December 12, 2005 - 7:00 PM - County Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes

10 352 Meeting of the Johnston County Board of Commissioners December 12 , 2005 The Johnston County Board of Commissioners met in regular session Monday , December 12 , 2005 at 7 00 pm in the Commissioners Meeting Room , Johnston County Courthouse Annex , Smithfield , North Carolina The following members were present Present Cookie Pope , Chairman , Wade M Stewart , Vice Chairman , Allen L Mims , Jr , Jeffrey P Carver , W Ray Woodall , and Tony Braswell Absent DeVan Barbour Also Present Rick J Hester , County Manager , April N Byrd , Clerk to the Board , Deva C Holt , Deputy Clerk , and J Mark Payne , County Attorney 1 Public Comments No one spoke at this time 2 Public Hearings – Rezoning Cases and Special Use Permit Requests Advertised – In The Smithfield Herald – November 29 , December 2 , 2005 Certified letters were mailed to adjoining property owners on December 1 , 2005 , and notices posted at the locations on September 28 , 2005 The Chairman opened the Rezoning Hearing for Case 05 - 26 Case 05 - 26 Petition to rezone 275 acres of a 1633 acre parcel of land located on Driver Road SR 1731 in O’Neals Township , from Agricultural - Residential AR to Industrial 2 – Special Use District I2 - SUD Tax ID 11N03004E Owner Applicant Richard D Rockett Steven Finn , Planning and Zoning Director , identified the property on the GIS map , and noted this is a request to rezone 275 acres of a 1633 acre parcel of land located on Driver Road , in the O’Neals Township , from Agricultural - Residential AR to Industrial 2 – Special Use District I2 - SUD The predominant zoning in the area is Agricultural - Residential He noted that the Owner Applicant Richard “ Dan ” Rockett wished to rezone the property to Industrial 2 – Special Use District to allow for an accompanying special use permit for the conditional use of outside storage , farm equipment , attachments , supplies , inventory , etc Mr Finn added that Driver Road was recently brought into the State system for maintenance County Attorney Mark Payne informed the Board that the County has been enforcing zoning violations on the subject property since 2003 He offered the following timeline of enforcement actions taken in regards to the property based upon matters of record in the Johnston County Courts • March 19 , 2003 - Inspected the property , and shortly afterwards , issued first Letter of Violation • August 21 , 2003 – Issued first Notice of Violation , and demand for site to be brought into compliance • August 4 , 2004 – Filed complaint in superior court seeking an injunction and order for abatement , which meant if the defendant , Mr Rockett , did not bring site into compliance , the County would have the authority to go on the site and bring it into compliance • November 29 , 2004 – Hearing on request for Injunction and Order of Abatement • January 2005 – Following hearing , judgment was entered against Mr Rockett requiring him to bring the site into compliance within 90 days • March 2005 – Following another hearing , the judge found the site had not been brought into compliance , and issued an Order of Abatement which allowed the County to go on the site to clean up the property • September 2005 – Court found Mr Rockett in contempt of court for failing to comply with the judgment , and subsequent orders Further , the judge issued an order which allowed the County to go onto the property after October 12 to bring the site into compliance , to allow Mr Rockett the maximum amount of time to bring the site into compliance • November 11 , 2005 – The site had not been brought into compliance , and the County entered into an agreement with a contractor to bring the site into compliance James Strickland , 38 Bailey Circle , Durham , stated that his family had lived on Driver Road since the 1930 ’ s and actually owned their land since the 1960 ’ s He spoke in opposition to the rezoning and special use requests , and expressed concern that the property’s current condition poses potential health risks and negative environmental impacts to surrounding land owners Mr Strickland noted that , in his opinion , the subject property in its current state has a detrimental impact on the value of surrounding properties , and approval of the requested rezoning and special use application would allow the applicant to continue such use of the property Further , Mr Strickland questioned whether the proposed special use request was a legitimate business Page353 December 12 , 2005 Continued In response to a question from Commissioner Wade M Stewart , Mr Strickland stated he owns approximately two acres on each side of Driver Road , with the property on the west side being adjacent to the subject property Dan Tedder , 174 Driver Road , Middlesex , informed the Board that he lived directly across from the subject property He agreed with the concerns expressed by Mr Strickland , and stated that he submitted a letter of opposition and accompanying petition in opposition to the rezoning and special use requests In response to a question from Commissioner Jeffrey P Carver , Mr Tedder responded that he had owned the land for approximately 20 years , and lived there for the past three years William Gay , 1149 NC 39 , Zebulon , stated that he owns approximately 79 acres on Driver Road that has been in his family for several decades He pointed out that his property adjoins the subject property at the back portion of Mr Rockett’s land Mr Gay further expressed the concerns addressed by Mr Strickland and Mr Tedder , including the detrimental impact on the value of surrounding properties , and requested the Board deny the rezoning request Mary Tedder , 130 Driver Road , Middlesex , stated that she has lived across from the subject property since 1995 She informed the Board that the condition of the subject property has became increasingly worse over the years Ms Tedder expressed environmental concerns and distress that the subject property is negatively impacting the value of her own land Richard “ Dan ” Rockett , 115 Driver Road , Middlesex , owner of the subject property , stated that he closed on his property on December 19 , 1986 , and was the first to purchase property in the “ Tommy Wilson ” subdivision Mr Rockett stressed that he had been at the site for 19 years , and , in his opinion , his business should have been grandfathered , however , County staff did not agree He requested approval of the rezoning and special use application to allow him to reduce and consolidate the inventory of items on the property , and bring the site into compliance with the current zoning standards Mr Rockett stated that he had been gathering fencing , light poles , steel beams , and other items to improve his property He disagreed with the County’s assessment that the items on his property were solid waste , and instead , stated that he processes the items , such as scrap copper , for resale purposes Mr Rockett presented numerous pictures to illustrate the appearance of the site Commissioner Allen L Mims , Jr questioned if Mr Rockett had any evidence to support his claim that the property should have been grandfathered as a business prior to county - wide zoning Mr Rockett responded that the only evidence he had available at the hearing was the septic tank permit from January 1987 In response to a question from Commissioner Jeffrey P Carver , Mr Rockett stated that he did not agree with the timeline set forth by Mr Payne , and noted that the County began inspecting his property shortly after he paid off his mortgage Further , he commented that he attempted to obtain building permits for the modulars on the site , however , he could not afford the permits at the time He agreed some of the materials on the site needed to be removed , and stated that in a way the County has done him a favor by forcing the issue Planning and Zoning Director Steven Finn noted that the Planning Board recommended denial of the rezoning request There being no further comments , the Chairman recessed the Rezoning Hearing for Case 05 - 26 Board Discussion on Rezoning Case 05 - 26 Commissioner Allen L Mims , Jr commended Mr Rockett for his presentation , however , he stated , in his opinion , the subject property is not appropriate for industrial use Further , he noted the requested special use application would not enhance the value of contiguous property , neither is the use a public necessity Finally , Commissioner Mims pointed out that Mr Rockett did not have any evidence that the property should have been grandfathered other than his stated opinion Commissioner Jeffrey P Carver noted that , in his opinion , the County had afforded Mr Rockett ample opportunity to bring the site into compliance Page354 December 12 , 2005 Continued Decision on Rezoning Case 05 - 26 Case 05 - 26 Petition to rezone 275 acres of a 1633 acre parcel of land located on Driver Road SR 1731 in O’Neals Township , from Agricultural - Residential AR to Industrial 2 – Special Use District I2 - SUD Tax ID 11N03004E Owner Applicant Richard D Rockett Commissioner Allen L Mims , Jr moved the Board deny rezoning case 05 - 26 , 275 acres of a 1633 acre parcel of land located on Driver Road , in the O’Neals Township , from Agricultural - Residential AR to Industrial 2 – Special Use District I2 - SUD Commissioner Jeffrey P Carver seconded the motion , which carried by unanimous vote The Chairman reopened the Rezoning Hearing for Case 541 Case 541 Petition to rezone approximately 0581 acres of a 138 acre tract located on Government Road SR 1556 in Clayton Township , from Community Business Special Use District CB SUD to Agricultural - Residential AR Tax ID 05G04198D Owner Applicant Harold E Williams Steven Finn , Planning and Zoning Director , identified the property on the GIS map , and noted this is a request to rezone approximately 0581 acres of a 138 acre tract located on Government Road SR 1556 in Clayton Township , from Community Business Special Use District CB SUD to Agricultural - Residential AR The predominant zoning in the area is Agricultural - Residential Mr Finn stated the entire 138 acre tract was rezoned to Community Business Special Use District in May 2001 Harold Williams , owner of the subject property , stated there was confusion in regards to his request , and informed the Board he wished to rezone the entire 138 acre tract to Agricultural - Residential , rather than only the 0581 acre portion as stated by Mr Finn In response to questions from the Board , County Attorney Mark Payne stated since the requested rezoning was adequately advertised and surrounding property owners were given adequate notice , consideration of Mr Williams ’ present request to rezone the entire 138 acre tract to Agricultural - Residential could be allowed There being no further comments , the Chairman recessed the Rezoning Hearing for Case 541 Decision on Rezoning Case 541 Case 541 Petition to rezone 0581 acres of a 138 acre tract located on Government Road SR 1556 in Clayton Township , from Community Business Special Use District CB SUD to Agricultural - Residential AR Tax ID 05G04198D Owner Applicant Harold E Williams Commissioner W Ray Woodall moved the Board approve rezoning case 541 , modified at the property owner’s request to include the entire 138 acre tract located on Government Road SR 1556 in the Clayton Township , from Community Business Special Use District CB SUD to Agricultural - Residential AR Commissioner Tony Braswell seconded the motion , which carried by unanimous vote The Chairman reopened the Rezoning Hearing for Case 3 - 16 Case 03 - 16 Petition to rezone approximately 370 acres of a 50 acre tract from Agricultural Residential AR and Industrial 1 Special Use District I1 SUD to Industrial 1 Special Use District I1 SUD & approximately 130 acres of a 50 acre tract from Agricultural Residential AR to Office & Institutional Special Use District OI SUD located on Cleveland Road SR 1010 in Cleveland Township Tax ID 06D01002K Owners Douglas V & Elizabeth P Kath Applicant Douglas V Kath Note – Case 03 - 16 was originally heard July 7 , 2003 at which time 075 acres of the 5 acre tract was rezoned to Industrial 1 Special Use District I1 SUD Steven Finn , Planning and Zoning Director , identified the property on the GIS map , and noted this is a request to rezone approximately 370 acres of a 50 acre tract from Agricultural Residential AR and Industrial 1 Special Use District I1 SUD to Industrial 1 Special Use District I1 SUD & approximately 130 acres of a 50 acre tract from Agricultural Residential AR to Office & Institutional Special Use District OI SUD located on Cleveland Road SR 1010 in Cleveland Township The predominant zoning in the area is Agricultural - Residential Page355 December 12 , 2005 Continued Property Owner Doug Kath , 11382 Cleveland Road , Garner , stated the property is a portion of land that has been in his family since the 1830 ’ s , and over the years been divided among family members In 2003 , 075 acres of the 5 acre tract was rezoned to Industrial 1 Special Use District to allow for Mr Kath’s business , which includes making safety rails for construction sites Since that time , Mr Kath noted that business growth has necessitated additional space He requested the Board’s approval of the rezoning request Mr Finn noted the Planning Board recommended approval of the rezoning request There being no further comments , the Chairman recessed the Rezoning Hearing for Case 03 - 16 Decision on Rezoning Case 03 - 16 Case 03 - 16 Petition to rezone approximately 370 acres of a 50 acre tract from Agricultural Residential AR and Industrial 1 Special Use District I1 SUD to Industrial 1 Special Use District I1 SUD & approximately 130 acres of a 50 acre tract from Agricultural Residential AR to Office & Institutional Special Use District OI SUD located on Cleveland Road SR 1010 in Cleveland Township Tax ID 06D01002K Owners Douglas V & Elizabeth P Kath Applicant Douglas V Kath Note – Case 03 - 16 was originally heard July 7 , 2003 at which time 075 acres of the 5 acre tract was rezoned to Industrial 1 Special Use District I1 SUD Commissioner Wade M Stewart moved the Board approve rezoning case 03 - 16 , approximately 370 acres of a 50 acre tract from Agricultural Residential AR and Industrial 1 Special Use District I1 SUD to Industrial 1 Special Use District I1 SUD & approximately 130 acres of the 50 acre tract from Agricultural Residential AR to Office & Institutional Special Use District OI SUD located on Cleveland Road SR 1010 in Cleveland Township Commissioner W Ray Woodall seconded the motion , which carried by unanimous vote The Chairman opened the Special Use Hearing for Case 03 - 16 Case 03 - 16 Application to modify a Special Use Permit issued July 7 , 2003 to expand the existing office business for contracting residential safety rails and erosion fences , storage of rails , posts , silt fencing and a caution fence to include existing buildings and to include an apartment office use Owners Douglas V & Elizabeth P Kath Applicant Douglas V Kath Those wishing to speak on Special Use Case 03 - 16 were sworn in by the Clerk to the Board Planning and Zoning Director , Steven Finn , introduced the special use case , and stated the request is to modify a Special Use Permit issued July 7 , 2003 to expand the existing office business for contracting residential safety rails and erosion fences , storage of rails , posts , silt fencing and a caution fence to include existing buildings and to include an apartment office use He introduced the following summary of evidence into the record A pre - application consultation was held with the applicant for Case 03 - 16 on August 30 , 2005 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 October 18 , 2005 , the Johnston County Planning Board held a public hearing regarding Rezoning Special Use Permit Case 03 - 16 and made the following recommendations PagePage pageNumber5356 December 12 , 2005 Continued Upon a motion by Mr Gathers , seconded by Mr Moore , and carried by a unanimous vote of 8 - 0 , the Johnston County Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit modification expansion request , Case 03 - 16 , based on and subject to the following 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 ; 2 That the use or development appears to comply with all required use and intensity regulations of Articles II and 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 ; and 5 That the use as proposed will provide a valuable use for the community Special Use Conditions 1 All conditions found in DB 2530 PG 230 Case 03 - 16 shall apply to the expanded use 2 A revised site plan showing OI zoning for the area around the house must be approved by Staff prior to going before the Board of Commissioners Doug Kath , applicant and property owner , noted that his personal residence is on the subject property Plans are to use the residence for office space and provide apartments for some of the employees to live in Mr Kath stated after consultation with Planning staff and County Attorney Mark Payne , he was advised to request rezoning of approximately 370 acres of the 50 acre tract to Industrial 1 Special Use District , rezoning of approximately 130 acres of the 50 acre tract to Office & Institutional Special Use District , and modification to the existing special use permit to allow application to the expanded use It was his understanding that this would allow the Kaths to use a portion of their residence for office and apartment space , and permit expansion of the business as well Mr Finn noted the Planning Board recommended approval of the special use request There being no further comments , the Chairman recessed the Special Use Hearing for Case 03 - 16 Decision on Special Use Case 03 - 16 Case 03 - 16 Application to modify a Special Use Permit issued July 7 , 2003 to expand the existing office business for contracting residential safety rails and erosion fences , storage of rails , posts , silt fencing and a caution fence to include existing buildings and to include an apartment office use Owners Douglas V & Elizabeth P Kath Applicant Douglas V Kath Based on the following findings of fact , with special conditions attached , Commissioner W Ray Woodall moved the Board authorize the Planning Department to modify special use permit 03 - 16 to include additional acreage , bringing the total to 370 acres of a 5 acres tract to Industrial 1 Special Use District I1 SUD for contracting residential safety rails and erosion fences , storage of rails , posts , silt fencing and a caution fence to include existing buildings , and to issue an ancillary special use permit for the remaining 13 acres of the 5 acre tract to Office & Institutional Special Use District OI SUD for an apartment office use The property is located on Cleveland Road in the Cleveland Township and owned by Douglas V & Elizabeth P Kath Commissioner Tony Braswell seconded the motion , which carried by unanimous vote 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 ; 2 That the use or development appears to comply with all required use and intensity regulations of Articles II and 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 ; and 5 That the use as proposed will provide a valuable use for the community Special Use Conditions 1 All conditions found in DB 2530 PG 230 Case 03 - 16 shall apply to the expanded use PagePage pageNumber6357 December 12 , 2005 Continued 2 A revised site plan showing OI zoning for the area around the house must be approved by Staff prior to going before the Board of Commissioners The Chairman reopened the Rezoning Hearing for Case 05 - 28 Case 05 - 28 Petition to rezone approximately 447 acres of a 1935 acre tract located on NC 96 North in O’Neal’s Township , from Agricultural - Residential AR to Agricultural - Residential - Special Use District AR - SUD Tax ID 11L03046 Owner Dock J & Sarah W Smith Applicant Cellco Partnership d b a Verizon Wireless Steven Finn , Planning and Zoning Director , identified the property on the GIS map , and noted this is a request to rezone approximately 447 acres of a 1935 acre tract located on NC 96 North in O’Neal’s Township , from Agricultural - Residential AR to Agricultural - Residential - Special Use District AR - SUD The predominant zoning in the area is Agricultural - Residential Attorney Gary Pennington , Pennington Law Firm LLP , addressed the Board on behalf of the Applicant Verizon Wireless He introduced the following persons in attendance at the hearing Verizon Wireless Radio Frequency Engineer Shawn Mercer , Excel Communications Representative Scott Smith , Real Estate Associate Graham Herring , and Property Owner Dock Smith Mr Pennington stated that for the first time Verizon Wireless is in the process of providing service to eastern NC The company is planning approximately 17 new sites in Johnston County , however only two are new towers The site on NC 96 North is a partially wooded lot in a rural area Verizon would be leasing a 100 ft by 100 ft area for the communications facility , and proposes to construct a 199 ft monopole , which would not be lighted , and would utilize approximately six antennas at the height of 195 ft The antennas will be constructed at “ minimum off - set ” points to minimize the visual impact of the tower Mr Pennington pointed out the proposed location of the facility on the site plan , and stated the circle area , where the tower would be located , has a radius of 249 ft This incorporates the Planning Board’s recommendation to allow for the height of the 199 ft tower plus 50 ft in a circle around the tower within the rezoning request He noted that the proposed site is 353 ft from NC 96 , 832 ft from NC 231 , 536 ft from the property to the south , and 316 ft from the property to the east Further , Mr Pennington stated there were no possibilities to co - locate on existing towers in the area He presented propogation maps , illustrating coverage without the proposed site on the subject property , versus coverage with the site Mr Pennington noted that a balloon test was advertised and performed at the site Commissioner Allen L Mims , Jr questioned whether the property owners understood that if the Board approves the rezoning as requested , the entire circle area or “ fall zone ” would be rezoned , which would disallow any building within the circle area Mr Pennington confirmed that property owners Dock and Sarah Smith are in agreement with the request as presented Mr Finn informed the Board that LS Rusty Monroe , Cell Tower Consultant for the County , was present to answer any questions the Board might have Mr Monroe affirmed that no alternative structures for co - location existed in the area He stated the tower is needed to provide for internet broadband access , and to satisfy capacity needs in the area Mr Monroe recommended nine conditions for the site , as outlined in the accompanying special use permit He specifically pointed out the recommendation to use the smallest mounts and standoffs possible to minimize the tower’s profile of the antenna array Mr Finn noted the Planning Board and the County’s cell tower consultant recommended approval of the rezoning request There being no further comments , the Chairman recessed the Rezoning Hearing for Case 05 - 28 Decision on Rezoning Case 05 - 28 Case 05 - 28 Petition to rezone approximately 447 acres of a 1935 acre tract located on NC 96 North in O’Neal’s Township , from Agricultural - Residential AR to Agricultural - Residential - Special Use District AR - SUD Tax ID 11L03046 Owner Dock J & Sarah W Smith Applicant Cellco Partnership d b a Verizon Wireless PagePage pageNumber7358 December 12 , 2005 Continued Commissioner Wade M Stewart moved the Board approve rezoning case 05 - 28 , approximately 447 acres of a 1935 acre tract located on NC 96 North in O’Neal’s Township , from Agricultural - Residential AR to Agricultural - Residential - Special Use District AR - SUD Commissioner W Ray Woodall seconded the motion , which carried by unanimous vote The Chairman opened the Special Use Hearing for Case 05 - 28 Case 05 - 28 Application to allow for the construction and operation of a wireless telecommunications facility Owner Dock J & Sarah W Smith Applicant Cellco Partnership d b a Verizon Wireless Those wishing to speak on Special Use Case 05 - 28 were sworn in by the Clerk to the Board Planning and Zoning Director , Steven Finn , introduced the special use case , and stated the request is to allow for the construction and operation of a wireless telecommunications facility He introduced the following summary of evidence into the record A pre - application consultation was held with the applicant for Case 05 - 28 on August 30 , 2005 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 October 18 , 2005 , the Johnston County Planning Board held a public hearing regarding Rezoning Special Use Permit Case 05 - 28 and made the following recommendations Upon a motion by Mr Byrd , seconded by Mr Gathers , and carried by a unanimous vote of 7 - 0 , the Johnston County Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit request , Case 05 - 28 , based on and subject to the following 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 ; 2 That the use or development appears to comply with all required use and intensity regulations of Articles II and 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 ; and 5 That the use , as proposed , will provide a needed service coverage for the community Special Use Conditions 1 All conditions recommended by The Center for Municipal Solutions a To prevent warehousing of permits or authorizations and to assure the best service to the County’s residents as expeditiously as possible , the facility must be built , activated and be providing service no later than one hundred twenty 120 days after the issuance of the Special Use Permit or other applicable authorization b The monopole shall be limited to 199 ’ above pre - disturbance or pre - construction ground level , ie no berm shall be permitted c In order to minimize the profile ie visual intrusiveness of the antenna array , Verizon Wireless shall use the smallest mounts and standoffs possible under the facts and circumstances and shall provide documentation to the County’s and its consultant of such prior to the issuance of a building permit d Notification to the County and its consultant , CMS , of which of the options for foundations it has chosen and 1 if a Caisson approach is selected , of a copy of the lateral load analysis as recommended by Geo Technologoes , Inc is provided to the County’s consultant for verification prior to the issuance of building permit ; of 2 if a Mat Foundation is selected , a copy of the report re depth of embedment as alsoPagePage pageNumber8359 December 12 , 2005 Continued recommended by Geo Technologoes , Inc is provided to the County’s consultant for verification prior to the issuance of a building permit e The provision of a 75,000 performance and removal bond prior to the issuance of a building permit ; f Once Verizon Wireless has met all the conditions of the permit and any other requirements of the County and a building permit is issued , they must notify the County’s consultant if an inspection is required which is not performed by the county g At the completion of construction the Applicant must notify the County’s consultant and provide proof that all inspections have been satisfactorily completed and the project is ready for a final on - site inspection Upon passing the final inspection a recommendation to issue a certificate of occupancy shall be made h After the County’s receipt of CMS’s final invoice , all moneys owed the County must have been paid before the facility shall be allowed to provide service commercially and generate revenue from its use i Verizon Wireless shall not be permitted to actually provide service commercially until the Certificate of Occupancy or its functional equivalent is issued or risk forfeiting its permit 2 A new site plan showing the area to be rezoned as the height of the tower plus 50 ’ in all directions must be submitted to Staff prior to going to the Board of Commissioners Attorney Gary Pennington , Pennington Law Firm LLP , addressed the Board on behalf of the Applicant Verizon Wireless He requested that his statement from the rezoning hearing for Case 05 - 28 , and the complete application , including 18 exhibits , as presented by Pennington Law Firm for Case 05 - 28 , be entered into the record as evidence for the special use hearing LS Rusty Monroe , Cell Tower Consultant for the County , also requested that his statement from the rezoning hearing for Case 05 - 28 be entered into the record as evidence for the special use hearing Mr Finn noted both the Planning Board and the County’s cell tower consultant recommended approval of the special use request for Case 05 - 28 He referenced the two special conditions , including the nine recommendations from the County’s Cell Tower Consultant , included in the proposed special use permit There being no further comments , the Chairman recessed the Special Use Hearing for Case 05 - 28 Decision on Special Use Case 05 - 28 Case 05 - 28 Application to allow for the construction and operation of a wireless telecommunications facility Owner Dock J & Sarah W Smith Applicant Cellco Partnership d b a Verizon Wireless Based on the following findings of fact , with special conditions attached , Commissioner W Ray Woodall moved the Board authorize the Planning Department to issue a special use permit to Owners Dock J & Sarah W Smith and Applicant Cellco Partnership d b a Verizon Wireless to allow for the construction and operation of a wireless telecommunications facility on NC 96 North in the O’Neal’s Township Commissioner Allen L Mims , Jr seconded the motion , which carried by unanimous vote 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 ; 2 That the use or development appears to comply with all required use and intensity regulations of Articles II and 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 ; and 5 That the use , as proposed , will provide a needed service coverage for the community Special Use Conditions 1 All conditions recommended by The Center for Municipal Solutions a To prevent warehousing of permits or authorizations and to assure the best service to the County’s residents as expeditiously as possible , the facility must be built , activated and be providing service no later than one hundred twenty 120 days after the issuance of the Special Use Permit or other applicable authorization b The monopole shall be limited to 199 ’ above pre - disturbance or pre - construction ground level , ie no berm shall be permitted PagePage pageNumber9360 December 12 , 2005 Continued c In order to minimize the profile ie visual intrusiveness of the antenna array , Verizon Wireless shall use the smallest mounts and standoffs possible under the facts and circumstances and shall provide documentation to the County’s and its consultant of such prior to the issuance of a building permit d Notification to the County and its consultant , CMS , of which of the options for foundations it has chosen and 1 if a Caisson approach is selected , of a copy of the lateral load analysis as recommended by Geo Technologoes , Inc is provided to the County’s consultant for verification prior to the issuance of building permit ; of 2 if a Mat Foundation is selected , a copy of the report re depth of embedment as also recommended by Geo Technologoes , Inc is provided to the County’s consultant for verification prior to the issuance of a building permit e The provision of a 75,000 performance and removal bond prior to the issuance of a building permit ; f Once Verizon Wireless has met all the conditions of the permit and any other requirements of the County and a building permit is issued , they must notify the County’s consultant if an inspection is required which is not performed by the county g At the completion of construction the Applicant must notify the County’s consultant and provide proof that all inspections have been satisfactorily completed and the project is ready for a final on - site inspection Upon passing the final inspection a recommendation to issue a certificate of occupancy shall be made h After the County’s receipt of CMS’s final invoice , all moneys owed the County must have been paid before the facility shall be allowed to provide service commercially and generate revenue from its use i Verizon Wireless shall not be permitted to actually provide service commercially until the Certificate of Occupancy or its functional equivalent is issued or risk forfeiting its permit 2 A new site plan showing the area to be rezoned as the height of the tower plus 50 ’ in all directions must be submitted to Staff prior to going to the Board of Commissioners The Chairman reopened the Rezoning Hearing for Case 05 - 29 Case 05 - 29 Petition to rezone approximately 447 acres of a 2483 acre tract located on Jack Road SR 1557 in Clayton Township , from Agricultural - Residential AR to Agricultural - Residential - Special Use District AR - SUD Tax ID 05G04051G Owner Ruby M & Warren E Atchison Applicant Cellco Partnership d b a Verizon Wireless Steven Finn , Planning and Zoning Director , identified the property on the GIS map , and noted this is a request to rezone approximately 447 acres of a 2483 acre tract located on Jack Road SR 1557 in the Clayton Township , from Agricultural - Residential AR to Agricultural - Residential - Special Use District AR - SUD The predominant zoning in the area is Agricultural - Residential Attorney Gary Pennington , Pennington Law Firm LLP , addressed the Board on behalf of the Applicant Verizon Wireless He introduced the following persons in attendance at the hearing Verizon Wireless Radio Frequency Engineer Shawn Mercer , Excel Communications Representative Scott Smith , Real Estate Associate Graham Herring , Registered Appraiser Phillip Hall , and Property Owners Ruby and Warren Atchison , and their son Alex Mr Pennington reiterated that for the first time Verizon Wireless is in the process of providing service to eastern NC The site on Jack Road is one of two new proposed tower sites in Johnston County It would be located within a wooded 24 acre parcel Verizon would be leasing a 100 ft by 100 ft area for the communications facility , and an access easement to the site He pointed out the proposed location of the facility on the site plan , and the existing towers in the surrounding area Mr Pennington noted that the Planning Board recommended approval of the rezoning request on October 18 , 2005 , and at that time , the Board requested the applicant move the access road further away from the property line He stated the applicant had no problem with the request In response to opposition at the Planning Board hearing , specifically by Mr Richard Bolyard and his family , Verizon sent a detailed letter to residents who had signed a petition in opposition to the proposed site , and invited them to a community meeting at the County’s Agricultural Center on November 8 , 2005 Persons in attendance at the community meeting were Mr Bolyard and his wife , County zoning staff , the County’s cell tower consultant , and Verizon representatives In response to a question from Commissioner Cookie Pope , Mr Pennington stated that Ms Bolyard’s residence , which is located across the access side , is the closest residence to the proposed site Page0361 December 12 , 2005 Continued Further , he added that there were no possibilities to co - locate on existing towers in the area Mr Pennington stated it was his understanding that the Johnston County Code of Ordinances requires the applicant to establish there are no possibilities for co - location before receiving permission to construct a new tower site The ordinance also requires the applicant to consider a four mile search area , or a more reasonable search area based on the applicant’s needs In this case , Verizon’s appropriate search area was one mile based on network needs However , Mr Pennington explained that the applicant considered three possible sites , including two outside the one mile search area First , Verizon made an application to the local NBC affiliate , who operates the Outlet Broadcasting tower , which was the closest co - location possibility NBC reported the tower is already overstressed , and could not accommodate co - location The second closest co - location possibility was a 199 ft tower located 29 miles away , across NC 42 , which is used by Nextel plus one other carrier This site would not work because the tower was too far from the search area , and too close to existing Verizon sites at White Oak Road , Drugstore Road , and Clayton sites The final co - location possibility was a 199 ft tower , the Spectra - site , which is 278 miles away from the proposed site However , this site would not work for many of the same reasons as the second site , ie , too far from the search area and too close to existing Verizon sites Mr Pennington presented propogation maps , illustrating coverage without the proposed site on the subject property , versus coverage with the site Mr Pennington explained the applicant is requesting to construct a 199 ft monopole , which is the minimal height needed for connectivity He noted that a balloon test was advertised and performed at the site Mr Pennington illustrated the results of the balloon test He emphasized that cell tower construction is a heavily regulated industry , and pointed out that Verizon always hires a consultant In this case , United Consultants confirmed the proposed site is in compliance with all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act NEPA of 1969 enforced by the Federal Communications Commission Included in the NEPA analysis was a historical structure study , which listed the Bolyard property However , the State Historic Preservation Office indicated that the proposed tower would not impact historic properties in the area Commissioner Cookie Pope stated the Board had received a petition with 101 signatures in opposition to the proposed tower She asked if any of the petitioners were present at the meeting Three individuals in attendance at the meeting responded that they had signed the petition LS Rusty Monroe with The Center for Municipal Solutions , cell tower consultant for the County , introduced Jackie Hicks , director of the mid - Atlantic region Ms Hicks stated that choosing the appropriate site is very important when constructing a new cell tower She noted the proposed tower on Jack Road is sited very well , and the applicant has met and exceeded some of the requirements Mr Monroe pointed out The Center for Municipal Solutions recommended approval of the application with nine conditions as highlighted in their report He confirmed that they had independently verified all of the statements made by Mr Gary Pennington Further , Mr Monroe quoted the following excerpt from The Center for Municipal Solutions ’ recommendation report “ Through the provision of propagation studies and accompanying modeling information used to produce the studies , the need for the service and for a new tower has been established by the demonstration of a gap in service along Barber Mill Rd and surrounding areas The proposed 199 ’ height tower is in compliance with the County’s stated preference for towers that do not require lighting , ie less than 200 ’ in total height Notably , significant care was used by the siting specialist to site this facility in the least visually obtrusive location and manner reasonably possible , given the facts and circumstances ” Richard Bolyard , 405 Scott’s Ridge Trail , Apex , stated that his mother , Rochelle Bolyard , lives beside the proposed site at 3047 Jack Road , Clayton He expressed opposition to the rezoning and accompanying special use permit , and noted that he submitted a written response and petition in opposition to the proposed tower to the Board prior to the meeting Mr Bolyard requested the Board consider each signature of those that signed the petition He stated , in his opinion , it is increasingly difficult to hold onto the family farm in today’s society , and pointed out that the Bolyard property is considered a “ century family farm ” He commented that the proposed cell tower would affect the rural integrity of the family farm , and stressed the need to preserve the rural character of Johnston County In response to statements made by Mr Pennington , Mr Bolyard responded the community meeting held by the applicant was on Election Day at 6 30 pm , and , in his opinion , was not a convenient day and time to hold such a meeting Further , the balloon test was conducted during a weekday , and the simulated photos do notPage1362 December 12 , 2005 Continued accurately represent the impact of the proposed tower He stated the applicant has not taken any actions to lessen the impact of the tower , and questioned whether the outlet broadcasting tower could be structurally improved in order to co - locate on this site Commissioner Allen L Mims , Jr stated it was his belief that , in regards to the outlet broadcasting tower , the owners of the particular tower are the decision makers as to whether any improvements could be made to the site He pointed out the County 911 and Sheriff departments also wanted to co - locate on the site , however , their requests were denied also Rochelle Bolyard , 3047 Jack Road , Clayton , stated her opposition to the proposed rezoning and accompanying special use permit She noted the proposed tower would be located adjacent to land that she has owned over 50 years , and at which were residence is located Ms Bolyard pointed out that the existing access road to the proposed site was extremely close to the property line between her property and the Atchison’s property She expressed concern the proposed tower would negatively impact the value of her property Alex Atchison , son of the property owners of the proposed site , stated the requested rezoning is for a portion of a much larger tract that has been in the family since the 1950 ’ s He noted that several family members live near the proposed site , and intent of the request is not to harm any of the surrounding property owners Mr Finn noted the Planning Board and the County’s cell tower consultant recommended approval of the rezoning request There being no further comments , the Chairman recessed the Rezoning Hearing for Case 05 - 29 Decision on Rezoning Case 05 - 29 Case 05 - 29 Petition to rezone approximately 447 acres of a 2483 acre tract located on Jack Road SR 1557 in Clayton Township , from Agricultural - Residential AR to Agricultural - Residential - Special Use District AR - SUD Tax ID 05G04051G Owner Ruby M & Warren E Atchison Applicant Cellco Partnership d b a Verizon Wireless Commissioner Jeffrey P Carver moved the Board approve rezoning case 05 - 29 , approximately 447 acres of a 2483 acre tract located on Jack Road SR 1557 in Clayton Township , from Agricultural - Residential AR to Agricultural - Residential - Special Use District AR - SUD Commissioner Wade M Stewart seconded the motion , which carried by unanimous vote The Chairman opened the Special Use Hearing for Case 05 - 29 Case 05 - 29 Application to allow for the construction and operation of a wireless telecommunications facility Owner Ruby M & Warren E Atchison Applicant Cellco Partnership d b a Verizon Wireless Those wishing to speak on Special Use Case 05 - 29 were sworn in by the Clerk to the Board Planning and Zoning Director , Steven Finn , introduced the special use case , and stated the request is to allow for the construction and operation of a wireless telecommunications facility He introduced the following summary of evidence into the record A pre - application consultation was held with the applicant for Case 05 - 29 on August 23 , 2005 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 Page2363 December 12 , 2005 Continued • 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 October 18 , 2005 , the Johnston County Planning Board held a public hearing regarding Rezoning Special Use Permit Case 05 - 29 and made the following recommendations Upon a motion by Mr Gathers , seconded by Mr Edwards , and carried by a unanimous vote of 7 - 0 , the Johnston County Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit request , Case 05 - 29 , based on and subject to the following 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 ; 2 That the use or development appears to comply with all required use and intensity regulations of Articles II and 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 ; and 5 That the use as proposed will provide a needed service coverage for the community Special Use Conditions 1 All conditions recommended by The Center for Municipal Solutions see Attachment # 2 a To prevent warehousing of permits or authorizations and to assure the best service to the County’s residents as expeditiously as possible , the facility must be built , activated and be providing service n later than one hundred twenty 120 days after the issuance of the Special Use Permit or other applicable authorization b The monopole shall be limited to 199 ’ above pre - disturbance or pre - construction ground level , ie no berm shall be permitted c In order to minimize the profile ie visual intrusiveness of the antenna array , Verizon Wireless shall use the smallest mounts and standoffs possible under the facts and circumstances and shall provide documentation to the County’s and its consultant of such prior to the issuance of a building permit d Notification to the County and its consultant , CMS , of which of the options for foundations it has chosen and 1 if a Caisson approach is selected , of a copy of the lateral load analysis as recommended by Geo Technologoes , Inc is provided to the County’s consultant for verification prior to the issuance of building permit ; of 2 if a Mat Foundation is selected , a copy of the report re depth of embedment as also recommended by Geo Technologoes , Inc is provided to the County’s consultant for verification prior to the issuance of a building permit e The provision of a 75,000 performance and removal bond prior to the issuance of a building permit ; f Once Verizon Wireless has met all the conditions of the permit and any other requirements of the County and a building permit is issued , they must notify the County’s consultant if an inspection is required which is not performed by the county g At the completion of construction the Applicant must notify the County’s consultant and provide proof that all inspections have been satisfactorily completed and the project is ready for a final on - site inspection Upon passing the final inspection a recommendation to issue a certificate of occupancy shall be made h After the County’s receipt of CMS’s final invoice , all moneys owed the County must have been paid before the facility shall be allowed to provide service commercially and generate revenue from its use i Verizon Wireless shall not be permitted to actually provide service commercially until the Certificate of Occupancy or its functional equivalent is issued or risk forfeiting its permit 2 A new site plan showing the area to be rezoned as the height of the tower plus 50 ’ in all directions must be submitted to Staff prior to going to the Board of Commissioners 3 A gate and ‘ No Trespassing ’ signs will be installed to prevent unauthorized access to the site 4 The new site plan will show the access road with buffer moved so as to be off the Bolyard property Attorney Gary Pennington , Pennington Law Firm LLP , addressed the Board on behalf of the Applicant Verizon Wireless He requested his statement from the rezoning hearing for Case 05 - 29 , and the following exhibits , as presented by Pennington Law Firm for Case 05 - 29 , be entered into the record as evidence for the special use hearing Exhibit 1 - Application folder including 20 exhibits Exhibit 2 - Map illustrating the proposed Country Lane Tower Site and existing Nextel , SpectraSite , and Outlet Broadcasting tower sites Exhibit 3 - SpectraSite Propagation Map Exhibit 4 - Nextel Site Propagation Map Exhibit 5 - Country Lane & Surrounding Sites Propagation Map 1 Coverage Without Country Lane Site Exhibit 6 - Country Lane & Surrounding Sites Propagation Map 2 Coverage With Country Lane Site Exhibit 7 - Aerial photo of the site Exhibit 8 - Johnston County Map illustrating proposed 17 new tower sites Exhibit 9 - Display of Balloon Test Exhibit 10 - Letter Dated December 7 , 2005 to Steven Finn , Planning Director , from Gary PenningtonPage3364 December 12 , 2005 Continued Mr Pennington informed the Board that Exhibit 10 is in response to a letter dated December 5 , 2005 to Chairperson Pope and Honorable County Commissioners from Richard Harrison Bolyard On behalf of the Applicant Verizon Wireless , he stated all measures have been taken to meet the Johnston County Code of Ordinances and the Findings of Fact requirements for the special use permit In addition , Verizon has attempted to satisfy the Bolyards , who are in opposition to the proposed tower , however , this has been unsuccessful Mr Pennington stated that he had visited the site himself , and , in his opinion , it is a perfect site from an applicant’s point of view Further , Mr Pennington explained how the proposed special use application met the Findings of Fact requirements for the special use permit See Summary of Evidence introduced by Planning and Zoning Director Steven Finn • Findings of Fact # 1 - Mr Pennington stated from a safety and engineering stand - point the tower design , as illustrated in the drawings included in the application , was approved by an engineer The tower would meet all relevant setbacks required by the County , and would be in compliance with all applicable laws Further , he pointed out the importance of wireless communications to today’s society , ie emergency service needs • Findings of Fact # 2 – Mr Pennington stated that LS Rusty Monroe with The Center for Municipal Solutions , cell tower consultant for the County , indicated the proposed site as presented by the applicant meets the County’s ordinance requirements • Findings of Fact # 3 – Mr Pennington offered evidence that in the Carolinas , studies have concluded that communications towers do not have a negative impact on the values of surrounding properties , and noted the move toward a “ wireless society ” He commented , in his opinion , since wireless communications towers are becoming a necessity , the presence of towers is becoming more acceptable Mr Pennington stated construction plans for the site are to minimize the visual impact of the tower by minimizing the height of the tower and using the monopole design The location of the tower will be in a less visible area of the property The setbacks suggested by the County are 249 ft from the property line Further , the applicant has offered to plant frasier furs on the Bolyard property to serve as a buffer With regard to the “ public necessity ” requirement of Findings of Fact # 3 , Mr Pennington pointed out that over 200 million people in the US use wireless communications , and over 100,000 people make 911 calls daily • Findings of Fact # 4 – Mr Pennington noted the applicant has strived to minimize the negative impact of wireless telecommunications facilities by taking the following actions 1 Limiting the tower’s visibility , 2 Constructing at the minimum tower height , 3 Utilizing the monopole design , 4 Using the smallest antenna possible , and 5 Meeting the County’s setback requirements • Findings of Fact # 5 – Mr Pennington reiterated his statement in regard to public necessity , and stated there are Verizon customers already in the area , and these customers desire improved service In response to questions from Mr Pennington , Graham Herring , licensed commercial real estate broker in NC and SC , stated that he had worked in the telecommunications industry for 11 years , and studied numerous projects in Johnston County For the proposed tower site , Mr Herring prepared a report included in Exhibit 1 , which notes that after looking at the property and surrounding market , speaking with developers , and researching tax sales , in his opinion , he concluded there would be no loss of value to surrounding properties He agreed the site would “ maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property ” as required by the Findings of Fact for the special use permit Mr Herring noted the report that he prepared for the proposed site was an analysis , and not an appraisal In response to questions from Mr Pennington , Phillip Hall , State certified general appraiser , stated that he commonly works in Johnston County , and had studied in both rural and urban settings He concluded the proposed tower would have no adverse effects on residential or commercial development in the area He agreed with the findings set forth by Mr Herring In response to questions from Mr Pennington , Shawn Mercer , radio frequency engineer for Verizon Wireless , stated the tests performed were both accurate and correct In response to questions from Mr Pennington , Scott Smith , senior projects manager for Excel Communications , stated the testimony given by Mr Pennington and the other consultants was both accurate and correct Mr Pennington pointed out that Johnston County’s ordinance does not require a real estate appraisal Page4365 December 12 , 2005 Continued Commissioner Allen L Mims , Jr noted the Planning Board recommended the access road with buffer be moved six to eight feet off the property line adjacent to the Bolyard property Richard Bolyard , 405 Scott’s Ridge Trail , Apex , expressed opposition to the special use request , and stated that his family did not receive notification of the proposed request until seven business days prior to the Planning Board hearing He conveyed concern that the applicant did not have sufficient evidence to prove the proposed tower would not affect the value of surrounding properties Mr Bolyard questioned why a certified appraisal was not performed , and informed the Board that he contacted the NC Appraisal Board , which stated there should be a written report on the proposed impact the tower would have on surrounding properties He emphasized the adjoining property owners and community are stakeholders in the process , and their opinions should have been included in the design phase of the project With respect to the buffering mentioned by Mr Pennington , Mr Bolyard remarked his family would prefer to coordinate any efforts through the County’s planning staff Mr Bolyard further expressed numerous concerns He remarked that he did care about coverage and emergency response , and noted that both Cingular and Sprint had excellent reception at the site , and Verizon had coverage as well Further , he stated that it was his understanding the height of the tower could be less than 199 ft , and requested the Board condition the height to be the minimum height required by the County’s ordinance He inquired as to the setback requirements , and stated the proposed 249 ft is the minimum distance from the property line Further , Mr Bolyard objected to the way the applicant advertised and conducted the balloon test , and again stressed the community was not well informed on the issue He emphasized the proposed cell tower would aff