July 6, 2010 - 6:00 PM - County Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes (Rezoning)

10 13 Meeting of the Johnston County Board of Commissioners July 6 , 2010 6 00 pm The Johnston County Board of Commissioners met in regular session Tuesday , July 6 , 2010 at 6 00 pm in the Commissioners Meeting Room , Johnston County Courthouse Annex , Smithfield , North Carolina The following members were present Present Wade M Stewart , Chairman , Allen L Mims , Jr , Vice Chairman , Cookie Pope , Jeffrey P Carver , W Ray Woodall , DeVan Barbour , and Tony Braswell Absent None Also Present Rick J Hester , County Manager , Paula G Woodard , Clerk to the Board , David F Mills , County Attorney , and Melissa A Daughtry , Paralegal Deputy Clerk Chairman Wade M Stewart called the meeting to order at 6 00 pm and the following business was transacted 1 Public Comments A Announcements Regarding Several Items on the Agenda • Cancellation of August 2 , 2010 6 00 pm Meeting Chairman Wade M Stewart announced that the Board would be cancelling their August 2 , 2010 , 6 00 pm meeting due to there being no rezoning cases , special use cases or regular business on the agenda for the Board to attend to • Agenda Item 3 Public Hearing Ordinance Amendment - Mass Gatherings Chairman Wade M Stewart announced that the public hearing regarding the Mass Gatherings ordinance amendment has been tabled indefinitely at the County Manager’s request to allow staff additional time for research • Agenda Item 4 Call for Public Hearing Ordinance Amendment - § 14 - 6 Definitions Chairman Wade M Stewart called for the public hearing related to proposed ordinance amendments of § 14 - 6 Definitions to be held on September 7 , 2010 at the 6 00 pm meeting • Agenda Item 5 Call for Public Hearing Ordinance Amendment – Internet Sweepstakes Gaming Chairman Wade M Stewart called for the public hearing related to proposed ordinance amendments as it relates to Internet Sweepstakes Gaming to be held on September 7 , 2010 at the 6 00 pm meeting • Case 10 - 07 & Case 10 - 08 announcement made later in the meeting Chairman Wade M Stewart announced that it was the consensus of the Board to postpone the hearings for Case 10 - 07 and Case 10 - 08 until the September 7 , 2010 , 6 00 pm meeting due to proposed legislation currently being considered by the General Assembly that if passed , would affect the proposed Special Use being requested by each Applicant 2 Public Hearing Rezoning and Special Use Requests Advertised – In The Smithfield Herald – June 23 and June 30 , 2010 Certified letters were mailed to adjoining property owners on June 21 , 2010 Notices were posted at the locations on April 28 , 2010 for Cases 507 , 10 - 04 , 10 - 07 , 10 - 08 , 10 - 09 , and 10 - 10 The Chairman opened the Special Use Hearing for Case 507 MOD Case 507 A petition to modify the Special Use Permit as follows original permit allows an office and retail sales of concrete statuary , yard and patio decorations , water fountains , bird feeders , garden benches , yard and patio furniture , grills , outdoor storage buildings , plants and plant materials The modification is to allow for automotive sales and display in addition to thePage14 July 6 , 2010 – 6 00 pm Continued existing Special Uses Property is currently Zoned CB - SUD and is located at the intersection of Cornwallis Road SR 1525 and NC 42 in Cleveland Township Tax ID 05F02008B Owner Applicant I Thomas and Rebecca R Dunnagan Those wishing to speak on Special Use Case 507 were sworn in by the Clerk to the Board Planning Director Berry Gray introduced the special use case and stated the request is a petition to modify the special use permit as follows original permit allows an office and retail sales of concrete statuary , yard and patio decorations , water fountains , bird feeders , garden benches , yard and patio furniture , grills , outdoor storage buildings , plants and plant materials The modification is to allow for automotive sales and display in addition to the existing special uses on property currently zoned CB - SUD and located at the intersection of Cornwallis Road and NC 42 in Cleveland Township Mr Gray introduced the following summary of evidence into the record A pre - application consultation was held with the applicant for Case 507 on April 1 , 2010 At that time , the applicant was informed of the following • If approved , applicant must provide to the Planning Office a Site Plan for their review and approval • Applicant must comply with the requirement of the Johnston County Land Development Code regarding landscaping , buffering and fence or any additional requirements as approved by this Board • Applicant will be notified in writing of the Board’s decision • If denied , no application can be accepted for the same use affecting the same property for a period of twelve 12 months and that their right of appeal to the Superior Court must be exercised within thirty 30 days of the receipt of notice of denial by the Board of County Commissioners • Applicant’s Special Use Permit will expire at the end of twenty - four 24 months if it is not used as permitted within the time period • When necessary , staff informed the applicant of further Planning and Zoning Department requirements and the requirements of other departments such as soil erosion and sedimentation requirements , Health Department regulations , stormwater and public utility requirements • Subsequent to the pre - application consultation , all required notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet The property was posted and notices of public hearings were advertised in accordance with the requirements of the North Carolina General Statutes On May 18 , 2010 , the Johnston County Planning Board held a public hearing regarding the Modification of the Special Use Permit for Case 507 and made the following recommendations Upon a motion by Mr Summerlin to approve the Rezoning with 2 additions adding Sunday hours and raise # of cars to 40 , seconded by Mr Massengill , but Rezoning was denied due to a vote of 5 - 4 against with Letchworth , Smith , Browder , DeLaine and Gathers dissenting , the Planning Board recommended denial of the Modification of Case 507 at the May 18th , 2010 meeting This recommendation was based on the Board’s inability to determine that the request meets the following Findings of Fact with the lack of a detailed site plan Findings of Fact for the Special Use Permit 1 That the use or development is located , designed , and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health , safety , and general welfare ; 2 That the use of development appears to comply with all required use and intensity regulations of Articles II & IV of the Johnston County Land Development Code and the applicable specific standards in section 14 - 257 and with all applicable regulations ; 3 That the use or development is located , designed , and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property , or that the use or development is a public necessity ; 4 That the use or development conforms with general plans for the physical development of the County’s Planning jurisdiction , the Design Manual , or other development policies as adopted by the Board of Commissioners Mr Gray reported the surrounding land uses are zoned Community Business and used for automotive sales and display ; General Business – Special Use District for a convenience store , proposed shopping center , and a proposed automotive service center Mr Gray stated there is an existing building on the subject site that is used as an office for the existing business He noted there is limited parking in the front of the building ; therefore , all the parking for the proposed use would need to be located at the back of the site Mr Gray stated the Planning Board recommended denial of the request ; however , he presented a list of proposed special conditions to the Board if the request is approved , as follows 1 Permitted Uses automotive sales and display , office , retail sales of concrete statuary , yard and patio decorations , water fountains , bird feeders , garden benches , yard and patio furniture , grills , outdoor storage buildings , plants and plant materials 2 Submission of a detailed site plan for review and approval by Planning and Zoning Staff 3 The Special Use Permit shall expire with the violation of any Special Use Condition 4 Installation of Class B buffer 2 large trees , 3small trees , and 9 shrubs , per 100 ’ lf along northern and western zoning parcel property lines , and a Class A buffer 1 large tree , 2small trees , and 6 shrubs , per 100 ’ lf along Cornwallis Road and southern zoning parcel property lines Page15 July 6 , 2010 – 6 00 pm Continued 5 Operation hours of Monday through Friday 8am - 7pm and Saturday 9am - 4pm 6 Limited to a maximum of 30 vehicles 7 Storage and display shall be limited to the rear of the existing sales building 8 Signage shall be in accordance with the sign code 9 Lighting shall be dark sky and engineered as not to shine on adjacent property Upon a question by Chairman Wade M Stewart , Mr Gray stated staff’s recommendation was for approval of the special use permit modification based on the proposed special use conditions he presented He noted the recommendation by staff for approval was based on a limit of 30 vehicles ; however , the applicant has requested to have 40 vehicles Mr Gray stated the Planning Board recommended the applicant provide a better site plan for the Commissioners to review to determine if 40 vehicles could be accommodated on the site Mr Gray reported the applicant has submitted a more detailed site plan which has been included in the Commissioners ’ agenda packets for review Commissioner Jeffrey P Carver inquired as to when the original permit was approved as well as where the traffic count was taken Mr Gray reported the original permit was approved in 2001 and the traffic count of 7,100 cars per day was taken from Cornwallis Road At the inquiry of Commissioner Tony Braswell , Mr Gray clarified that staff’s recommendation for approval was based on a maximum of 30 cars ; however , the motion by the Planning Board was for approval with 40 cars that ultimately failed He stated there was no motion for 30 cars by the Planning Board Commissioner Allen L Mims , Jr questioned the proposed buffer requirements , noting that it appears on the site plan that the parking spaces would encroach on the landscaping buffer Mr Gray stated the applicant has an existing privacy fence along the property lines adjacent to the neighboring residence as well as the adjacent existing car lot Mr Gray noted that on the site plan , the existing fence does appear to be located at the property lines Commissioner W Ray Woodall asked about the type of fence that exists on the site Mr Gray reported the existing fence appears to be a wooden privacy fence Upon a question by Commissioner Mims , Mr Gray stated if there is enough room in between the existing privacy fence and the property line , then staff would require the landscaping buffer to be planted on the outside of the fence ; however , if there is not sufficient room on the outside , then staff would request the applicant to install the larger portion of the landscaping buffer on the inside of the fence to act as a height buffer He noted that a landscaping buffer will be difficult to plant along Cornwallis Road because it is paved across the front of the subject site , but staff would work with the applicant Commissioner Mims pointed out the shopping center located across the street from the subject site and asked if the Department of Transportation had issued any recommendations with regards to traffic driveway improvements Mr Gray stated the DOT has reviewed the proposed use and has not yet issued a final driveway permit ; however , he noted that the DOT is recommending that all parking be located in the back of the subject site Mr Gray also noted that the DOT will proceed with construction of a median at the shopping center located across the street which would impact the subject site and allowing it to only have a right - in right - out Mr Gray added that at this early stage , he is unsure if the DOT would allow U - turns in the area Mr Gray stated at the present time , the applicant does plan to leave the existing parking area in the front of the building as is paved Commissioner Mims stated if the applicant leaves the existing parking in the front as is , then the space would need to be chained off , otherwise , people would continue to use the parking area in the front Commissioner Carver noted that on one of the photographs , a vehicle in the front parking area is located dangerously close to the roadway Mr Gray agreed and stated that vehicles parking at the front of the site have to back out onto the road when leaving ; therefore , staff wanted to ensure that spaces are identified in the back not only for the display of cars but also for customer parking He suggested that if the Board approves the request that a condition be added requiring signage to indicate that customer parking is located in the rear of the site Page16 July 6 , 2010 – 6 00 pm Continued Thomas Dunnagan , Owner Applicant , stated he would like to modify the special use permit to allow for a used car lot He clarified that he does not intend to operate several types of businesses at one time , but would like to leave the uses associated with the original special use permit in place in case in the future , they decide to retire and reopen a garden gift shop as was previously located on the site Mr Dunnagan stated the Department of Motor Vehicles will not allow him to operate more than one business on the site at one time He added that he does not believe the proposed used car lot will increase the traffic at the location and they are estimating approximately 80 to 100 visitors per month with sales of 15 to 20 cars per month He noted that he expects the majority of their traffic to visit the location between 9 30 am and 4 30 pm Monday through Saturday Mr Dunnagan stated if they chose to open on Sundays , the most likely visited hours would be 12 00 Noon until 4 00 pm He reported that based on their marketing plan , they expect a lot of their customers will visit the operation by appointment Mr Dunnagan referenced their revised site plan and stated he plans to have an easy and safe entrance exit to their sales area with adequate parking in the rear of the building Mr Dunnagan reported the drive lanes are 24 ’ wide which would provide ample room for cars and he stated the depth of the parking area is 35 ’ Mr Dunnagan further stated he intends to have a ramp in the back and there is no need for parking in the front He stated it is their intention to put signs in the front directing customers on where to park Commissioner DeVan Barbour asked how the delivery of vehicles would be handled Mr Dunnagan stated he plans to hire drivers that would drive the vehicles in and park them on the lot He noted a car carrier would be difficult to maneuver on the site ; although , he stated the adjacent existing car lot asked to use his site last week to unload some of their cars Commissioner Braswell noted the discussion regarding 30 or 40 cars from the Planning Board meeting and asked Mr Dunnagan what were his plans Mr Dunnagan stated he would like to have 40 cars on the site He explained that his business plan is based on selling 15 to 20 vehicles per month Mr Dunnagan stated in the automobile sales industry , if a business sells 15 cars in one month , then it needs to have approximately 30 cars on display ; therefore if he plans to sell 15 to 20 cars per month , then he would prefer to have 40 cars on display Chairman Wade M Stewart stated his concern is whether or not the existing fence in between the subject site and the neighboring residence is satisfactory Mr Dunnagan stated in the past , he has not had any complaints and has operated with a lot more traffic than what he anticipates would come with the proposed car lot Commissioner Mims asked Mr Dunnagan if he would be willing to install large planters or pots with shrubs and or perhaps chain off the area in the front of the subject site to avoid customers parking in the front Mr Dunnagan stated he would have no problems with installing large planters with shrubs or chaining off the front so customers could not park in the front of the site Commissioner Barbour stated the existing area in the front of the site would be a good place for the display of cars for sale Mr Dunnagan stated he would prefer to display some of the smaller cars for sale across the front to avoid customers parking in the front Commissioner Mims stated he feels there still needs to be some type of shrubbery installed across the front At the inquiry of Commissioner Carver , Mr Dunnagan confirmed that he will only operate the car lot and although the other uses presently on the site would stop , he would like to leave them on the special use permit for the future Danny Barbour , 505 Cornwallis Road , located adjacent to the subject site , expressed his concerns to the Board regarding the proposed use of a car lot Mr Barbour stated there have been a couple of businesses on the site in the past He noted that when the first landscaping business located on the site , the property was properly maintained ; however , he stated over the last three to four years , the site has deteriorated Mr Barbour stated he has tried to maintain his property and he is concerned over the present state of the subject site Mr Barbour stated recently , the site was leased to someone that tried to make the property more presentable ; however , he isPagePage pageNumber517 July 6 , 2010 – 6 00 pm Continued still concerned over the future use if the car lot is not successful Mr Barbour expressed his opposition to the proposed use Gayle Buchler , owner and operator of Cleveland Springs Autosales located adjacent to the subject site addressed the Board Ms Buchler presented a photograph of the subject site to the Board and spoke on her concerns with parking issues noting that in the past , customers of the gift shop businesses have parked at her autosales business and walked over to the subject site , which she did not mind However , Ms Buchler stated she does have problems with customers parking on her business and then walking over to the subject site to purchase cars from Mr Dunnagan Mr Gray reported the Planning Board recommended denial of the modification request There being no further comments , the Chairman recessed the Special Use Hearing for Case 507 Further Discussion The Board briefly discussed the existing right - of - way at the subject site Mr Gray explained that the minimum amount of the DOT right - of - way is 30 feet from the centerline of the road towards the existing building Mr Gray roughly scaled the right - of - way measurement on GIS for the Board and stated there is approximately 27 feet from the front door of the building to the edge of the right - of - way Mr Gray stated one thing to keep in mind is , with only approximately 27 feet of space to work with , there may be just enough room to park some of the vehicles for display ; however , when considering the transportation construction in the area , from staff’s standpoint for safety reasons , he stated it would be safer to have the Board require some type of barrier such as planters with shrubs or roping to protect customers that may be walking around the vehicles for display Mr Gray stated staff would recommend no parking across the front Decision on Special Use Case 507 MOD Case 507 A petition to modify the Special Use Permit as follows original permit allows an office and retail sales of concrete statuary , yard and patio decorations , water fountains , bird feeders , garden benches , yard and patio furniture , grills , outdoor storage buildings , plants and plant materials The modification is to allow for automotive sales and display in addition to the existing Special Uses Property is currently Zoned CB - SUD and is located at the intersection of Cornwallis Road SR 1525 and NC 42 in Cleveland Township Tax ID 05F02008B Owner Applicant I Thomas and Rebecca R Dunnagan Motion and Second Based on the findings of facts and the revised special use conditions with revisions limiting the number of vehicles to 36 , adding language to require signage that will direct customers to park in the rear of the building with no parking across the front of the site , Commissioner Cookie Pope moved the Board approve the modification to the special use permit for Case 507 to allow for automotive sales and display in addition to the existing special uses on property currently zoned CB - SUD and located at the intersection of Cornwallis Road and NC 42 in Cleveland Township Commissioner W Ray Woodall seconded the motion Discussion Commissioner Allen L Mims , Jr stated he would like to see language added in the special conditions that would stipulate “ one use at the time ” on the subject site as well as planters , pots , or chains would be installed across the front to prevent parking in the front Commissioner Mims also asked if language could be added that would require the fence to be maintained Commissioner Jeffrey P Carver expressed his concerns with the number of cars that would be allowed on the subject site as well as future transportation issues Amendment to Motion and Vote Commissioner Cookie Pope amended her original motion by accepting Commissioner Mims ’ suggestions The motion carried by the following vote PagePage pageNumber618 July 6 , 2010 – 6 00 pm Continued Ayes Commissioners Wade M Stewart , Allen L Mims , Jr , Cookie Pope , W Ray Woodall , DeVan Barbour , and Tony Braswell Nays Commissioner Jeffrey P Carver Finding of Facts for the Special Use Permit 1 That the use or development is located , designed , and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health , safety , and general welfare ; Applicant Existing CB - SUD zoning , would like to amend this SUD to include car sales Staff The applicant is proposing to use an existing structure The applicant will be subject to special use conditions which will ensure that the development maintains the public health , safety and general welfare of the community 2 That the use of development appears to comply with all required use and intensity regulations of Articles II & IV of the Johnston County Land Development Code and the applicable specific standards in section 14 - 257 and with all applicable regulations ; Applicant This property has SUD zoning and meets county requirements Staff This existing building meets the setback , access requirements , and complies with the building code , and use and intensity regulations as set forth in the Land Development Code 3 That the use or development is located , designed , and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property , or that the use or development is a public necessity ; Applicant The hours of operation would be Monday - Friday 8am - 7pm and Saturday 9am - 4pm , which are the current hours of operation Staff The location has a current special use permit for outdoor furniture and accessories Regular hours of operation will be maintained This , along with the special use conditions required by the Boards , will maintain the value of contiguous properties 4 That the use or development conforms with general plans for the physical development of the County’s Planning jurisdiction , the Design Manual , or other development policies as adopted by the Board of Commissioners Applicant We are located in a high commercial area that is growing rapidly Additionally , this site is located next to an existing auto sales lot Staff Applicant’s proposed development will conform to all requirements of the Land Development Code and any conditions as required by the Boards and Federal , State and Local agencies Specific Land Uses APPLICANT The addition of automotive sales and display to existing uses Special Use Conditions 1 Permitted Uses automotive sales and display , office , retail sales of concrete statuary , yard and patio decorations , water fountains , bird feeders , garden benches , yard and patio furniture , grills , outdoor storage buildings , plants and plant materials Only one permitted use shall be in operation at any given time 2 Submission of a detailed site plan for review and approval by Planning and Zoning Staff 3 The Special Use Permit shall expire with the violation of any Special Use Condition 4 Installation of Class B buffer 2 large trees , 3small trees , and 9 shrubs , per 100 ’ lf along northern and western zoning parcel property lines , and a Class A buffer 1 large tree , 2small trees , and 6 shrubs , per 100 ’ lf along Cornwallis Road and southern zoning parcel property lines 5 Operation hours of Monday through Friday 8am - 7pm and Saturday 9am - 4pm 6 Limited to a maximum of 36 vehicles 7 Storage and display shall be limited to the rear of the existing sales building 8 Signage shall be in accordance with the sign code Signage shall also be installed that will direct all customer parking to the rear of the building no parking is permitted at the front of the site 9 Lighting shall be dark sky and engineered so as not to shine on adjacent property 10 Existing opaque fencing shall be maintained 11 Pots , planters , and or chains roping shall be installed across the front of the property to prevent parking at the front of the site The Chairman opened the Rezoning Hearing for Case 10 - 04 Case 10 - 04 Petition to rezone 332 acres of a 5837 acre tract located at 426 Angie Road SR 1529 in Cleveland Township from Residential – Mobile Home Park R - MPH to Agricultural Residential - Special Use District AR - SUD Tax ID 06D02001E Owner Robert W and Elizabeth T Barber Applicant American Tower Corporation ; Jason Groseclose Planning Director Berry Gray stated the petition is to rezone 332 acres of a 5837 acre tract located at 426 Angie Road in Cleveland Township from Residential – Mobile Home Park to Agricultural Residential - Special Use District Mr Gray noted the special use permit request associated with the rezoning for the construction and operation of a 195 ’ monopole telecommunications tower and facility Mr Gray noted that the existing mobile home park on the property does not cover the entire tract and is accessed on NC Hwy 50 near the new Lowe’s Shopping Center He stated the surrounding land uses are zoned Agricultural Residential and used for residential purposes ; Residential – Mobile Home Park and used for the John Utley MHP andPagePage pageNumber719 July 6 , 2010 – 6 00 pm Continued agricultural purposes ; General Business – Special Use District to the northeast and used as a shopping center ; and General Business also to the northeast which is presently vacant Tom Johnson , Attorney with Nexsen Pruet Law Firm , representing the applicant , asked that the application and all accompanying documentation be admitted as evidence in support of the petition for rezoning Mr Johnson stated that from staff’s report as well as the Planning Board’s recommendation , there was not a disagreement with respect to a tower being needed at the subject location He noted the applicant is requesting a 195 ’ tower while the recommendation from staff and the Planning Board is for a 120 ’ tower Mr Johnson stated he has experts on hand to address the Board regarding the height of the tower in the special use hearing , if the rezoning is approved , and he offered to answer any questions Richard Bolyard , 405 Scotts Ridge Trail , Apex , called to the Board’s attention the tower on Jack Road in Johnston County and the issues his family has had with the tower Mr Bolyard stated that there is a lot of effort put forth by all parties in the cell tower process ; however , he stated that one important component missing in the process is the lack of the architect’s comments and the architect’s intent that should be submitted by the applicant Mr Bolyard questioned the lack of information from the architect as well as whether the architect is even aware of the citizens ’ concerns Mr Bolyard stressed that he would like to make a difference in the process and he is speaking to the Board because of his duty to Johnston County and his family and he asked that there be more communication in the future Mr Johnson readdressed the Board in response to Mr Bolyard’s comments and stated that Mr Bolyard is not a resident of the area that is being petitioned by the applicant Mr Johnson stated that the applicant has adhered to the process and requirements set forth by the County Commissioner W Ray Woodall questioned the request by the applicant for a 195 ’ tower ; however , he noted that those questions would be discussed during the special use hearing , if the rezoning is approved Commissioner Allen L Mims , Jr asked if the 332 acres being petitioned for rezoning would cover the fall zone and driveway for a 195 ’ tower Mr Gray confirmed that the area being petitioned for rezoning is calculated based on a 195 ’ tower fall zone , at the applicant’s request Mr Gray stated the Planning Board recommended approval of the rezoning request There being no further comments , the Chairman recessed the Rezoning Hearing for Case 10 - 04 Decision on Rezoning Case 10 - 04 Case 10 - 04 Petition to rezone 332 acres of a 5837 acre tract located at 426 Angie Road SR 1529 in Cleveland Township from Residential – Mobile Home Park R - MPH to Agricultural Residential - Special Use District AR - SUD Tax ID 06D02001E Owner Robert W and Elizabeth T Barber Applicant American Tower Corporation ; Jason Groseclose Commissioner Tony Braswell moved the Board approve rezoning case 10 - 04 to rezone 332 acres of a 5837 acre tract located at 426 Angie Road in Cleveland Township from Residential – Mobile Home Park to Agricultural Residential - Special Use District Commissioner Cookie Pope seconded the motion , which carried by the following vote Ayes Commissioners Wade M Stewart , Allen L Mims , Jr , Jeffrey P Carver , Cookie Pope , DeVan Barbour , and Tony Braswell Nays W Ray Woodall The Chairman reopened the Special Use Hearing for Case 10 - 04 Case 10 - 04 To allow for the construction and operation of a 195 ’ monopole telecommunications tower and facility Owner Robert W and Elizabeth T Barber Applicant American Tower Corporation ; Jason Groseclose Those wishing to speak on Special Use Case 10 - 04 were sworn in by the Clerk to the Board PagePage pageNumber820 July 6 , 2010 – 6 00 pm Continued Planning Director Berry Gray introduced the special use case and stated the request is to allow for the construction and operation of a 195 ’ monopole telecommunications tower and facility Mr Gray introduced the following summary of evidence into the record A pre - application consultation was held with the applicant for Case 10 - 04 on January 29 , 2010 At that time , the applicant was informed of the following • If approved , applicant must provide to the Planning Office a Site Plan for their review and approval • Applicant must comply with the requirement of the Johnston County Land Development Code regarding landscaping , buffering and fence or any additional requirements as approved by this Board • Applicant will be notified in writing of the Board’s decision • If denied , no application can be accepted for the same use affecting the same property for a period of twelve 12 months and that their right of appeal to the Superior Court must be exercised within thirty 30 days of the receipt of notice of denial by the Board of County Commissioners • Applicant’s Special Use Permit will expire at the end of twenty - four 24 months if it is not used as permitted within the time period • When necessary , staff informed the applicant of further Planning and Zoning Department requirements and the requirements of other departments such as soil erosion and sedimentation requirements , Health Department regulations , stormwater and public utility requirements • Subsequent to the pre - application consultation , all required notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet The property was posted and notices of public hearings were advertised in accordance with the requirements of the North Carolina General Statutes On May 18 , 2010 , the Johnston County Planning Board held a public hearing regarding Rezoning Special Use Permit Case 10 - 04 and made the following recommendations Upon a motion by Mr Browder to approve the Rezoning request , seconded by Mr Letchworth and carried by a unanimous vote of 8 - 0 , the Planning Board recommended approval of the Rezoning for Case 10 - 04 at the May 18th , 2010 meeting Upon a motion by Mr DeLaine to approve the Special Use with the added condition that the driveway not be a straight line on final plan to prevent visibility issues , seconded by Mr Gathers and carried by a unanimous vote of 8 - 0 , the Planning Board recommended approval of the Rezoning for Case 10 - 04 at the May 18th , 2010 meeting Finding of Facts for the Special Use Permit 1 That the use or development is located , designed , and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health , safety , and general welfare ; Applicant The proposed use will maintain and promote the public health , safety , and general welfare , if located and developed according to the plan submitted The proposed use will have virtually no impact on traffic conditions in the vicinity as the site will be visited only once per month The proposed use will have no impact on the provision of public utilities as it will not require any water , sewer , or garbage collection services The proposed use meets or exceeds all setback requirements The proposed tower will fully comply with all FCC rules and standards regarding maximum permissible exposure to radio frequency emissions and public safety The proposed use will also improve health , safety and welfare by providing more reliable access to emergency services for residents in the area through the improved wireless telecommunication services this site will provide Staff The tower will be constructed in a safe manner as required by state and or federal regulations The fall zone of the tower will be the height of the tower plus 10 The applicant will be subject to special use conditions which will ensure that the development maintains the public health , safety and general welfare of the community 2 That the use of development appears to comply with all required use and intensity regulations of Articles II & IV of the Johnston County Land Development Code and the applicable specific standards in section 14 - 257 and with all applicable regulations ; Applicant The proposed facility will conform to the Land Development Code of Johnston County and use standards for wireless telecommunications facilities contained in the Wireless Telecommunication Facility Ordinance Section 14 - 257 o Staff This development will comply with the use and intensity regulations as set forth in the Land Development Code 3 That the use or development is located , designed , and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property , or that the use or development is a public necessity ; Applicant ATC is sensitive to the placement of towers and selected this Site in an effort to minimize the visual impact on the surrounding area The Site and the adjoining property to the west are zoned MHPD , the properties to the south and north are zoned AR and the properties to the east are zoned AR , GB and GB - SUD The adjoining parcel to the south is largely undeveloped , the adjoining parcel to the west is primarily undeveloped with some residential development along 42 Highway and the properties to the north and east are primarily residential developments A substantial wooded buffer surrounds the Site and will shield the Site from the adjoining residential developments The proposed 195 ’ tower has been setback 2145 ’ from the nearest adjoining property , which is the parcel to the west The development of a wireless telecommunications facility on the Site will make wireless telecommunications service available to adjoining properties for the benefit of their owners Additionally , as previously mentioned , the proposed use will increase the availability of access to E911 emergency services through the wireless services provided from this site For all these reasons , and for other reasons which shall be demonstrated at the public hearing s of this application , ATC submits that the proposed tower will maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property Staff The site is part of a large , mostly undeveloped tract of land and is in an area considered to be a community center according to the Land Use Plan The tower will help to improve communications in the area A “ Class B ”PagePage pageNumber921 July 6 , 2010 – 6 00 pm Continued landscape buffer shall be installed along the perimeter of the compound Existing natural vegetation is acceptable in lieu of this requirement if equal or more intense This , along with the special use conditions required by the Boards , will help to maintain the value of contiguous properties 4 That the use or development conforms with general plans for the physical development of the County’s Planning jurisdiction , the Design Manual , or other development policies as adopted by the Board of Commissioners Applicant The development of a wireless telecommunications facility on the Site will be consistent with the County’s goals , as reflected in the Johnston County Land Use Planning Guidance report , of developing infrastructure that can facilitate growth , while maintaining the county’s rural character and environmental well - being The property is zoned MHPD Mobile Home Park District where wireless telecommunication facilities are allowed with a Special Use Permit The site is located in a heavily wooded area , meets all ordinance technical requirements for wireless telecommunications facilities and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan An aerial photograph illustrating the character of the site is included with the application The location and character of the proposed use will be in harmony with the area in which it is located Further , the proposed facility will be visually buffered by existing , dense woods , and , as such , will not be visually obtrusive The proposed facility will not be lit , pursuant to current FCC regulations and guidelines , nor will it emit any noise or glare Therefore , the proposed development will be in harmony with the area in which it is located Moreover , the proposed telecommunications facility will be in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of Johnston County as embodied in the Ordinance Staff Applicant’s proposed development will conform to all requirements of the Land Development Code and any conditions as required by the Boards and Federal , State and Local agencies Specific Land Uses APPLICANT 195 ’ monopole telecommunications tower Special Use Conditions 1 Permitted Uses 120 ’ monopole telecommunications tower and facility 2 The Special Use Permit shall expire with the violation of any Special Use Condition 3 Applicant shall submit a detailed site plan for review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Department Staff 4 Installation of a Class B landscape buffer along the outer perimeter of the chain - link security fence surrounding the base of the tower 2 large trees , 3 small trees , and 9 shrubs every one hundred 100 linear feet Existing natural vegetation may be used if equal or more intense than the Class B buffer 5 All buildings and or structures must comply with rules enforced by Federal , State and Local agencies 6 Driveway shall be designed so as not to be a straight line from the tower site to Angie Rd 7 All conditions recommended required by The Center for Municipal Solutions and the Land Development Code Mr Gray stated there is a 30 ’ wide access road off of Angie Road located approximately 218 feet from the right - of - way and an 8 ’ high chain link fence is proposed around the tower compound He added the setback is the tower height plus 10 which equals 214 ’ 6 ” Mr Gray reported that the County’s cell tower consultant , The Center for Municipal Solutions CMS , findings are that the applicant has not demonstrated the need for a 195 ’ tower Mr Gray noted that the County’s ordinance specifically allows for a 120 ’ tall tower unless there is proof of a need for a higher tower Mr Gray stated a balloon test was performed with notices sent to those within 1,500 feet of the test area as well as the test was advertised and the property posted Mr Gray listed and reviewed each of the special use conditions with the Board Upon a question by Commissioner W Ray Woodall , Mr Gray reported that there is a mobile home park located several hundred yards away from the subject site , and there is wooded land in between the mobile home park and the site Mr Gray confirmed that if the tower were constructed and did fall , it would not hit a home Tom Johnson , Attorney with Nexsen Pruet Law Firm , representing the applicant , stated that the applicant is working with T - Mobile as a carrier on the tower ; therefore , he noted the project is not speculative Mr Johnson asked that all documentation , including the application and supporting information , be submitted as evidence in support of the request for a 195 ’ tower Mr Johnson stated that everyone is in agreement that a tower is needed at the subject location ; however , the issue is the height of the tower Mr Johnson stated that , in accordance with the County’s ordinance , the applicant can demonstrate that there is a technological need for a tower with a height greater than 120 ’ Mr Johnson reviewed the following PowerPoint Presentation with the Board Page022 July 6 , 2010 – 6 00 pm Continued American Tower Application for Special Use Permit Case No 10 - 04 Emergency Use of Wireless • Approx 300,000 calls to 911 daily using mobile phones • 50 - 70 of calls to 911 are from mobile phones 25 from indoors • 87 of Americans have a mobile phone they take with them • More than 20 of homes are wireless only • 1 3 rely on mobile phones even if they have a landline • Wireless devices are depended upon by emergency service providers • Usage of wireless phones for 911 calls in Johnston County per the 911 Center as July 6 , 2010 is 83 - - well beyond national figures • Demands on system up since 2006 yet only two 199 ft wireless towers approved in Johnston County since this WRAL article — both in 2006 • No wireless towers approved since 2007 ordinance change setting 120 ft preference — only one approved is 500 ft radio tower • All wireless towers approved by the County prior to 2007 were 199 feet in height vast majority at this height or higher in all jurisdictions in the County Page123 July 6 , 2010 – 6 00 pm Continued Mr Johnson submitted and reviewed with the Board a spreadsheet containing data from all tower requests that have been reviewed by the Board of Commissioners since 2003 Mr Johnson stated based on the data contained within the spreadsheet , there is a technological need for taller towers Mr Johnson added that his firm worked with the Johnston County Planning staff to look at other jurisdictions and the results of that research indicated that tower heights of 190 ’ and higher are the predominate heights of towers in Johnston County Mr Johnson also stated that towers are an economic development tool and many individuals are telecommunicating and using those devices to work from home and communicate with their offices He stated under such conditions , the reliability of the communications link becomes very important Chairman Wade M Stewart and Commissioner Allen L Mims , Jr both indicated that the rezoning has been approved and the Board now needs to know specifically why a taller tower height than 120 ’ is needed or why a taller tower would deliver better service Mr Johnson introduced his expert witness , Kevin Jackson , an Engineer with T - Mobile , Inc , and submitted Mr Jackson’s resume for the Board’s review Mr Johnson stated Mr Jackson has worked in the industry for many years not only with T - Mobile , but also with AT & T , Cingular , as well as Motorola Mr Jackson stated that the idea that shorter towers are better depends on many components such as whether the area is urban , rural , or suburban He explained that currently most of the cellular providers are operating at about 1,900 to 2,100 megahertz and the higher the frequency band , the faster the signal travels through the air Mr Jackson reviewed the following PowerPoint Presentation with the Board Page224 July 6 , 2010 – 6 00 pm Continued American Tower Corporation Turner Farms Site 5RA0196 Carolinas Market Confidential and Proprietary Information of T - Mobile USA Agenda • Kevin Jackson Engineering Profile • T - Mobile Design Guidelines • Turner Farms areas of improvement • Q & A Confidential and Proprietary Information of T - Mobile USA 2 Engineering Profile • Technical Project Director for T - Mobile Carolina’s RF Design and Site Integration • 20 + years of experience in Wireless Engineering • Lead Design and Integration of 100 ’ s of cell sites • Intimately familiar with T - Mobile RF Design Guidelines Confidential and Proprietary Information of T - Mobile USA 3Page325 July 6 , 2010 – 6 00 pm Continued T - Mobile RF Design Guidelines - Overview ? Scope of Guidelines ? This document details the RF planning requirements and process that are to be used for T - Mobile USA markets ? This document is intended to be the guideline for RF teams when designing the radio coverage and capacity requirements of a market ? It details the exact planning levels to be used in the Asset planning tool ? It also provides requirements that should be considered as the T - Mobile standards ? Definition of Coverage Thresholds ? There are three levels of coverage that T - Mobile stipulates should be provided in each market ; In - Vehicle IVC , In - Building Residential IBC - R , and In - Building Commercial IBC - C , ? The RF team must remember that the majority of the customer complaints are about coverage and address the customer care SR thoroughly Confidential and Proprietary Information of T - Mobile USA 4 T - Mobile RF Design Guidelines - Overview ? In - Vehicle Coverage IVC ? A customer must be able to place or receive a call within a vehicle successfully across 95 of a cell’s area ? This is the minimum level of acceptable coverage within the T - Mobile network in areas with low population and along major highways when these highways cover rural areas ? The planner should keep in mind that using the in - car coverage threshold will typically result in indoor coverage issues , hence customer complaints ? This should only be used in low population density area and in roaming areas ? The Minimum signal strength required for planning IVC areas in the Asset planning tool is - 84 dBm Confidential and Proprietary Information of T - Mobile USA 5 T - Mobile RF Design Guidelines - Overview ? In - building Residential IBC - R ? A customer must be able to place or receive a call on the ground floor of a building that is three stories or less successfully across 95 of a cell’s area ? This is the mid - level of coverage within T - Mobile network IBC - R should be targeted for residential areas and commercial districts note building height restrictions ? This type of coverage will typically provide coverage only in rooms with windows at the cell boundaries and will likely lead to customer complaints if they try to call inside a windowless bathroom , a cellar or a tornado hurricane shelter ? The Minimum signal strength required for planning IBC - R areas in the Asset planning tool is - 76 dBm Confidential and Proprietary Information of T - Mobile USA 6Page426 July 6 , 2010 – 6 00 pm Continued T - Mobile RF Design Guidelines - Overview ? In - building Commercial IBC - C ? A customer must be able to place or receive a call on the ground floor of a building that is greater than three stories in height successfully across 95 of a cell’s area ? This is the top level of coverage within the T - Mobile network IBC - C should be targeted for urban residential centers high - rise ? This is the only coverage level for which coverage issues should only occur in hard to cover locations such as elevators or parking ? Nevertheless the RF engineer should keep in mind that macro - models do not accurately predict well the propagation in dense urban environment and should expect problems for indoor coverage that drive testing cannot easily pick - up ? The Minimum signal strength required for planning IBC - R areas in the Asset planning tool is - 70 dBm Confidential and Proprietary Information of T - Mobile USA 7 Turner Farms Areas of Improvement ? As residential coverage is limited in this area , it becomes extremely important to maximize the available height radiation center line Locating our antennae at 195 ’ will maximize our all three coverage classes indicated The table below best illustrates the percent improvement Antenna Height In - Building Change In - Vehicle Change Street Pedestrian Change 100 3589 6916 1963 110 3817 635 775 1206 2137 886 120 4075 676 8599 1095 2306 791 130 4288 523 9602 1166 2449 620 140 4527 557 1047 904 2629 735 150 4751 495 114 888 2792 620 160 4975 471 1225 746 2956 587 170 5249 551 1309 686 3118 548 180 56 669 1374 497 3284 532 195 6179 1034 1496 888 3543 789 Percent Percent Percent Improvement Improvement Improvement from 120 to 195 5163 from 120 to 195 7397 from 120 to 195 5364 Average Percentage Improvement from 120 to 195 5975 Confidential and Proprietary Information of T - Mobile USA 8 Turner Farms Areas of Improvement ? Confidential and Proprietary Information of T - Mobile USA 9Page527 July 6 , 2010 – 6 00 pm Continued Q & A ? THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION Confidential and Proprietary Information of T - Mobile USA 10 APENDIX ? EXAMPLE SCAN Drive Similar to CW Test Confidential and Proprietary Information of T - Mobile USA 11 Beta Test – Scan Data – Beta Sector BCCH 522 Confidential and Proprietary Information of T - Mobile USA 12 Commissioner Mims asked about the capacity levels noting that 120 ’ towers are cheaper to construct than taller towers ; therefore , more towers could be constructed to handle more calls Mr Jackson stated capacity is not driven by coverage and what the applicant aims to do is provide a strike in coverage He stated in principal , if there were capacity issues , then more towers would need to be constructed ; however , he stated that is not the applicant’s objective , but rather their objective is to address coverage thresholds Commissioner Mims stated through the County’s ordinance , the Board must to take into account the future growth of the County and he noted that the subject site is in a growing area which will experience capacity problems in the future Page628 July 6 , 2010 – 6 00 pm Continued Mr Jackson stated the limiting factor with capacity is not the height of a cell tower , but rather it is the physical number of channels that can be placed in the base station on the side of the tower Mr Jackson added that capacity does not matter if there is no coverage Commissioner Mims asked if , considering the future potential increase in the population of the subject area , the proposed tower would be able to accommodate future capacities Mr Jackson responded that currently , research shows capacity is not an issue ; however , he stated that he could not speak to capacity issues ten years from now Commissioner Mims expressed concern that the research is based on today’s estimates rather than taking the future into account and noted that the Board must plan for the future as well Mr Jackson stated that there are other surrounding sites in the area to handle capacity issues and the applicant tries to minimize the equipment by sharing the load with other cell towers Commissioner Cookie Pope asked if a drive study was done in the process of gathering data for the subject site Mr Jackson stated a drive test was not performed , in that the data is based on a coverage plot performed on a map Chairman Stewart asked Mr Jackson specifically to summarize why a 120 ’ tower would not be sufficient and why a 195 ’ tower is needed Mr Jackson stated when considering his research , a 195 ’ tower versus 120 ’ tower would see a substantial improvement for in - building coverage thresholds Commissioner DeVan Barbour asked what would be the expected coverage threshold for a tower 120 ’ in height Mr Jackson responded that at 120 ’ , call reliability could be met across 95 of the cell area ; however , he stated at 195 ’ the signal strength is improved Mr Jackson referenced earlier submitted plots in the PowerPoint Presentation as backup documentation in support of the request Upon questions by Commissioner Tony Braswell , Mr Jackson stated at any threshold level , the applicant wants to be able to propagate across 95 of the area , but the difference between 120 ’ and 195 ’ is the signal strength within the threshold Mr Johnson readdressed the Board and stated that the applicant tried to choose a site that is undevelopable and in doing that , the site they chose is surrounded by trees Mr Johnson explained that trees block signals and the average tree height is approximately 90 ’ He added that if the applicant were to try and have five co - locators on the tower , there may be issues with service for the lower providers on the tower Mr Johnson stated the subject site would most effectively use a tower , that is located in a rural area , separated from development , yet provides coverage for the surrounding developed area , better than other sites because of the nature of it being undeveloped He stated the percentage in improvement also speaks to the number of square miles of coverage and there is 50 more coverage in the area with a 195 ’ tower versus a 120 ’ tower Chairman Stewart asked to hear from the County’s cell tower consultant , Mr Rusty Monroe of The Center for Municipal Solutions CMS Rusty Monroe , The Center for Municipal Solutions CMS , stated that the Board must decide if the applicant meets the test in the ordinance to prove a tower taller than 120 ’ in height is needed Mr Monroe stated it is inarguable that the closer one is to a tower , the better the signal He stated the issue is also about investment and added that building multiple towers cost more money ; therefore , the applicant is looking to get the most for their money with a taller tower Mr Monroe stated that the ambient tree height in the subject area is approximately 60 ’ to 70 ’ and not 90 ’ as stated by Mr Johnson Mr Monroe presented and reviewed information from a recent T - Mobile request in Massachusetts for a 120 ’ tower Mr Monroe stated the area in Massachusetts was heavily wooded and topographically severe with tree heights approximately the same as in the subject area in Johnston County Mr Monroe commented that in the Massachusetts case , a 120 ’ proposedPage729 July 6 , 2010 – 6 00 pm Continued tower worked at that location Mr Monroe further presented and reviewed information with the Board regarding cell tower cases in Yuciapa , California as well as New Jersey Mr Monroe informed the Board that although he anticipated the need to bring in an expert from CMS , he chose not to in an effort to keep costs down for the applicant Mr Monroe stated there are two individuals at CMS that have been designing cell systems for approximately 20 years ; however , he decided not to bring those individuals with him Mr Monroe presented and reviewed information with the Board regarding drive tests that were conducted for proposed cell tower cases in Ohio and New York Mr Monroe also reviewed with the Board signal propagation maps of the subject area Mr Monroe stated that based on his research , the applicant has selected an appropriate site for a cell tower ; however , the applicant has not proven the need for a 195 ’ tower Chairman Stewart questioned the additional cost associated with constructing taller towers and commented that if a company does not feel they need a 195 ’ tower , then why would they propose to spend the additional money to construct the taller tower Mr Monroe responded that the cellular carriers do not fund the construction cost of the towers , but rather the tower companies construct the towers and then lease the space to multiple cellular carriers ; therefore , the tower companies are hoping to get as much leasable space as they can on the towers He stated the taller the tower , the more space the tower company can lease to the carriers Commissioner Mims asked if the applicant provided all the requested information to Mr Monroe and CMS Mr Monroe stated that he had requested maximum power information that is needed to determine the accuracy of the propagation maps from the applicant , but it was not provided Commissioner Mims stated he believed the reason the ordinance was written with a maximum tower height of 120 ’ is because of what was presented to the Board at the time that citizens have more devices they wish to use ; therefore , the Board realized the capacity problems associated with having only one taller tower versus multiple smaller towers Mr Monroe stated the need for additional towers in the County are not for the reasons of coverage , but are needed to handle capacity He stated once a site is overloaded then the capacity can be handed off to another site Commissioner Braswell stated there is a provision in the ordinance for a 195 ’ tower , provided that it has been shown a smaller tower would prohibit service He stated Mr Jackson has made an argument that a taller tower would improve the core percentage threshold and he asked Mr Monroe if he agreed Mr Monroe stated he respectfully disagrees with Mr Jackson’s opinion Mr Johnson asked to present final comments to the Board Mr Johnson stated that he would like to clarify that the maximum power information requested by Mr Monroe was submitted Mr Johnson expressed his objections to comments from Mr Monroe regarding the decision by CMS not to bring in experts to study the matter Mr Johnson added that the special use hearing is a quasi - judicial hearing and the expertise is needed to backup opinions Mr Johnson also questioned information from 2003 that was presented by Mr Monroe and stated that the standards have changed and he referenced information from Kevin Jackson regarding standards that were established in 2005 for effective in - building coverage Mr Johnson also expressed concerns with the information regarding proposed cell tower cases in other states in comparison to the subject site in Johnston County He added that Kevin Jackson has presented a technological need for a 195 ’ tower by showing it will provide 50 more in - building coverage Mr Johnson concluded his comments by stating that North Carolina General Statue 153A - 34952 states that the County cannot delve into the business decision in terms of the coverage thresholds of carriers which are governed by the FCC Chairman Stewart asked Mr Johnson what he considered to be an expert Mr Johnson responded that to be an expert , an individual needs to have the proper training and experience Mr Johnson stated Kevin Jackson is an engineer with over 20 years experience Mr Johnson also stated that Mr Monroe indicated that he had a colleague with that experience , however , that colleague is not in attendance Page830 July 6 , 2010 – 6 00 pm Continued Mr Jackson readdressed the Board and stated that the standards do change based on the technology and the information he presented to the Board was from 2005 Mr Jackson also stated that a Blackberry requires a stronger signal to be able to properly transmit data ; seven years ago , Blackberries were not in use Mr Jackson also spoke on the calculations in his data and how the improvement percentages were derived Mr Jackson stated T - Mobile recognizes him as a “ subject matter expert ” and he has worked in several of T - Mobile’s headquarters Mr Jackson also stated that a cell tower site in Maryland is entirely different than a cell tower site in North Carolina , as there are many factors to consider He noted that cell tower sites are not designed in isolation and they are designed to contiguously operate with other adjacent cell sites Mr Monroe readdressed the Board and stated that he has been formally deemed an expert by the Board of Commissioners in the past He also noted an expert is determined through education and experience and he has been responsible for the review of over 2,000 cell tower applications in 650 communities in 36 states Mr Gray stated the Planning Board recommended approval of the request with a maximum tower height of 120 ’ There being no further comments , the Chairman recessed the Special Use Hearing for Case 10 - 04 Further Discussion by the Board Commissioner Jeffrey P Carver commented that one of the reasons the County chose to contract with Mr Monroe’s firm is so the County could have its own consultant on the cell tower process in reviewing the applications that are received He stated that he could vote for a 120 ’ tall tower because that is what the County’s ordinance calls for ; however , he would be willing to table the request if the Board wishes to have staff gather more research on the need for a 195 ’ tower Commissioner Tony Braswell commented that he is trying to do what is best under the County’s ordinance while trying to make the best decision for the County citizens that use the services Commissioner Braswell stated the subject site is in an isolated area and he questioned what would serve the citizens the best Commissioner Carver stated the Board’s charge is the 170,000 County citizens and the vision for the future He added that the County’s consultant , Mr Monroe , has stated that the applicant has not proven the need for a taller tower than 120 ’ Commissioner W Ray Woodall suggested sending the request back to the Planning Board for further review Decision on Special Use Case 10 - 04 Case 10 - 04 To allow for the construction and operation of a 195 ’ monopole telecommunications tower and facility Owner Robert W and Elizabeth T Barber Applicant American Tower Corporation ; Jason Groseclose Motion Based on the findings of facts and the special use conditions , Commissioner DeVan Barbour moved the Board authorize the Planning Department to issue a special use permit for Case 10 - 04 to allow for the construction and operation of a 120 ’ monopole telecommunications tower and facility on 332 acres of a 5837 acre tract located at 426 Angie Road in Cleveland Township Commissioner Cookie Pope seconded the motion Discussion The Board briefly discussed possible further tests that could be performed such as d