Loading...
2015-01 January 8 2015 PBM Page 1 of 20 Minutes of the New Hanover County Planning Board January 8, 2015 The New Hanover County Planning Board met Thursday, January 8, 2015 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: Edward “Ted” Shipley, III, Chairman Chris O’Keefe, Planning/Inspections Director Donna Girardot, Vice Chair Ben Andrea, Current Planning & Zoning Supervisor Anthony Prinz Sam Burgess, Senior Planner Jordy Rawl Sharon Huffman, Assistant County Attorney David Weaver Absent: Lisa Mesler Tamara Murphy Chairman Ted Shipley opened the meeting and welcomed the audience to the public hearing. Sam Burgess led the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Ted Shipley reviewed the procedures for the meeting. Approval of December 2014 Planning Board Minutes Vice Chair Donna Girardot made a motion to approve the December Planning Board minutes. Jordy Rawl seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to approve the December 4, 2014 Planning Board meeting minutes. Item 1: 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. This item has been tabled since the November 6, 2014 Planning Board meeting. Chairman Shipley asked those wishing to speak to present new evidence and comments during the second public hearing on the item. He inquired if any member of the planning board wished to expand the time limit for presentations. Hearing none, he recognized staff. 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 20  This case was originally heard at the November 6, 2014 Planning Board meeting and continued until tonight.  At the November meeting, presentations were given by Staff, Mr. Gray Styers, who represents the applicant, and several people speaking in opposition to the request.  There was substantial discussion by the Planning Board, and the case was continued at the request of the petitioner in order to gather more information in two main topic areas, which were: 1) The effect the tower will have on the property values in the surrounding community; and 2) The visual impact of the tower. Questions were also raised as to whether there were other towers in the area and whether they could be sufficient for collocation. Additional information will be presented tonight on these issues.  Staff will briefly present the request and analysis summary, as well as information about nearby towers.  Mr. Styers is prepared with a presentation, which will include photo simulations based on the balloon test performed on December 8th.  Additionally, Mr. Wessell is prepared with a presentation in opposition to the request.  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.  Existing land use in this area of the county is largely single family residential. Some undeveloped parcels surround the site, and Murrayville Elementary is to the north of the site. Areas to the immediate south are undeveloped, due in part to the environmental and flood area constraints. 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 a horse farm.  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.  At the November Planning Board meeting, there was discussion about what other towers are in the vicinity of the site. Mr. Andrea presented a map of the northern area of the county reflecting the locations of telecommunications towers and Special Use Permit requests, as well as the towers approved by the Board of County Commissioners with conditions and those towers denied by the Commissioners. The map also represented the proposed tower height at each site and the date of the County Commissioners’ actions.  There were two 90’ tall towers approved near the subject site. One was approved to be built on the Murrayville Elementary School property, but was never built.  The other site is on Mabee Way and was built.  The two approved 90’ tower sites are shown, as well as the site proposed for a 168’ tall tower that was recommended for approval by the Planning Board but denied by the Board of Commissioners in 2006.  Mr. Andrea presented the overall proposed site plan layout, noting 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. He also reviewed a drawing of 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. Page 3 of 20  The overall site plan overlaid on aerial imagery shows how the site proposal fits into the parcel and surroundings. The tower itself is approximately 162 feet from the side parcel lines.  A sign was posted on the property and adjacent property owners were notified by mail regarding the public hearing.  Staff received communications in opposition to the request, including 45 letters, one email, and a copy of an online petition. Mr. Andrea concluded the presentation and offered to answer questions from the board. Chairman Shipley asked if board members had questions for staff. Vice Chair Girardot inquired how many signatures were listed on the petition. Mr. Andrea reported a copy of the petition was sent on January 6th and included four signatures. Ms. Stoll also sent an email the following day indicating she had a petition with 141 signatures, but he had not yet received that petition. David Weaver asked why the site located northeast of the proposed tower was denied in 2006. Mr. Andrea explained the special use permit for the site northeast of the proposed tower was recommended for approval by the planning board, but denied by the Board of Commissioners. He read for the record the board order for that denial. “The County Commissioners do not find the telecommunication tower would be in harmony with the residential neighborhood adjacent to which it would be placed. The board is not satisfied that the tower would not impose an undue visual hardship upon these residents nor that there is not a location at which the tower could be placed which would not impose such a hardship and/or create such a disharmonious situation.” Jordy Rawl inquired if there was any specific reason why the 90 foot tower approved on the Murrayville Elementary School site on November 2, 2009 was never constructed. Mr. Andrea explained it was his understanding that the negotiation between the County school board and the tower applicant ended so the tower was never built. He noted that the board of education initiated the conversation to not build the tower. Mr. Rawl asked if the New Hanover County Board of Education actually owned that property when the telecommunications company applied to have a tower erected there. Mr. Andrea confirmed the New Hanover County Board of Education owned the property when the applicant applied to erect a telecommunications tower on the site. He reported because that tower was not erected due to the failed negotiations, which led to the proposal in 2011, which was approved for the tower site just behind the one that was not built. Chairman Shipley opened the public hearing and recognized the applicant. Page 4 of 20 Gray Styers of 1116 Haynes Street, Raleigh, NC and an attorney with Styers and Kemerait stated he represented the applicant. He noted he was personally familiar with each of the previously discussed sites and offered to answer any questions the board may have. In response to a question from Chairman Shipley, Mr. Styers explained that Hellman Yates is from Charleston, South Carolina and is not licensed in North Carolina; therefore, he was serving as North Carolina counsel for the applicants due to the quasi-judicial nature of the public hearing. Mr. Styers stated the board had been well oriented to the site by Mr. Andrea. He explained the tower is 228 feet from Murrayville Road and is more than tower height from all property lines. A copy of the Radio Frequency Certification on T-Mobile letterhead was provided to board members. He introduced the Radio Frequency Engineer for T-Mobile, Mr. Moe Shaw, who was present to answer technical questions regarding the need for this tower. The radio frequency certification was provided by Senior RF Deployment Manager Mark Osborne, who concluded there are no other collocation opportunities in this entire area. They have evaluated all tall structures given the objectives of this site. In the coverage maps behind that certification, they have specifically looked at the possibility of collocating on the 90 foot tower. Because it already has AT&T at the top location, they would have to be at the second location. The reason the tower is only 90 feet high is because of FAA restrictions due to the airport. At 75 feet, you are barely above the tree line and there is no appreciable benefit of putting a collocation at that tower. The analysis indicates that collocating on that tower would present no benefit whatsoever. Based upon the certification of T-Mobile by their radio frequency engineer, this site is necessary and needed to meet the coverage objectives. He reviewed the coverage objectives and T-Mobile’s current coverage. There are two antennas at this location already, one of which is on top of a water tank. As stated during the American Tower presentation on behalf of AT&T at the November meeting, T-Mobile is collocating on that tower. T-Mobile is collocating wherever it can on tall structures, on support line structures, and on other towers, but there are no other towers of any sufficient height in this entire area. The yellow area on the map indicates no appreciable coverage or signal strength. The light green indicates coverage may be available outside your house, but won’t be very dependable. The darker green area is what they are looking for to provide in-building and in-car coverage. With this site at this location, T-Mobile goes from this limited amount of coverage to in-car coverage along I-40 at this location and extending out from there, as well as reliable in-building coverage for the neighborhood in this area. He noted more folks are relying upon their wireless phones in their homes rather than on land lines. It is this area that will be served by this tower. He stated while some may argue that the tower isn’t appropriate because it is near homes, he would argue that the tower is needed because there are homes that need coverage and do not have it at this location. Per the certification letter, the engineers of T-Mobile engineers have evaluated all tall structures in the search area of our coverage needs and concluded that a new tower structure as proposed is absolutely necessary to provide the coverage in this area. There is no alternative. He reported when the first tower to the northeast was denied, AT&T had no coverage in the area whatsoever until they decided they could live with the 90 foot tower built in 2011 because there was no place AT&T could go in the interim. Page 5 of 20 Mr. Styers stated in response to a question asked at the last meeting regarding whether they would consider the possibility of putting a mono-pine at this location, they asked the folks at T- Mobile and Branch about that possibility. He introduced Blake Hooper, Vice President of Branch Communications, which would be the owner and responsible for construction of the tower; and the Project Manager, Kevin Lee, of T-Mobile. Mr. Lee has worked with Mr. Hooper and others at T-Mobile and they have agreed they would be willing to have the antennas placed within a stealth mono-pine with limbs such as the structure shown on the photo submitted with the report. Otherwise, these coverage objectives cannot be achieved by other higher liked alternatives under the County’s ordinance. Mr. Styers stated many may be familiar with the appearance of the disguised stealth pine tree tower. He presented an elevation drawing by Stealth Towers of the type of structure that could be constructed at this location and an illustration of a typical structure. A number of these structures are now located in Mecklenburg, Wake, and Durham counties. He had one approved in Chatham County in the recent past. Mr. Styers explained these structures are more expensive to construct and maintain, but the applicant recognizes there are appropriate locations where this is an alternative and felt the mono-pine pole was an alternative to present based upon Mr. Weaver’s question at the last meeting. Mr. Styers reported one change had occurred in the proposal in that the site is no longer a T- Mobile site. It is now a T-Mobile plus Verizon Wireless site. The applicant received an application from Verizon on November 24, 2014 to collocate on the tower. Verizon does not have good coverage in this area so when they heard about this proposal moving forward they submitted their collocation application. That information has been shared with Mr. Andrea. Mr. Styers presented a copy that communication and the completed application for Verizon to go on the second location on the tower at a height of 140 feet. He reported there is the capability on the mono-pine structure for a second and third antenna. Therefore, he is making the request on behalf of T-Mobile and Verizon, which also recognizes there were no structures in this area and is excited about this proposed tower moving forward, which would provide coverage for both T- Mobile and Verizon. Mr. Styers stated testimony was heard at the previous public hearing that there would be hundreds and hundreds of homes that would see this tower. There is no better way to find out the truth than to fly a large colored blimp at the height of 150 feet, which is the highest point on the tower, and see where it can and can’t be seen from above the tree line. The winter is the best time of year to do it, when there are no leaves on the trees. He noted they sometimes don’t have the luxury of doing it in the winter, but in this instance they could. When the arrangements were made, he contacted Mr. Wessell and asked him to inform his clients that the balloon test would occur on December 18, 2014. Mr. Styers also told his clients to take pictures from everywhere in the entire area where the balloon is visible. His clients took 23 pictures, which were presented to the board in the report. The pictures were taken at 23 locations. He stated the tower can be seen above the tree line from one point because you are looking over the top of this house which has cleared trees. It can also be seen from this point looking down the driveway. The tower can be seen in the area in front of Ms. Stoll’s house because there are no trees in her front yard of substantial size. The tower can also be seen on a private road and from another residence because there is a fairly open field there. It can be seen at the stables, from an open field, and on New Hanover Road until you get closer to the tower and then there are trees in the foreground. Page 6 of 20 Otherwise, from all of the pictures, the tower is below the tree line and behind existing trees and vegetation at all the other locations except the ones noted. Mr. Styers then addressed real estate values and asked Haywood Newkirk of the Clontz Newkirk Real Estate Group to come forward to explain the real estate impact analysis prepared for the tower site. The analysis was also provided to the planning board members. Haywood Newkirk of 1403 Airlie Road in Wilmington stated he is an MAI in Wilmington, North Carolina and had done an analysis to determine if the proposed tower would have a negative impact on property values in the area. He briefly went through the report, which included a transmittal letter, identification, several maps of the subject property, and photos they had taken themselves during the balloon test. There were three different photos which generally match up with the analysis previously seen. There were also photos of the proposed tower style. After the pictures of the tower, he was charged with measuring the impact of the communication tower on residential values in the real estate market. In order to do that, he looked at similar properties in the area. Mr. Newkirk quickly reviewed the report due to time constraints, noting they had reviewed four similar subdivisions. 1. The Park at Willowick (Located off Masonboro Loop Road): He pointed out on the maps the red area is in proximity to the tower and blue area is the surrounding area. There were 44 sales within the red area and 120 sales outside in the blue area. The blue area is much bigger so there will be a lot more sales in that area. The average price per square foot in the red area was $102 and the average price per square foot in the blue was $106, but the interesting thing about this neighborhood is that The Park at Willowick is the nicest, newest, and highest priced subdivision in the neighborhood and it is located right next to the cell tower. He noted the price per square foot analysis is a little misleading because the nicest, biggest, newest subdivision was built next to the cell tower. The other interesting item is related to “days on market”, where you see consistently throughout the analysis that properties within close proximity to the cell tower sold in about a third of the amount of time as those properties did away from the cell tower. 2. Deer Crossing (Located in the southern New Hanover County): There were 34 sales within the red area in close proximity and 155 sales in the blue surrounding area. The time frame is over the last couple of years. The size of the blue area is significantly bigger than the red area. The interesting thing about Deer Crossing is that sales within the red area sold for $111 per square foot, while outside the cell tower area sales were $106 per square foot so actually the closer the properties were to the cell tower, the higher the price per square foot. In July of 2013, 1001 Deer Hill Road, which is located right in front of the cell tower, was the highest price per square foot anyone had ever paid in that subdivision at $141 per square foot. 3. Gordon Woods (Located in the northern part of the county): This subdivision is in relative proximity to the subject property. Gordon Woods is an older neighborhood with some re-sales. There were 19 sales within the red area and 414 sales in the blue area. This is a very active area where the subject property is located. Interestingly, the price per square foot within the red area and blue area is almost identical. One is $107 per square foot and the other is $108 per square foot. He stated they actually dialed it Page 7 of 20 down tighter to the street and the cul-de-sacs right next to the cell tower. The sales they were able to track over the last two years were all at $106 per square foot inside the area and outside the area so they show a consistency right next to the cell tower. Once again, the “days on market” was consistently lower as well. 4. Old Chimney (Located in the Tidalwalk area in the southern part of the county): No details provided due to time constraints. Chairman Shipley asked Mr. Newkirk to conclude his presentation, noting it could be continued during the five minute rebuttal period. Mr. Newkirk stated in conclusion based upon substantial market data analyzed during the assignment, it was his professional opinion that the proposed tower along Murrayville Road will have no adverse effect upon or substantially injure the value or marketability of the adjoining, abutting, or surrounding residential properties. Chairman Shipley opened the opposition portion of the hearing. John Wessell, a Wilmington n attorney with offices at 107 N. Second Street in Wilmington, stated he represented Dr. Melissa Stoll, owner of the tract of land immediately east of the tract on which the cell tower is proposed to be located. He presented an affidavit signed by Dr. Stoll, including exhibits and a copy of the online petition containing 141 electronic entries, not signatures. He noted the board is aware that the applicant is obligated to satisfy all four requirements set forth in the county ordinance before they can recommend approval of the petition or permit to the county commissioners. He stated Ms. Cutting would speak in regard to the impact on the value of the surrounding property, while he would speak briefly to the collocation issues. He commented he did not have the information presented regarding T- Mobile’s position before tonight. He would address some related issues. He would also speak to the issue of whether or not this tower is in harmony with the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be located, noting there were many neighbors who wanted to share their beliefs on whether this tower is appropriate for this neighborhood. Mr. Wessell stated the T-Mobile website indicates that for the majority of the Murrayville Road area where this property is located the coverage is as follows: Voice and high speed data coverage is good and voice and 3G coverage is satisfactory. That information was obtained from the site within the last two weeks. In review of a map reflecting towers in the immediate vicinity, he pointed out the proposed cell tower location, the existing cell tower #1 to the north, which is the 90 foot tower previously addressed, and the two towers to the south on Gordon Road. He reported Ms. Stoll’s affidavit contains information indicating there is availability on these towers. He commented he didn’t have any technical information to refute the T-Mobile representative’s statement that it simply won’t work for them. He pointed out the area is predominantly a single family residential area,, and property is available in the vicinity of the proposed tower that is not developed as residential property located to the east, as well as property adjacent to I-40, and property to the north where the existing 90 foot tower that simply won’t work is located. He didn’t believe it was accurate to suggest this is the only possible location for this tower that will work and reiterated there are other open areas available that are not in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Page 8 of 20 Mr. Wessell stated in regard to whether or not the proposal is in harmony with the neighborhood because that is one of the findings that the applicant is obligated to satisfy. This tower is going to be 150 feet tall. This is predominantly a single family residential area. The houses in this area are approximately thirty to forty feet high so this tower is going to be approximately four times higher than the majority of the structures that currently exist in this area. Mr. Wessell stated in the affidavit provided by Dr. Stoll, most of the trees are in the vicinity of about one hundred feet in height. This tower is going to exceed the height of the majority of trees by about fifty feet. Ms. Stoll makes an interesting point in the affidavit that she located information indicating that the PPD building in downtown Wilmington, which is a very large structure on the river, is 186 feet tall. If that’s the case, this tower is going to be 36 feet shorter than the PPD building. That gives you an idea about how tall the proposed tower is. Mr. Wessell explained they also had some photographs. He provided an explanation of how they did those pictures in order to provide an understanding of how they came to have the pictures he presented. Mr. Styers very kindly and generously called him as he had asked him to do and let him know they were going to be out there. When the balloon was flying, Ms. Stoll and her neighbors went out there and took some pictures. They took those pictures to LS3P Architects, which superimposed in those pictures a cell tower. The top of the cell tower was the top of the balloon, which made sense, as that was the height to which the cell tower would go. Mr. Wessell presented those pictures for the board’s review, apologizing for not having a map reflecting the locations where the pictures were taken. He was unable to obtain a map until earlier that day. The pictures were taken from various viewpoints. The first picture was taken from Murrayville Road looking at the property owned by the applicant. He pointed out the house owned by the applicant, noting the tower can be seen in the background looking south. The next photograph was taken from Dr. Stoll’s property, where she intends to build a house if she goes forward with this. The photo is looking to the west at a point just to the east of the cell tower site. The next photo was back on Murrayville Road in front of the Stoll’s property. The special use sign posted there can be seen. He noted the road that leads into the illegal dump that was apparently operated on this site in the past, looking from the north to the south right off Murrayville Road. Next was a picture of Brittany Horse Farm, a small horse farm located to the east of the property and just to the east of Ms. Stoll’s property. The tower can readily been seen in the background. Another picture was taken from the north to the south across the road back off of Murrayville Road to some extent. Another photo was taken on Mabee Way, which leads to Murrayville Elementary School from Murrayville Road, looking from the north to the south. Another photo was also on the northern side. That property is to the east of the school site and is looking south again. One photo showed the house on Dr. Stoll’s property looking basically from the north in a southwesterly direction. Dr. Stoll’s property again is immediately east of the tract in question where the tower is proposed to go. New Haven is in Brookside Gardens, a subdivision just to the west of the property off of Murrayville Road. 1311 Shenandoah is located south of the property in a single family subdivision. The photo was taken there looking from the south to the north and again you can see the tower there. The final photo was taken from Dr. Stoll’s property looking across to the property owned by the Steele family, where the tower is going to be located. The trees shown there are on Dr. Stoll’s property. Mr. Wessell stated they had altered the photograph with Photoshop to show what it would look like if those trees were no Page 9 of 20 longer there as a result of a storm or were cut down for some reason. He explained these images were inserted in the photos based on the height of the balloon as it was presented. They believe these photos demonstrate that the tower is simply not appropriate for this residential area. It is higher than any of the other structures, the neighbors are opposed to it, it’s not in harmony with the neighborhood and they don’t believe that final requirement that the applicant is required to meet has been satisfied. Mr. Wessell stated he had pointed out the open space that is available elsewhere for the tower, as well as the other towers that are available. Of course, they say they can’t use those other towers, but there are others there. It seems more a situation where this site works for them real well. He assumed they got an acceptable financial arrangement on it and they just want to put it there. It doesn’t seem to matter what the neighbors think. Mr. Wessell concluded his presentation, noting there were others that wished to speak who may not have the opportunity to do so. He asked the people in the audience who were in opposition to the proposed cell tower to stand up. Shari Cutting spoke in opposition to the request, noting she had worked as a realtor for over twenty five years. She shared the following facts to encourage the board to recommend denial of the special use permit application to install a telecommunications tower at 6516 Murrayville Road. Since the last meeting she had located market and sales studies from industry experts. She reported that Camilla West, a graduate of Columbia University with an MBA in Business Administration, completed a study called “How Cell Towers Impact Property Values”. The purpose of the study was to determine how a potential buyer’s decision making process would be affected. Her findings were clear. 79%, buyers in her study would never purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower. This same institute completed another study in June 2014 and found 94% of homebuyers are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna. Two additional studies were conducted by Sandy Bond and Koki Lang, respectively, on the effect of cell phone towers on property in the neighborhood. Their sales analysis was conducted over a six year period and the results prove there would be a 21% reduction in the actual sales price of a property if a cell tower were in close proximity. Dr. Stole would have never purchased this property next to the property if she had known the threat of a cell tower being installed next door in an R-15 residential zoning was even possible. In closing, Ms. Cutting stated she had given her professional opinion that the cell tower would negatively impact marketability and the value of Dr. Stoll’s property and surrounding properties. She provided data reference to four studies, one completed as recently as June 2014, that clearly conclude that cell towers negatively impact the marketability and value of properties in close proximity to cell towers. She has submitted compelling testimony of the negative impact the cell tower would have on Dr. Stoll’s property and the feasibility of future development; and therefore, respectfully requested the board recommend denial of the application to the Board of Commissioners. Matthew Brenneman spoke in opposition, stating he lived approximately 1,300 feet from the proposed site. There are currently three cell phone towers erected within a 1-1/2 mile radius of his home. One of those is the Gordon Woods tower mentioned in the appraisal analysis. The appraiser mentioned that they reviewed sales for the last two years in that area and made Page 10 of 20 determinations based upon that. That tower has not been erected for two years yet. It was placed on that site in the fourth quarter of 2013, so it’s only been there for five or six quarters depending on the timeline there. He commented his address is 6622 Creek Ridge Road and his cell phone reception is great. His internet cell phone connectivity is faster than his cable internet currently and he is a Verizon customer. His 911 service works efficiently. He stated he has used it, his wife has used it and his neighbors have used it. They are not in need of any further enhanced 911 or cell phone service in their area to the extent that they should bear such a visual burden. He reiterated there are three cell phone towers within a 1-1/2 mile radius of his home. The proposed tower only offers the greater good to their area of an incremental service increase and easy money for one of their neighbors while the rest of the residents are asked to live in its shadow. He did not believe it fits nor belongs in this area and did not think it was in harmony with the surrounding residential landscape. Mr. Brenneman asked the board to deny the special use permit application. Chairman Shipley opened the rebuttal period of the public hearing. Gray Styers asked if the board would be willing to move the applicant’s rebuttal period to the end of the rebuttal period in order to address opposition rebuttal. He noted he has the burden of proof and thought it would be appropriate and had spoken to the county attorney about that possibility. Since there are so many others who have not had a chance to speak who signed up, he suggested it might be appropriate for the opponents to be allowed to continue to speak for the next five minutes and then allow him to have the rebuttal afterward. Chairman Shipley asked for a vote from the board to approve a change in the order for the public hearing. Anthony Prinz stated he didn’t see the value in changing the process mid-stream. The board follows the same process for every public hearing. The applicant has had his fifteen minutes; the opposition has had their fifteen minutes. He felt they should follow through with the normal process of the applicant’s rebuttal and then the opposition rebuttal. Mr. Weaver commented it was his understanding that a rebuttal is supposed to address specifics of previously given testimony so he would question whether new evidence should be presented after the applicant has had his only chance for rebuttal. Chairman Shipley stated the applicant’s rebuttal will cover any number of issues, primarily the four issues that will be considered. We take a broad definition of rebuttal. He was sure it would have a lot to do with element #4, but saw no reason to actually limit it. If there is something that falls outside of what has already been discussed and someone goes off on a tangent, he would try to limit that person’s comments, but a lot of issues have been raised by the opposition regarding the evidence presented, specifically with regard to how the tower will look from people’s properties. You might delve into that and how the opponents have addressed those issues. Gray Styers noted Mr. Wessell had put up a map of other towers in the area. T-Mobile is collocated on one of those towers. For the 4G LTE system, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc. has to put these tower sites close to each other. T-Mobile already has coverage on I-40 and is on the tower Mr. Wessell has identified. It is expensive to put those antennas up so T-Mobile is not going to Page 11 of 20 put an antenna up where they don’t need it or where they already have coverage. They are looking to provide the maximum amount of coverage for their customers with the fewest number of antennas, plain and simple, and they are not going to put up antennas if they don’t need them. Mr. Styers reiterated that T-Mobile needs the coverage in this area because they don’t have it. Mr. Styers commented it was interesting what academics may publish in journal in the abstract about property values, but North Carolina state law says for a board to make a determination in a quasi-judicial hearing you need data of actual sales and relevant market. He didn’t know what markets they had studied and didn’t have the opportunity to cross examine the reports that were cited or the authors of those reports. Those reports are not relevant evidence before the board. The only evidence the board has is the actual data of actual sales that were identified in New Hanover County by the appraiser. That evidence shows there is no impact on property values. Mr. Styers made a third point in regard to the large amount of folks present in opposition to the cell tower who don’t feel there should be cell towers on residential property. That is a decision for the County Commissioners. They wrote the County ordinance that says cell towers can be located in residential R-15 areas so long as they meet a long list of criteria. Mr. Styers stated the applicant had met all of the criteria and the specific requirements as verified by Mr. Andrea. Once the specific requirements are met, the case law, as your county attorney would acknowledge and agree, says that it is presumptively harmonious with the area because the County Commissioners decided that R-15 is a proper district for this type of use if it can meet all the specific requirements. Mr. Styers commended Mr. Wessell for the superimposed pictures. He felt they were accurate and did a good job. If those pictures are sufficient evidence that cell towers can’t be built in this particular area, we are in essence prohibiting cell phone coverage for most of the people in this town, this area, and this state. In every town and every suburban county, you will find exactly those types of views and exactly those types of neighborhoods. Obviously Mr. Wessell didn’t know until we got clearance from the folks at T-Mobile, given the opposition and the resources that T-Mobile is willing to invest because this is an important site, that they were willing to go to the mono-pine structure which is deemed by many to blend in to the background, especially if it’s behind trees in the forefront. Each picture shown by Mr. Wessell was in an area where the foreground trees had been cut. The 23 pictures submitted as evidence are very consistent in the report. Given the nature of the infrastructure, one of the letters said the public interest is X, Y, and Z, but public interest is the infrastructure that people rely on every day in their work and in their personal lives. The infrastructure for the 21st century is wireless towers and this is a good location. The applicant has done everything they have been asked to do and would ask the board to approve the application having satisfied every single point in the ordinance. He offered to answer any questions the board may have. Chairman Shipley opened the opposition rebuttal period. John Wessell stated in regard to the comment Mr. Styers made about the board’s decision essentially blocking towers all over North Carolina, he wanted to make the board aware that the City of Asheville denied a permit on basically the same evidence presented tonight in a case that Page 12 of 20 went to the North Carolina Board of Appeals in either 2000 or 2002 and the Board of Appeals upheld the decision of the City of Asheville. It says it does not harmonize with the neighborhood. Ms. Catherine Smith, a representative of Brookside Gardens and president of the homeowners association with 89 homes, stated they had their annual meeting last month. They are a small, friendly neighborhood and she hadn’t heard one positive statement about the proposed cell tower. She pointed out everybody is concerned about the cell tower fitting into the harmonious setting that their little neighborhood has in Wilmington. The pictures provided for New Haven Drive, which is the one street that Brookside Gardens is involved in, indicate the cell tower will be very visible from their neighborhood. She felt even if they go to the mono-pine example the cell tower is going to stick out like a sore thumb over the trees. For those reasons, she was opposed to the cell tower in their residential area and expressed hope the board would deny the petitioner’s request. Mr. Peter Aranasenka of 1313 Brookside Gardens Drive stated he wouldn’t discuss the aesthetics or whether the tower is an eyesore or whether it will hurt their property values. He shared his and the other residents’ concerns about the health effects. He commented that no one had said a single word about whether there would be radiation to affect the citizens or what it will do to a fetus of a pregnant mother that lives in the area or result in genetic defects. He asked what happens to the corona effect. He also inquired how a storm would affect the 150 foot tower as opposed to a 90 foot tower and whether the limbs would go flying off in a big wind and kill someone. He asked if the tower would change traffic patterns. He stated they may be a small community, but his health is more important to him no matter where he lives. He would very much like to hear from the proponents about the health effects and if they can assuage his fears. Chairman Shipley thanked Mr. Aranasenka and reminded the board they were not to consider health effects in the case of a cell tower. County Attorney Sharon Huffman advised the board that they could not consider health effects. Charlie Skipper thanked the board for allowing him to speak again. He noted some of the photos showed his property and how the tower would look from his property. He stated they still oppose the tower and would appreciate it if the board would consider not approving it and allow the residents there to live like they should and not be disturbed. He also asked the board to consider the human effect the tower will have on the residents. Chairman Shipley closed the public hearing and opened the planning board discussion period. Anthony Prinz stated in order for the board to make a decision to recommend or deny a special use permit, they must consider the four findings of fact. He inquired if Federal or State law prohibited the board from considering the first finding of fact in regard to health impacts. Attorney Sharon Huffman confirmed that state and federal law prohibits the board from considering the suggested health effects that witnesses attempt to provide evidence for when determining that this finding has not been met, with the exception of potential public safety concerns for which someone was able to provide evidence. Page 13 of 20 Mr. Prinz suggested the example of a traffic concern such as an unsafe driveway, etc. Chairman Shipley agreed, but noted a traffic expert would need to present that type of evidence. He commented that no evidence on traffic had been provided. Anthony Prinz stated the evidence provided by the applicant and in the staff report supports the finding that the applicant meets all the conditions of the ordinance as required in Finding #2. Mr. Prinz felt Finding #3 was a wash because the peer review journal evidence presented by Ms. Cutting indicates it does have an impact on property values, while the applicant has provided a signed and sealed document that states the tower will not have an impact on property values. Anthony Prinz stated he was concerned about Finding #4, which addresses whether the tower is in harmony with the area. Staff has pointed out in their report that the proposal is consistent with the Land Use Plan, which is one of component of that finding. The question is whether it is in harmony with the neighborhood. He questioned if the proposal was in harmony with the neighborhood when 141 people have signed a petition opposing it. Mr. Prinz recommended the board focus on that particular issue unless other board members had concerns about other findings. David Weaver asked about the possible public safety aspects, noting one gentleman had raised a question about the possibility of shards flying off and hurting someone. He was aware that the typical monopole tower is constructed and engineered to a very high degree. He inquired whether there was any validity to his concerns and if it was possible for one of the fake pine branches to fly off and become a safety hazard. Gray Styers explained there was now a good bit of evidence, but not as much as on monopoles. More pine tree poles are being constructed and they have to meet the same building standards as any other structure, including all the appurtenances, such as those limbs. The limbs are bolted onto the monopole and are more securely fastened than natural limbs or natural timber. We’ve all been through hurricanes here in North Carolina. He has been through two hurricanes himself. There is flying debris from structures and trees. In this case the fake limbs are actually fastened with metal to the pole and they are actually heavier and will fall more straight down than perhaps limbs of lesser density. He commented he had never in his 20 years of experience heard of a monopole having problems in a storm. He stated they have a pretty good safety record with tornados in Oklahoma. They also have experience in the Midwest and have never seen a problem. Chairman Shipley told the board that Mr. Styers’ answers are not to be considered as he is not an expert in the construction of poles or physics. Mr. Styers agreed, but noted he had worked in the industry for almost twenty years and had handled the zoning for almost 800 towers and has personal knowledge of lots of mono-pine trees so he was simply testifying as to his first-hand knowledge of experience with mono-pine trees in storms of which he does have first-hand knowledge. He said he was not speaking as a physicist or engineer, but as someone very qualified based on his experience in the industry. Page 14 of 20 Mr. Weaver commented in regard to qualifications, Mr. Newkirk had stated he is a certified appraiser in North Carolina and asked Ms. Cutting if she was also a certified appraiser. Ms. Cutting remarked when you have an appraisal done, there is a difference between an appraisal and actual marketability and actual sales price. Many times, those numbers are skewed when you look at it from an appraisal point. When you are out there every day in the field working it, selling it, and closing deals, and look at the numbers what isn’t shown on the appraisal side is how many times the property was on the market, how many months, if it changed to another real estate company, etc. Even though it may sell for a certain amount of time, a lot of times the history of it could have been on the market for a year in four different brokers’ hands. She understood why he did price per square foot, but she had studies that have been performed over a six year period over several places across the country by very qualified people and she thought the evidence presented to the board was fair and square. Chairman Shipley clarified that he appreciated Ms. Cutting being a witness today and the evidence she had put before the board, but none of her testimony was specific to New Hanover County, nor was it based on anything to do with square footage in this county. He inquired if it was correct that her testimony was based on general observations from articles she had read. Ms. Cutting said yes, but she thought the one point he brought up was the actual sales data, but the biggest, most important thing is how the marketability is. Marketability and sales are two different things and people lean away from cell phones and high tensile power lines when it comes to buying and selling homes. It’s just the way it is. She has worked it every day and has been doing real estate for a living since she was 29 years old. Vice Chair Girardot asked Mr. Styers if this cell tower would be the first coastal pine tree. Mr. Styers stated Mr. Yates does a lot of work in South Carolina for the industry. Noting he could only speak to his experience, they’ve been more prevalent in the last five or six years, but he was not aware of another pine tree tower that he had personally been involved with east of Fayetteville. He stated there are very stringent zoning requirements around the Charleston and Isle of Palms area, and in Florida, they are fairly prevalent. He stated he couldn’t testify to what he is not first-hand familiar with, but he does know the structures are common in Florida and the zoning restrictions in the Charleston-Isle of Palms area have resulted in a number of mono-pine towers, but he has no first-hand knowledge of those. Vice Chair Girardot noted her question was relevant to hurricanes and she was familiar with the mono-pines in the Raleigh area. Jordy Rawl pointed out that although the mono-pine cell towers may have a certain conformity with the aesthetics that surround them, he thought it was important to take into consideration that you are working with a contiguous skyline there with the tops of the trees and he didn’t think the average height of the pine trees in that area was in excess of 100 to 150 feet. Therefore, you would, in effect, have something that does stick out, that doesn’t create a harmonious look with what is in its surroundings. Page 15 of 20 Chairman Shipley agreed Mr. Rawl made a good point. To build upon that, he commented they were obviously not here deciding unless they were to insert some specification that it is or is not to be the pine tree shaped cell tower. He noted he had driven by the one located off Highway 45 and felt it was pretty silly looking. Mr. O’Keefe stated the mono-pine tower could be a condition if the board desired. Chairman Shipley stated if the board did wish to debate that issue, they should probably put it into a separate motion as to whether or not it is to be the pine tree tower type. That should be considered by the board eventually after the conclusion of debate. Mr. Rawl stated to see it come to the forefront of the discussion that it is a potential alternative to help solidify this tower being erected. David Weaver stated he had limited his earlier comments to questions. He stated he had come to the meeting tonight after reviewing the application material thinking that this was not going to be a good project, but quite frankly, after listening to the evidence presented by the applicant, had learned that T-Mobile feels they need this tower and is not building it on a whim, Verizon has apparently said they would also like to be a part of the tower, and there is a potential for a third party to also collocate on the tower. Maybe his sense of aesthetics is much lower than a lot of people’s, but he doesn’t have a problem with the way this pine tree type cell tower would look in the area. I think that kind of feeling to a great extent is backed up by the very specific real estate appraisal information that was provided by the applicant that indicated there really wasn’t an impact on residential value due to close proximity to a cell tower in New Hanover County. While it may be different in other areas where the studies were done, he didn’t see any evidence to the contrary here. Chairman Shipley commented he lives in the city in an older neighborhood and they have power lines everywhere. I don’t know when if ever they will get buried. They are going to be there probably after he’s old and they are ugly, but it’s something you come to expect whenever you live in the city in an older neighborhood and have trees everywhere. When you live out in the county, you expect when you buy a home these days the power lines and utilities to be located underground, but occasionally there may be something unsightly like a cell tower. That’s the unsightly thing you have to live with when you live out in the county. Folks can’t be too surprised there may be a cell tower spring up if you live outside the city limits. That point has to be made. Second, with regard to evidence, I think the only evidence we can consider with regard to home valuations is Mr. Newkirk’s, which seems to indicate there is no conclusive evidence that home values would go down. It certainly can’t be said they would go up, but the evidence that has been presented by the expert shows the property values wouldn’t go down. Chairman Shipley entertained additional comments or a motion from the board members. Anthony Prinz pointed out when the board initially heard this case; it was after another cell tower special use permit request that went through with zero opposition. . There was no petition and nobody present speaking against the tower so it was very easy for the board to find in favor of Finding #4 that the tower was in harmony. In this particular case, there is a lot of opposition. Page 16 of 20 Many people who don’t feel the proposed tower is in harmony. Second, he asked Mr. Andrea to read the 2006 finding for the determination by the Board of Commissioners. He commented he felt the Commissioners very clearly spoke to the fact that that cell tower was not in harmony in a very similar type of situation. Mr. Andrea read from the County Commissioners order for the denial of the special use permit for the tower in 2005. “The County Commissioners do not find the telecommunication tower would be in harmony with the residential neighborhood adjacent to which it would be placed. The board is not satisfied that the tower would not impose an undue visual hardship upon these residents, not that there is not a location at which the tower could be placed which would not impose such a hardship and/or create such a disharmonious situation”. Donna Girardot stated she recognized the need for meeting the demands for the service to the public and it is her hope that locations can be found to meet those needs. She also commended the applicant for coming forward with the pine tree concept, but she and Mr. Prinz may agree because she felt strongly about the request not being in harmony with the surrounding area and the visual hardship on the residents, which resonated with her. For those reasons, she felt she could not support the proposed tower request. Jordy Rawl commented with the ongoing demand for cell coverage in the area, it appears there isn’t a tremendous amount of open space to be considered. He inquired if that was going to be something to expect in the future as demand continues to increase and areas of construction become limited. Is this something to be considered as an item that could potentially go on if denied here? Mr. Weaver stated the tradeoff is the harmony with the area versus the need for the utility in the area. The tradeoff is very difficult. He asked if the tower deemed not harmonious with the neighborhood by the Commissioners was a monopole or was too close to existing residences within the fall zone. He felt it was very important that the board be consistent with the way the commissioners have looked at these situations in the past regarding what is harmonious and what is necessary. Mr. Prinz pointed out the map that showed how close the tower was to adjacent residential development. Mr. Weaver stated the other tower appeared to closer on a least two sides than the tower proposed by the applicant. He commented if the applicant had presented a request for a monopole, he would not be in favor of it or support the application. He felt the pine tree appearance would go a long way toward minimizing the aesthetic impacts of the proposed tower. Mr. Andrea stated the tower that was denied was a 168 feet monopole style tower. Chairman Shipley made a motion to close debate on the issue. David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to close debate. Page 17 of 20 Chairman Shipley informed the applicant regarding the consequences of a denial of the special use permit and asked if the applicant wished to proceed with the matter or continue the item. Gray Styers confirmed the applicant’s desire to proceed with a vote on the special use permit application. In response to Chairman Shipley’s request, Mr. Styers also confirmed the applicant agreed with the staff’s findings. David Weaver made a motion to recommend granting the special use permit application as presented, including the condition that it be a pine tree type cell phone tower. The motion died for lack of a second. Donna Girardot made a motion to recommend denial of the Special Use Permit based on the finding that it will not be in harmony with the area in which it is located. Ms. Huffman stated Vice Chair Girardot was suggesting that Finding #4 had not been met and commented the commissioners would appreciate Ms. Girardot articulating the basis of that finding, for example, that it is a 150 feet pole in a residential neighborhood, that a number of people were in attendance at the meeting who were in opposition, that pictures submitted into evidence that showed it would be visible from surrounding neighborhoods, etc. Vice Chair Girardot made a motion to recommend denial of the Special Use Permit based on the finding that the item will not be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located based on the fact that it is a 150 feet pole to be located in a residential neighborhood, that there were a number of residents in attendance at the meeting with a petition signed by 141 people, and that the pictures indicated that it would offer undue visual hardship on the residents. Anthony Prinz seconded the motion. Chairman Shipley opened debate on the motion. In response to a question from Mr. Weaver, Mr. Andrea confirmed the petition signed by 141 people had been received. Chairman Shipley commented he would not vote for the motion because he felt the petitioner had met the required elements. He explained that he didn’t second Mr. Weaver’s motion because he didn’t want to be the chairman of the planning board that approved the first 150 feet pine tree tower east of Fayetteville, noting those structures look terrible. Mr. Rawl asked Mr. Shipley to elaborate on whether he would support a motion to approve without conditions; that is approve Mr. Weaver’s motion precluding the condition that it be addressed as a monopine. Chairman Shipley noted although that motion was not in front of the board, if that motion was made in the future with regard to accepting staff’s recommendations, it could be entertained after a vote on Vice Chair Girardot’s motion. Assistant County Attorney Huffman advised there was a motion and a second so the board needed to vote on the motion. Page 18 of 20 Chairman Shipley explained the board was still debating the motion. Mr. Weaver inquired what would happen procedurally if Ms. Girardot’s motion was denied Chairman Shipley explained if Ms. Girardot’s motion was denied, another motion could be made. Assistant County Attorney Huffman advised the board that if Ms. Girardot’s motion was denied 2-3, the motion would simply go forward to the Commissioners with that vote. She suggested the board vote on the motion and then move forward from there. David Weaver made motion to close debate on the motion. Chairman Shipley seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to close debate on the motion. Chairman Shipley stated the board would move forward with a vote on the motion by Ms. Girardot. He then offered his opinion that the vote would not preclude the board from moving forward with another motion or extinguish the agenda item and asked Ms. Huffman if that was correct. Assistant County Attorney Huffman stated she would not advise the board not to proceed with an additional motion if they wished to do so because the item will move forward to the County Commissioners, who will be fully advised of the discussion, the motions, and the votes and they can use that information and proceed as they see fit. The Planning Board then voted 2-3 to recommend denial of Special Use Permit S-623. (Ayes: Girardot and Prinz; Nays: Rawl, Shipley, and Weaver) Chairman Shipley entertained another motion or information from the board. Jordy Rawl made a motion based on the summary that staff concludes that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal complies with Section 63.5-1 of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as other Findings of Fact specified in Section 71 of the ordinance, staff also concludes with the information submitted that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal is consistent with the management strategy for the Transition land use classification and is not in conflict with any other policies of the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. He commented he was in favor of it because of the satisfactory requirements that had been met by the applicant. David Weaver seconded the motion. Chairman Shipley opened debate on the motion. Hearing none, he asked for a motion to end debate on the motion. Jordy Rawl made a motion to end debate on the motion. David Weaver seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted 5-0 to end debate on the motion. The Planning Board voted 3-2 to recommend approval of Special Use Permit S-623. (Ayes: Rawl, Shipley, and Weaver; Nays: Girardot and Prinz) Page 19 of 20 Vice Chair Girardot asked the Chairman to remind the audience they will also have the opportunity to speak before the County Commissioners at their February meeting. Chairman Shipley announced the public would have the opportunity to address the Commissioners at their February 2, 2015 meeting. Chairman Shipley announced the board would take a five minute recess. Chairman Shipley called the meeting back to order. Technical Review Committee Report (December) Sam Burgess presented the following TRC Report: The County’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) met once during the month of December and reviewed two performance sites. Carolina Inlet View Carolina Inlet View is located in the southern portion of our jurisdiction (near 7300 block of Carolina Beach Road) and is classified as Conservation on the County’s 2006 adopted Land Use Plan. The Intracoastal Waterway is located adjacent and east of the site. The Inlet Watch residential project is located nearby, as well as a few residential homes that abut Burnett Road. Performance site plan attributes include:  R-15 residential zoning  8 lots  3.1 acres  Private sewer through Aqua of NC & a community well  Private roads (Primary access from Silver Avenue. Silver Avenue connects to Burnett Road, which extends out to the 7300 block of Carolina Beach Road) In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the site plan for 8 lots for a period of two years with three conditions. Those conditions are included in the agenda package. Rockhill Subdivision Rockhill Subdivision is located in the northern portion of our jurisdiction (near 1900 block Rockhill Road) and is classified as Aquifer Resource Protection on the County’s 2006 adopted Land Use Plan. This project is located on the south side of Rockhill Road. Apple Valley and Walnut Hills subdivisions are located to the southwest and were developed in the 1980’s. To the south is the area of Oakley Road and Oakley Circle, which is a part of the Wrightsboro Community Plan. Performance site plan attributes include:  R-20 residential zoning  37 lots  19.24 acres  Public water & sewer  Public roads with access from Rockhill Road & Oakley Circle Page 20 of 20 In a vote of 5-0, the TRC approved the site plan for 37 lots for a period of two years with six conditions that were included in the agenda package. 2014 TRC Activity Report (Comparison with 2013 Activity) • Total 2014 Plats Approved (includes new preliminaries, revisions, re-approvals, minors & finals) 77 plats or 3,830 lots • Total 2013 Plats Approved (includes new preliminaries, revisions, re-approvals, minors, & finals) 60 plats or 1,414 lots • Total 2014 Plat Exceptions Approved (includes minors & finals) 77 plats or 130 lots • Total 2013 Plat Exceptions Approved (includes minors & finals) 76 plats or 73 lots • Overall Calendar Approvals for 2014 (all plats including exceptions) 154 plats or 3,960 lots • Overall Calendar Approvals for 2013 (all plats including exceptions) 136 plats or 1,437 lots Fourth Quarter Activity (October-December): • Total Plat Approvals 2014 (Includes new preliminaries, revisions, re-approvals, minors, finals) 20 plats or 532 lots • Total Plat Approvals 2013 (includes new preliminaries, revisions, re-approvals, minors, finals) 12 plats or 245 lots Mr. Burgess announced that the next TRC meeting would be held on January 14, 2015. David Weaver noted 532 lots were approved in the fourth quarter, but the total number of lots approved in 2014 was over 3,800. He inquired if that was an indication that development was slowing down. Mr.Burgess explained the number of lots approved will fluctuate from quarter to quarter and typically, activity will fall slightly during the cooler months beginning in the fall. Other Business Chris O’Keefe announced that several meetings for the New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan effort will be held in January and February. Meeting dates and details are available at www.plannhc.com. He also extended an invitation to the Open House for the Development Services Area on January 28, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. With no further business, Chairman Shipley entertained a motion to adjourn. Chairman Shipley made a motion to adjourn the meeting. David Weaver seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.