential areas because they provide a residential service. Given the residential nature of the service, given there is no commercial property whatsoever anywhere in the area and the map that staff provided shows no area other than R-15 and R-10 in the area anywhere, there is no commercial area in the location anywhere else, if the policy were to exclude these towers from residentially zoned areas, you would be in essence be excluding service in this area. The research rings show where these towers need to be located because the low power, low emission nature of the technology is very, very tight. We are looking at basically about a half mile radius search ring. There were no towers in that search ring at all. We found the 7.25 acres property exactly where it can fit to hand off the signal to the adjacent sites. He noted he understands and admires Dr. Stoll’s efforts to develop a riding school and they had talked about the Murrayville Elementary School across the road. It is often at places where people gather where you actually need to have service. It is actually at schools and those types of locations where the cell phone service is needed. Not only is the tower not incompatible, but it is compatible and needed at locations and facilities such as the one proposed by Ms. Stoll. Towers can’t just be put anywhere. The telecommunications companies don’t have the power of eminent domain. They must find a willing landowner that has a parcel or property large enough to meet the setback requirements. It is extremely difficult in this area to find a parcel large enough that meets the setback requirements, can comply with the ordinance and is owned by a willing landowner, in addition to the technological constraints such as where the signal hands off and where the tower fits into the network or grid. Mr. Styers noted in regard to the realtor’s statement about hundreds of property owners located within 500 feet and the criticism about the pictures, the only houses within 500 feet of the tower would be Ms. Steele’s house and the home Ms. Stoll owns, but doesn’t live in. There are no other houses within 500 feet. Mr. Styers contended there are not thousands, hundreds or even dozens of homes that will ever be able to see the tower from their property. He felt confident enough having been out to the site that he offered to conduct another balloon test at 150 feet during the next month when leaves are coming off the trees and invite staff and residents via letters, posted signs, etc. to see the visibility demonstrated by the balloon test. He stated he was confident the site is an excellent site in light of the fact that the tower is only visible from Ms. Stoll’s property. He couldn’t deny that Ms. Stoll has the one piece of property where the tower will be visible. He stated belief that he could demonstrate in greater detail with maybe 14-24 pictures that this is an excellent site. Mr. Styers commented in light of the factual dispute as to whether the tower can be seen or not, he felt it would be appropriate to defer the application. He stated he would be willing to come back next month with a lot more pictures and invite the neighbors to a balloon test. He asked the board to consider continuing the application if they felt there was a question as to the adverse impacts and to how visible the tower will be in the neighborhood. Mr. Styers again offered to answer questions from the board. Page 13 of 21 Vice Chair Girardot asked if the applicant was asking for a continuance. Mr. Styers confirmed he was asking for a continuance and stated he thought he could make his case about the visibility and the impact if the item were continued another month. John Wessell stated he believed the applicant had sufficient opportunity to prepare their case and respectfully asked the board to move forward with a decision. Assistant County Attorney Sharon Huffman provided guidance as requested by Vice Chair Girardot. Mr. Styers stated they had met the requirements to provide photo simulations and noted he was asking to go above and beyond what is required to demonstrate the points and testimony. In a quasi-judicial proceeding, it is the evidence that should determine the outcome and that evidence could be better illustrated with more pictures that are more than what the ordinance requires. Assistant County Attorney Huffman suggested at this point the Chairman might proceed with the five minute opposition rebuttal period and then close the hearing. At that point, the board can consider the applicant’s request for a continuance as indicated in number 5 on the script. It will then be the board’s decision whether it is appropriate to continue the matter. It is typical to ask the applicant if they wish to ask for a continuance and there is no right or wrong reason for doing that. Vice Chair Girardot opened the opposition rebuttal period. During opposition rebuttal, John Wessell stated it is most unusual for an applicant to request a continuance at the conclusion of the hearing. It doesn’t happen very often. It is the obligation of the applicant to present evidence to the board to satisfy them that the four required findings in the ordinance are met. As mentioned earlier, evidence regarding the devaluation of the property adjacent to the proposed location has not been presented by the applicant. In regard to the question about the height of the tower and where it can be seen, that is only one matter that affects the suitability of it in the neighborhood. These folks have talked about other issues. They don’t want to see it; they don’t want it around them for whatever reason. They believe that putting the tower in the middle of this residential area is simply inappropriate. Finally, the applicant has not met their obligation to demonstrate that they have attempted and cannot collocate anywhere else. They have not presented any evidence on that issue in their application or presentation. For those reasons, Mr. Wessell didn’t believe the applicant had satisfied the requirements of the ordinance such that the planning board could recommend approval to the board of county commissioners. Mr. Wessell respectfully asked the board to recommend denial of the special use permit and move forward with the matter. He felt the applicant had had their chance to make their presentation and had chosen not to do it. Mr. Jake Wessell stated he had failed to state his address earlier which is 6615 Creek Ridge Road, Lot 42. He noted it is probably the closest of all the lots shown on the map. He commented when the leaves fall in the winter he will look out on his back deck and look straight at that tower, which will be visible right through these deciduous trees that don’t have leaves anymore. Page 14 of 21 He would like to have a picture that showed that there will be a glaring tower right in his backyard. He stated he would like to lean on the expert real estate witness that spoke earlier to tell him what kind of property value he might have when perspective buyers come to look at his house. Mr. Brenneman added he would like to reinforce the fact that it is not in harmony with the community to have this tower in his backyard, in your backyard, and in your front yard, especially when there are other locations so close by, including a brand new tower by the same company just down the road. He felt the board only had one choice to deny the request and not move it forward. Vice Chair Girardot closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened the board discussion. Anthony Prinz asked the applicant to speak to the issue of collocation and the efforts made on behalf of T-Mobile to collocate as opposed to constructing a new tower. Mr. Styers explained there had been other applications in the area that had been denied or never built. There is one tower to the north of the site about half a mile away, but because of FAA restrictions it could only be built at 90 feet. There is typically a 10-12 feet separation between antenna arrays. There is a rad center of about 78 feet at that site. It is to the north further away from our coverage objective, which was to be in a residential area to provide service to the homes. Given the fact the tower was further to the north and their engineers indicated they needed a 150 feet tower location to reach their objective and not half of that height, the site was eliminated. These sites are going to be 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 miles apart if they are at the 150 to 195 feet range. If we built 300 feet lit towers, we wouldn’t have to have them so close, but because they are low power and are limited in both capacity and coverage means they have to be located very close to each other in some people’s perspectives. There is a ½ mile search ring. That search ring was provided in the information presented and submitted in the application. There is no site in the area that meets the needed criteria. The American Tower site was evaluated. It is the only tower location in the area, but is just too short. He reiterated that T-Mobile collocates wherever they can because it is cheaper and quicker. That is the reason T-Mobile is collocating on the site recommended earlier by the board. We can and will collocate because of the cost, effort, and expense to build a new tower which no one really wants to go through. At Mr. Prinz’s request, Mr. Styers stated the applicant did evaluate other options and there were no others in the area to meet T-Mobile’s coverage needs. . Mr. Prinz then asked whether the coverage or capacity was available and considered on the new tower constructed on Gordon Road and was included on the analysis. Mr. Styers stated he was under oath and wouldn’t testify to anything he wasn’t aware of firsthand and wasn’t confident was the truth. He explained he didn’t know the area well enough to know how far the Gordon Road tower is from the proposed site and didn’t have any firsthand information to convey to the board. Page 15 of 21 Mr. Styers commented if there are sites in the area that staff could direct them to that were perhaps missed, they were willing to conduct a more exhaustive search and more thorough analysis; however, they have looked at all the sites their engineers indicated were possibilities. There was just the one tower at only 90 feet and they would be the second carrier on it. No other possibilities were communicated to them. David Weaver commented in regard to the presentation by the realtor about the negative impacts on the property values, he didn’t believe the applicant had presented any information from a qualified appraiser or realtor regarding the fact there would be no impact on the value of the property. Mr. Styers admitted he did not have the information with him at the meeting and did not have expert testimony on that issue. He explained he could present reports for other sites that are suburban in residential areas where there has been no demonstrated effects on property values. He noted in looking at the thousands of sites that have been built in North Carolina in the last twenty years and the tax assessment of values by assessors and sales and re-sales of homes, he has yet to see sales data which demonstrates a decline in property value. He did not have an expert witness present to address that issue. Mr. Weaver noted there are instances where a tower is built to resemble a tree. He acknowledged there aren’t many 150 feet tall trees, but inquired if the applicant had considered that as a means to reduce the aesthetic impact. Mr. Styers stated they had not considered that option prior to the hearing. He noted they had recently agreed to build a 150 foot tree tower in Chatham County at the request of the real estate appraiser for their board. They are not that uncommon in the Charlotte market and there are several in Greensboro. He also just had one approved at the Governor’s Village area south of Chapel Hill. He commented that the industry is typically willing to consider that type of tower in certain circumstances. Mr. Weaver offered the following comments for board discussion. When looking at the four conditions despite the suggestions by the engineer about the possible about foundation safety, he felt that the proposal would not endanger the public health or safety. The proposal also seemed to meet all the required conditions and specifications of the second finding. He hadn’t heard any evidence to the contrary. In regard to the third finding, he didn’t feel the applicant had presented any expert opinion about the impact or lack of impact on value of adjoining property. Because of that lack of information from the applicant and the possibility that they might be able to mitigate the aesthetic impact by going with the construction of a tower that looks like a tree, and because the applicant has requested the item be continued to the next meeting, he would like to recommend that the item be continued for one meeting to allow the applicant to bring back information specific to those issues with a request that they have one more shot and that would be it. Vice Chair Girardot read the required statement into the record. Page 16 of 21 Staff concludes the applicant has demonstrated the proposal complies with Section 63.5-1 of the zoning ordinance, as well as the findings of fact specified in Section 71 of the ordinance. Staff also concludes that with the information submitted, the applicant has demonstrated the proposal is consistent with the management strategy for the Transition land use classification and is not in conflict with other policies of the land use plan. She asked if the applicant agreed with the findings of fact. Mr. Styers confirmed the applicant agreed with the findings of fact presented by staff. Vice Chair Girardot continued the required statement for the record. The board must find the proposal does not endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved and the use meets the required conditions and specifications in the zoning ordinance and the use will not affect the value of adjoining property, and that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. A special use permit which is denied may only be resubmitted at the discretion of the Planning Director. Vice Chair Girardot advised Mr. Styers that he may ask to continue the request and asked if he would like to proceed to a vote. Mr. Styers asked that the item be continued for one meeting to allow the applicant to do an initial balloon test and try to address the issues the board addressed earlier in the meeting. David Weaver made a motion to continue the item for one meeting with the specific request that the applicant bring back expert information concerning the impact on the value of adjoining property and also information on whether or not the applicant would be willing to construct the tower so that it would like a tree. In response to a question from Mr. Wessell regarding their opportunity to provide additional input, Vice Chair Girardot explained there would be another public hearing where they would be able to voice their opinions. During discussion, Anthony Prinz commented he was not inclined to second that particular motion because it includes a request for the applicant to come back with a design that looks like a tree; however, he was supportive of the continuance request. He noted there is new information on the table on both sides and an additional month would provide them time to provide the information necessary for the board to deliberate and make a very responsible decision. David Weaver offered an amended motion to continue the item for one meeting. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to continue Special Use Permit S-623 to the December 4, 2014 Planning Board meeting. Page 17 of 21 Item 3: Rezoning Request (Z-933M, 11/14) – Request by Design Solutions on behalf of AMJB Properties, LLC to rezone a 6.9 acre parcel from B-2 Conditional Zoning District to B-2 Conditional Zoning District to develop a self-storage and recreational vehicle and boat trailer storage facility at 5112 Carolina Beach Road. The subject property is classified as Urban and Conservation Area according to the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. Ken Vafier provided information pertaining to location, land classification, access, level of service and zoning; and showed maps, aerials, video, and photographs of the property and the surrounding area. Mr. Vafier presented the following staff report:  Cindee Wolf of Design Solutions is applying on behalf of AMJB Properties, LLC for a rezoning of 6.9 acres from CZD B-2, Highway Business District, to CZD B-2, Highway Business Conditional Zoning District, the purpose of which is to provide a major modification to a previously approved conditional zoning request. The Planning Board considered and approved an expansion to the existing Monkey Junction Mini Storage Facility at the June 5, 2014 meeting.  The subject property is located in the southern portion of the county along the 5100 block of Carolina Beach Road, approximately 0.65 miles south of Monkey Junction.  The site is mostly classified as Urban by the Land Use Plan, with some Conservation Area classification near the rear of the property. The project should have minimal to no direct impact to the conservation areas.  The site features 200’ of frontage along Carolina Beach Road, and is currently undeveloped aside from an existing residential structure and a small accessory building.  Existing land uses in the area consist of a modular home park to the southeast of the property, multifamily residential across Carolina Beach Road called Willoughby Park and a variety of commercial uses to the southeast around Monkey Junction.  Directly adjacent to the property to the northwest is Monkey Junction Self Storage, the existing business that seeks to expand onto the subject property with this rezoning request.  The level of service of Carolina Beach Road is considered an “F” in the vicinity of the site, with a volume to capacity ratio of 1.03. This information is based on traffic counts performed by the WMPO last August.  Existing zoning in the area includes areas of both conventional and conditional B-2 zoning. Across Carolina Beach Road from the site is multifamily zoning within the City’s jurisdiction.  Areas of R-10 and conditional R-10 is within the vicinity of the site. The current zoning of the property is R-15, as well as other areas within the vicinity of the site.  The petitioner is seeking a major modification to a project previously approved by the Board of Commissioners at their July 2014 meeting.  This plan depicts the requested modification, which eliminates a 10,000 square foot specialty retail area and two 21,000 sf climate controlled storage buildings and replaces them with enclosed RV and boat trailer storage areas. The current proposal also changes internal traffic circulation and eliminates a driveway to Carolina Beach Road. Page 18 of 21  An additional access point to the storage areas would stem from the existing Archmil Way, which parallels the northwestern property boundary line.  There is a current residential structure.  Across the street is a drive-through convenience store currently under development as a result of the approval of a SUP in 2012.  160 adjacent property owners were notified by mail about tonight’s public hearing, and a sign was posted on the property advertising the hearing.  Additionally, a community meeting was held by the petitioner on October 9, but no members of the public attended. Therefore, no changes were made to the petition as a result of the meeting.  Staff did not receive any inquiries about the rezoning request.  In summary, staff supports this rezoning request, finding it consistent with the zoning ordinance and supported by several policies in the Land Use Plan. Staff feels that the revised proposal, through this major modification, remains consistent with the previous rezoning and the surrounding community, and thus recommends approval of the request.  Staff opines the proposal is not in conflict with any policies within the Land Use Plan or provisions in the Zoning Ordinance.  Staff is available to address any questions from the board. Hearing no questions from the board, Vice Chair Donna Girardot opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Cindee Wolf spoke on behalf of the applicant, AMJB Properties, LLC. She explained the owners had taken a look at the productivity they wanted to provide and determined that the retail center out front was not a big desire or need for them at this point; therefore, they felt that eliminating it in favor of taking away an extra driveway onto Carolina Beach Road and also the trip generation that is inherent more with commercial uses and retail uses than the storage made the most sense. She acknowledged that the proposal was enough of a modification of the plan to come back before the board. In regard to the other things important to the proposal, the architectural style, the landscaping, and all of the aesthetic features of what is currently Monkey Junction Self Storage will continue. For those reasons, she felt it would be fairly seamless as far as how the proposed expansion will continue to mimic the aspect of what is currently there. Mr. Wolf offered to answer any questions the board may have regarding the small change in the product they are providing. Seeing no one present to speak in opposition of the proposal, Vice Chair Girardot closed the public hearing and opened discussion by the board. Vice Chair Girardot asked if the open side of the three-sided boat, trailer, and RV storage would be open toward the trailer park. Ms. Wolf confirmed the open side of the three-sided boat, trailer, and RV storage would be open toward the trailer park. In response to Vice Chair Girardot’s question about trees being removed, Ms. Wolf explained the trees had not been removed along the twenty foot buffer yard, which was left intact but may have Page 19 of 21 been under brushed as required. The applicant will be required to maintain the opacity of the buffer at the six foot height within the entire twenty feet. Vice Chair Girardot inquired what type of fence would be installed between the mobile home park and this property. Ms. Wolf stated a chain link fence would be installed for security purposes; however, the twenty foot buffer will be fully landscaped as required with the triple row of evergreen vegetation in addition to the remaining trees. Initially, the old plan reflected the back of the building on that twenty foot line. Now, the buildings are located further from the property boundary. The twenty foot buffer is maintained, but now there is a circular drive around it. In response to concerns expressed by Vice Chair Girardot regarding the view from the mobile home park, Ms. Wolf confirmed that the view from the mobile home park would not look directly at the RV’s, trailers, and boats, but would be buffered by a very thick landscape as required. Hearing no other questions, Vice Chair Girardot stated staff concludes the proposal is consistent with the Urban land use classification and does not conflict with any goal or policy within the Land Use Plan. She inquired if Ms. Wolf agreed with the staff findings and the proposed conditions. Ms. Wolf confirmed the applicant agreed with the staff findings and the proposed conditions. Vice Chair Girardot stated if the rezoning is denied, a new application may only be submitted within twelve months of the denial if there is a substantial change in the original petition for rezoning and asked if the applicant wished to proceed. Ms. Wolf confirmed the applicant wished to proceed to a vote. Vice Chair Girardot entertained a motion from the board. Anthony Prinz offered to make a motion. After some discussion, Assistant County Attorney Huffman suggested Mr. Prinz refer to staff’s suggested motion on Page 5 of the staff summary report and if it met his approval read it verbatim. She explained that in a recent court case in the western part of the state a rezoning was set aside by the North Carolina Appellate Court because the motion made did not include the particulars listed here. For that reason, staff will try diligently to have the Planning Board and the County Commissioners give the particulars that are set out here so that no rezoning is set aside by the court. Anthony Prinz made a motion that the Planning Board find that this request for a zoning map amendment of 6.89 acres from CZD B-2, Conditional Zoning District Highway Business, to CZD B-2, Conditional Zoning District Highway Business as described is: Page 20 of 21 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the “Urban” land use classification in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan because the “Urban” classification allows for intensive development and redevelopment of existing urban areas. The subject site is along a major thoroughfare and in an area of focused urbanization of the county, and best suited for non-residential uses. The rezoning proposal supports Policy 4.3 of the CAMA Land Use Plan by providing commercial services near the markets that they serve while not diminishing the quality of life of nearby residential uses. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest to rezone 6.89 acres from CZD B-2, Conditional Zoning District Highway Business, to CZD B-2, Conditional Zoning District Highway Business because the character of the area is urbanized and many similar and compatible uses exist adjacent to and nearby the subject site. David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of Rezoning Request Z-933M. Technical Review Committee Reports (October) Ben Andrea presented the following TRC Report: The County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) met once during the month of October and reviewed two projects. 6435 Murrayville Subdivision:  R-15 zoning  12 lots over 4.74 acres  Public water and sewer is provided  A private road will stem from Murrayville Road The TRC approved the project with a 5-0 vote, with the following conditions: 1) No gates, obstructions, or traffic calming devices; 2) Street names need to be verified; 3) NCDOT driveway permit is necessary; 4) Utility easement remain unobstructed; 5) The private road cross-section be modified to meet 45 foot right-of-way requirement. Adams Landing Subdivision - Sidewalk Waiver Request Adams Landing was approved by conditional rezoning and also by the TRC last year. The project is located in the southern portion of the county. The developer requested a sidewalk waiver due to some design constraints working with the CFPUA and because they are working with NCDOT in a rare instance to provide public roads. They requested a sidewalk waiver for the sidewalks around the cul-de-sac bulbs in the project, but sidewalks do remain along the main street in the project. The TRC voted 5- 0 to approve the sidewalk waiver request. Page 21 of 21 Vice Chair Girardot announced the next planning board meeting would be held at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 4, 2014. With no further business, Vice Chair Girardot entertained a motion to adjourn. Tamara Murphy made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.