CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mayor John M. "Jay" Donecker

Mayor Pro-Tem John Gentry

Councilman James K. Festerman

Councilman John Henderson

Councilman George O. Rucker

Councilman W. Clark Turner

Councilwoman Joan Zdanski

COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:

None

CITY STAFF PRESENT:

D. Kelly Almond, City Manager

Angela G. Stadler, City Clerk

William F. McLeod Jr., City Attorney

Michael J. Pearce, Community Development Director

Donna Setliff, Assistant Community #9; Development Director

Edd Hunt, Police Chief

Mayor Donecker called the meeting to order at 3:00 P.M. He called upon the Rev. J. Paul Davenport, Pastor of First United Methodist Church, Reidsville to give the invocation.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

The audience then rose to give the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

PROCLAMATIONS:

CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION FOR POLICE OFFICERS ERIN POWELL AND BEN CURTIS.

Mayor Donecker called upon Officers Erin Powell and Ben Curtis to come to the front, along with Police Chief Edd Hunt. He asked Chief Hunt to explain why they were here today. Chief Hunt explained the details of the rescue of a handicapped victim from his smoke-filled, burning apartment on January 19 and how these officers put their lives in harm's way in an attempt to save the life of a citizen.

Mayor Donecker then read aloud a certificate of recognition for Officers Erin Powell and Ben Curtis. (A COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION IS HEREIN INCORPORATED AND MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES.) The audience then gave the officers a standing ovation, and both shook the hands of each Council member and the City Manager.

When asked to make remarks, Officer Curtis said the most important thing to remember about this is that Walter Poindexter lost his life. He commended other officers who were present, citing Officer Tim Altizer and Sgt. Wendell Neville. He noted that a "pat on the back" is rare, but it goes a long way. Officer Powell said that until that day, she didn't really know what teamwork meant. She thanked all of her team members by name.

Councilman Festerman noted that these two officers were "two fine examples of a fine Police Department."

APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

Mayor Donecker asked if there were any items Council members would like pulled and considered separately from those listed on the Consent Agenda? None were offered.

Mayor Pro Tem Gentry then made the motion, seconded by Councilman Rucker and unanimously approved by Council in a 7-0 vote, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 12, 2003 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES.

With the approval of the Consent Agenda, the Council approved the minutes of the February 12, 2003 regular meeting.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - APPROVAL OF BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 8, WHICH APPROPRIATES GRANT FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE PTCOG AGENCY ON AGING; CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED FOR THE POLICE K-9 PROGRAM; FUNDS FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FOR WORK AT THE REID HOUSE; AND 911 FUNDS FOR A CAD MAPS SYSTEM.

With the approval of the Consent Agenda in a 7-0 vote, the Council approved Budget Ordinance Amendment No. 8 as follows:

BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 8

WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Reidsville adopted a budget ordinance on June 12, 2002 which established revenues and authorized expenditures for fiscal year 2002-2003; and

WHEREAS, since the time of the adoption of said ordinance, it has become necessary to make certain changes in the City's budget to appropriate grant funds received from the PTCOG Agency on Aging; to appropriate contributions received for the police K-9 program; to appropriate funds for the Historic Preservation Commission for work at the Reid House; to appropriate 911 funds for a CAD MAPS system;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Reidsville that the budget ordinance as adopted on June 12, 2002 is hereby amended as follows;

Section 1. That revenue account no. 11-3612-0000, Grant NC Division of Aging, be increased by $5,087; that revenue account no. 10-3431-7000, Contributions Police Department, be increased by $190; that revenue account number 10-2930-0000, Fund Balance, be increased by $1,012; that revenue account no. 29-2930-0000, Fund Balance, be increased by $25,800; that revenue account no. 29-3255-0000, 911 charges, be increased by $38,758:

Section 2. That expense account no. 11-6123-2610, Senior Programs, be increased by $5,087; that expense account no.10-4312-2700, K-9 Equipment and Supplies, be increased by $190; that expense account no.10-4930-6993, Historic District, be increased by $1,012; that expense account no. 29-4300-5800, Capital Improvements, be increased by $64,558:

This the 12th day of March, 2003.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 - APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO THE CITY'S EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT POLICY.

With the approval of the Consent Agenda in a 7-0 vote, the Council approved changing the City' travel expense reimbursement policy. The City Manager requested that Section 1-5, Payment of Travel Expenses for Other Private Citizens, be changed to this statement: "The payment of expenses for individuals not in the employment of the City of Reidsville who attend meetings and conferences will be reimbursed for expenses based on guidelines established by the City Manager."

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 - APPROVAL OF BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 10, WHICH CLOSES OUT CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 27, WEST END PLAZA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND; CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 45 WATER PLANT IMPROVEMENT FUND; AND CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 58 GREENWAYS FUND.

With the approval of the Consent Agenda in a 7-0 vote, the Council approved Budget Ordinance Amendment No. 10 as follows:

BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 10

WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Reidsville adopted a budget ordinance on June 12, 2002 which established revenues and authorized expenditures for fiscal year 2002-2003; and

WHEREAS, since the time of the adoption of said ordinance, it has become necessary to make certain changes in the City's budget to close Capital Project Fund 27, West End Plaza Community Development Fund; to Close Capital Project Fund 45 Water Plant Improvement Fund; to close Capital Project Fund 58 Greenways Fund;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Reidsville that the budget ordinance as adopted on June 12, 2002 is hereby amended as follows;

Section 1. That Capital Project Fund 27, West End Plaza Community Development Fund, be closed with the following entries:

Fund 27, West End Plaza Community Development Fund, all the funds were spent on the project. The City did not retain any assets since this was a hazardous material abatement project.

Section 2. That Capital Project Fund 45, Water Plant Improvements, be closed with the following entries:

61-1700-0000 Fixed Assets $3,727,871.82

61-2960-1000 Contributed Capital $3,727,871.82

Section 3. That Capital Project Fund 58, Greenways fund, be closed with the following entries:

58-1101-0000 Cash ($ 10,469.20)

58-2930-0000 Fund Balance ($ 10,469.20)

10-1101-0000 Cash $ 10,469.20

10-3990-0000 Residual Transfer #9; $ 10,469.20

10-1700-0000 Fixed Assets #9; $ 259,776.45

10-2820-0000 Investments in Fixed Assets #9; $ 259,776.45

This the 12th day of March, 2003.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 - APPROVAL OF BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 11, WHICH APPROPRIATES EXPLORER FUNDS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND APPROPRIATES FUNDS FROM THE PENN HOUSE TRUST.

With the approval of the Consent Agenda in a 7-0 vote, the Council approved Budget Ordinance Amendment No. 11 as follows:

BUDGET ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 11

WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Reidsville adopted a budget ordinance on June 12, 2002 which established revenues and authorized expenditures for fiscal year 2002-2003; and

WHEREAS, since the time of the adoption of said ordinance, it has become necessary to make certain changes in the City's budget to appropriate Explorer Funds in the Police Department; to appropriate funds from the Penn House Trust;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Reidsville that the budget ordinance as adopted on June 12, 2002 is hereby amended as follows;

Section 1. That revenue account no. 10-3411-0000, Explorer Funds, be increased by $3,350; that revenue account no. 10-3834-8600, Penn Trust Fund, be increased by $1,700;

Section 2. That expense account no. 10-4314-2350, Police Explorer Funds, be increased by $3,350; that expense account no. 10-6140-3410, Penn House Printing, be increased by $600; that expense account no. 10-6140-3510, Maintenance and Repair Penn House, be increased by $1,100:

This the 12th day of March, 2003.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 - APPROVAL OF AN AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION TO APPLY FOR A WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN CAPACITY BUILDING GRANT FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA RURAL CENTER.

With the approval of the Consent Agenda in a 7-0 vote, the Council approved an Authorizing Resolution by Governing Body of the City of Reidsville for the Capacity Building Grants Program. In a February 26 memo to the City Manager, Community Development Director Michael Pearce stated staff's intent to apply for a $40,000 grant, which would require a $4,040 match from the City that has already been allocated to the Sewer Fund, from the North Carolina Rural Center to assist in the writing of a Wastewater Master Plan. This plan would help towards evaluating the City's waster collection and pumping system, including: identifying potential bottlenecks in the collection and interceptor system; establishing a prioritized pipe renewal program and developing a sound plan to service the surrounding growth areas of Reidsville. Also, a Capital Improvement Program would be formulated to guide the City through the next 20 years, Pearce explained. (THE AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION AS APPROVED IS HEREIN INCORPORATED AND MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES.)

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 - APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION CONCERNING PART LAND USE POLICIES.

With the approval of the Consent Agenda in a 7-0 vote, the Council approved a Resolution Concerning PART Land Use Policies. The Resolution endorses the land use policies and actions for regional growth that have been developed by PART (Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation), which includes Forsyth, Davidson, Guilford, Randolph, Alamance and Rockingham Counties.

The Resolution as approved follows:

RESOLUTION CONCERNING PART LAND USE POLICIES

WHEREAS, the Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART) has been organized to promote regional cooperation in creating better transportation solutions for the region; and

WHEREAS, in order to create better regional transportation options, it is essential that supportive and complementary land development patterns be established, and

WHEREAS, there has been conducted a regional study identifying the most effective ways that land development and transportation can be coordinated, and

WHEREAS, PART has asked local planning boards and land use decision-making bodies in the Piedmont Triad area to either adopt the recommended policies and actions from that study or to certify that the adopted comprehensive plan is consistent with those policies, and

WHEREAS, Rockingham County is a participating member government of PART;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REIDSVILLE THAT:

The currently adopted plans are consistent with and fully support the 2025 Policies and Actions for Regional Growth as proposed by the Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART).
The City of Reidsville is committed to the active implementation of those policies and actions.
Adopted this 12th day of March, 2003.

- End of the Consent Agenda -

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

CONSIDERATION OF CLOSE OUT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FOR THE WEST END PLAZA APARTMENTS.

In making the staff report, Community Development Director Michael Pearce noted that three years ago, the City received a $250,000 development grant for developers at the West End Plaza Apartments to renovate those apartments. He said he was very proud and pleased to be here today because four years ago, it looked like a "war zone" down there, and it looked like a lot of those units would have to be torn down and evict a lot of people. He said he was very pleased to tell Council that $250,000 was spent to remove asbestos and over $2 million was spent renovating the 82 apartments. Those apartments are fully occupied by lower-income households.

The purpose of today's public hearing is to let people know how their money has been spent and give them the opportunity to talk on the project, Pearce said. He noted that Michael Walser of Benchmark, Inc. was also present in the audience for any questions.

During the public hearing, Mayor Donecker thanked Michael Walser for his work on the project. The public hearing was closed at 3:15 p.m.

Councilman Festerman made the motion, seconded by Councilwoman Zdanski and unanimously approved by Council, to officially close the CDBG project.

CONSIDERATION OF AN APPLICATION BY AMERICAN TOWER INC. REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 184' MONOPOLE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY AT 2509 RICHARDSON DRIVE, SPECIFICALLY ROCKINGHAM COUNTY TAX #7994-19-50-3715. THIS REQUEST WAS DENIED RECOMMENDATION BY PLANNING BOARD AND GOES AUTOMATICALLY TO CITY COUNCIL.

Mayor Donecker asked for a staff report and noted that there would then be a report from the representatives of American Tower Co. Prior to the staff report, City Clerk Angela Stadler swore in Community Development Director Michael Pearce.

(CLERK'S NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THIS DISCUSSION WILL BE KEPT IN A FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE LABELED "AMERICAN TOWER CELL TOWER REQUEST, 3/12/03, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INCORPORATED INTO THE MINUTES.)

Staff Report.

Community Development Director Pearce stated that the City had received an application for a cell tower, a 184-foot monopole, to be located at 2509 Richardson Drive. The application was made by David Hockey of American Tower.

Pearce noted that the City passed a set of cellular facilities regulations in 2000 and amended them in August of 2002. The gist of the regulations is to try and encourage developers to put antennas either on existing structures or some of these preferred sites on Table A of the regulations that have been pre-approved by Council, Pearce explained. (A COPY OF TABLE A IS HEREIN INCORPORATED AND MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES.) If someone were to locate on one of these sites, staff could approve the application, he said. If they need to be somewhere else, the applicant needs to make an application through the Special Use Permit process.

Pearce then described the location of the proposed cell tower site. The land on which the tower is to be located is on Highway 158 about 400 feet from the rear of a lot zoned Light Industrial (I-1). To the east and west, the properties are also zoned I-1. To the north across 158, the property is zoned RA-20. To the south are properties zoned R-12. Around Highway 158 is a mixture of commercial and light industrial type uses. There is a residence across to the north on Highway 158. To the south is undeveloped property for about 300-400 feet and then there is the Ashcroft neighborhood. Pearce noted that it is a mixture, but the closest properties that are developed are a mixed use of industrial and commercial activities.

The City's Fire Station #3 is a little over a quarter mile away from the Trent property, Pearce continued. It is one of the properties mentioned on Table A of the pre-approved sites. The City attempted to negotiate with American Tower. Both sides negotiated in good faith to try and find a way to locate the tower at Fire Station #3, he said. The way Fire Station #3 is listed on the table of properties is as a 911 tower. In putting together this laundry list of properties, the thought was that the City needed a 911 tower somewhere in this area, Pearce explained, and perhaps we could co-locate a 911 facility with another tower if somebody else needed an antenna in the area. However, he admitted that a lot of thought wasn't given to what all that entailed.

When staff talked to American Tower, they needed a tower about 185-190 feet, the Community Development Director said. With a tower that size, the City's ordinance requires that the tower be constructed so that it could have at least four antennas. Each antenna usually represents a different company, he noted. They all need to have their equipment in a separate building in the base of the tower. Now, Pearce pointed out, one is not just talking about a tower, but about four separate outbuildings that also have to be located at the base of the tower. The space they needed to lease from the City was just not for a monopole, but a 75x75-square-foot space to house all these buildings, he noted. "We just couldn't find the space on that property," he said.

Staff had received some guidance from City Council that it didn't want a tower placed in front of the fire station. However, he noted that the guidance probably wasn't needed because the City's Zoning Ordinance wouldn't allow big types of accessory buildings and structures in front of the fire station anyway. The tower had to be to the rear of the building, Pearce added. Looking closer to the rear of the building, it is closer to other residences, he said. The end result was that they couldn't find a place at Fire Station #3 to locate a tower of the size that American Tower wanted to have. Therefore, the City rejected all of American Tower's three to four proposals, he said.

Since then, American Tower has come back with this application to locate a cell tower on the Trent property, Pearce said.

Pearce said staff forwarded the application to MetroSite Management for their review. MetroSite Management is the consulting firm the City uses for many types of issues, including the leasing of City-owned properties such as the Vance Street water tank. Mr. Al Ott from MetroSite Management was in the audience to answer any questions that City Council may have, Pearce noted.

When MetroSite reviewed the application, Mr. John Kowalski, who is an expert from MetroSite, thought the affidavits and information supplied "appear to establish the need for the facility in the proposed area." Noting this was not the strongest statement Mr. Kowalski could have made, Pearce said Mr. Kowalski was saying the applicant appeared to have enough evidence to show that this is an area that needed to have a cell tower. Mr. Ott said at the January 15th Planning Board meeting that he had reviewed the material and it was in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, Pearce said.

Pearce said he had reviewed the application and for the most part, it was in compliance with the cellular facility regulations. Pearce said he did have a problem initially with the way American Tower handled the portion regarding the documentation that is needed to say that the tower would collapse upon itself. He stated that there are setback standards in the cellular tower regulations that say you can have a lesser setback than you normally would for a tower if you provide documentation that it is designed to collapse upon itself and not fall over onto other neighboring property.

American Tower did not provide that information with the initial application or at the Planning Board meeting, the Community Development Director said. Some Planning Board members and staff actually thought that the City couldn't just have a condition on the Special Use Permit but that when an applicant goes before the City to get a building permit issued, the applicant needs to show the documentation that it will collapse upon itself. Some of the Planning Board members did not think that was adequate, however, Pearce noted. Since that time, American Tower has provided the City with information from a professional engineer and that information has already been circulated to Council, he said. After he and the City Engineer reviewed the information, as far as they could tell, the cell tower will be designed to collapse upon itself, Pearce said.

Pearce described what would actually happen when the tower collapses. The tower will "buckle" at certain points along the tower instead of falling flat. The (American Tower) engineer said that if something were to happen and it would break, it would fall no further than 20% of its entire height, which would be about 36-37 feet. The closest point that Pearce said he thought the cell tower would be to a neighboring property line to the south was 45 feet. Therefore, American Tower had provided documentation that shows the tower will not fall off the Trents' property if it collapses or buckles, according to their engineer. Pearce said he was satisfied that American Tower had complied with that part of the regulations.

Pearce said there are four basic things the Council needs to look at when considering this application. They are as follows:

1. American Tower has to meet the requirement to show that there were no other places on Table A where it could locate a tower on.
2. The applicant has to show that within a one-mile area or radius around the Trent property there are no other existing structures or towers that American Tower could put an antenna on. Pearce stressed that the company doesn't have to show that there are no other properties that it could put a tower on. American Tower has to show that there are no other towers or structures that it could put an antenna on.
3. American Tower needs to show compliance with all the lists of regulations, such as the landscaping, the parking, the lighting, FCC regulations, etc. They need to show with documentation and evidence that they have complied with all these lengthy requirements.
4. There are six findings of facts that the City Council must take a look at. Usually, there are four. In this case, there are six, which Pearce said he would go over with Council very briefly.

In regards to the first requirement, American Tower needs to establish by documentation and testimony provided by qualified professionals that locations in (a) other tower structures or (b) the locations in Table A cannot be used or made reasonably suitable for use as a Wireless Communication Facility, Pearce said.

The Community Development Director said he believes that American Tower has submitted a lot of evidence in their application that shows they need to be somewhere near the area. He noted that they have two existing towers, one on Johnson Street and the other down on Holiday Loop Road. American Tower's contention was that it needed something in between those two towers and to the left, he said, because they are problems with gaps when trying to give people phone service in that area.

Pearce said he believes American Tower has shown evidence that they are in compliance with what the City wants here. He said there had been some questions about whether or not there had been industrial areas where they could be located. One of the requirements in the City's regulations is that, in addition to these 20 sites, if there is a heavy industrial area, an I-2 zone, that is more than 1,500 feet away from any residentially zoned block, then an applicant could locate a tower there without any type of Special Use Permit. Pearce said he had heard concerns that American Tower had not fully complied by showing the City all the industrial land in town and whether or not they had looked at those areas.

Pearce said he had looked at a map and within a mile and a half, there were only two industrial areas. One is the Unifi property, which is approximately 1.3-1.4 miles away, and the area right off Port McCoy Road that has been proposed for an industrial park, which is approximately 30 acres. Neither of those areas have parcels that are more than 1,500 feet away from residentially zoned areas, he said, therefore, they couldn't put a tower on those two industrial areas. Pearce said he believed American Tower was in compliance with that part of the ordinance as far as the requirement to be away from residential areas or meeting the properties of Table A.

The second thing is that American Tower needed to show that any Wireless Communication antenna cannot be located on an existing tower within one mile of the Trent property. Pearce reiterated that this doesn't mean American Tower has to prove that it can't locate on another property, but that it can't locate on another different structure or tower. He said he didn't know of another existing tower or structure or anything that American Tower could locate on there, and he said he doesn't think anybody else has been able to show that there is something else within one mile of the Trent property. Therefore, they are in compliance with this part of the ordinance, Pearce said.

Looking at other portions of the ordinance, the FAA compliance, the height standards, the setback standards, landscaping, lighting, signage, parking fencing, Pearce said he believed American Tower has provided in its application and by other evidence, that it is in compliance with the intent of these requirements.

Pearce then moved onto the six findings of fact. The Planning Board looked at all six findings of fact during their meeting on January 15 after having a lengthy public hearing, he noted.

First Finding of Fact: "The Wireless Communication Facility will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan submitted."

The Planning Board voted three in favor and four against, Pearce explained. Some of the Planning Board members obviously felt like there may be material danger to public health if it were located on the Trent property, he said.

One of the big concerns was that American Tower had not provided the documentation that the cell tower would collapse upon itself. Some of the Planning Board members even doubted whether it could be designed to collapse upon itself, Pearce said. "However, I believe that American Towers by providing the documentation had shown that this tower will be designed to collapse upon itself," he said.

The second concern of Planning Board members was about the danger to possible houses or possible development in the undeveloped section of the Ashcroft subdivision. The tower is supposed to be built, if the Special Use Permit is approved, 45 feet from the rear property line, which would be theoretically 45 feet from the back property line of a residential neighborhood, Pearce explained. Some Planning Board members were concerned about what could happen if houses were built there and people lived there and their safety if the tower were to collapse.

In talking with the Planning Board, he thought there was a misunderstanding about the Ashcroft subdivision. The City has never approved a final plat for the Ashcroft subdivision, not for that undeveloped portion, Pearce stated. The City has approved it in stages and approved the preliminary plat, he said. That still doesn't mean there are existing individual lots. Before Ashcroft developers can sell lots or build houses on this property, they must submit a final plat, build all the roads, water and sewer. They could also offer a bond to the City in the same amount it would cost to build the roads and the sewer. The City would then give them one year to build all the roads and sewer and infrastructure. If after one year they don't built it, the City could use the bond to go and build all of these, because theoretically, they would have been selling lots and building houses during this time period, Pearce explained.

Pearce said the point here is that what there are no existing houses or lots. "What we have is a 33-acre lot that exists, the majority of which is wooded," he said. He said he would just caution City Council, and that it was his opinion, that this finding of fact should be judged upon what is the material threat to existing conditions, not proposed conditions. By having American Tower meet "proposed" conditions is raising the bar for this standard just a little too high, he said.

Second Finding of Fact: "The Wireless Communication Facility meets all required conditions, specifications and development standards of this ordinance."

Planning Board unanimously agreed that they thought evidence had been provided that American Tower had met all the requirements for the City's cellular facilities regulations, Pearce said.

Third Finding of Fact: "The Wireless Communication Facility will not substantially injure the value of adjoining and abutting property, or that the use is a public necessity."

The Planning Board voted three in favor and four against in this. Pearce said the majority of the Planning Board thought there was a potential for substantial injury to the value of the adjoining property. He said he took it from the Planning Board's discussion that they were speaking of the Ashcroft subdivision. Members of the Planning Board were concerned about the evidence that had been provided by American Tower showing the lack of property value degradation in Orange County, not Rockingham County. Therefore, they basically said there was not an "apple to apple" comparison, he said. Some Planning Board members thought they should have done some work on existing similar situations in Rockingham County. He said he had to admit that he didn't have a lot of input to give on this and was not given a copy of the information. American Tower had an expert in this field at the January 15th Planning Board meeting who testified what had happened in Orange County. American Tower did not leave that information with staff; therefore, Pearce said he had not had the opportunity to review that at length. He said he was not an expert in real estate himself so he had no input to give Council on this.

Fourth Finding of Fact: "The location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan submitted, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan of Reidsville and its environs."

The Planning Board voted three in favor and four against on this point. Several of the Planning Board members seemed concerned that the tower would not be in harmony with the area, Pearce said. There was some discussion as to what that area was. First, Pearce said he'd like to dismiss the part of the finding of fact that says it has to be in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan of Reidsville. The City's Comprehensive Plan was written in 1990. Cellular phones were a new technology at that point, and no one saw it as being that vital an issue in the community, he said. On the other hand, the Comprehensive Plan doesn't have anything about providing for telephone or electrical service or those types of things, he said, but it's a given that people want those, and those types of services are going to be in the community. "Myself, I would dismiss the Comprehensive Plan, or that portion speaking to having to comply with the Comprehensive Plan," Pearce said.

Pearce said he would like to talk with Council about the harmony of the area. One of the Planning Board members questioned what is the area that the tower needs to be in harmony with? He said he thought that was an important issue that the Council needed to consider when looking at the evidence today. "If you're sitting on the back of the Trent property, 400 feet off of 158, you're on a piece of ground that has been zoned industrial for over 40 years," Pearce said. "You're looking on Rentz Oil on one side and undeveloped property on the other side and woods to the south. When I was back there, it looked like a pretty good darn location for a cell tower if you're talking about harmony with an area. However, if you're on the other side of these woods in the Ashcroft subdivision, it's a different situation and a different view of that same area. Whether it's in harmony with the Ashcroft subdivision is a very key point here," he said.

Pearce discussed the Ashcroft neighborhood. He noted that Ashcroft is obviously an upscale neighborhood, and it even has an architectural committee to which design plans must be submitted before a homeowner can build there. They're very particular about the type of development that is occurring," he said.

Pearce said he thinks there are good arguments and good merits to both points. However, he said Council has to think about where this tower is being located. It's not being located in the Ashcroft subdivision, but on an industrial site, which has been industrial for a while, Pearce noted. One of the Planning Board members said it can't be in harmony with the area because they had so many people (at the Planning Board meeting) and they hired an attorney, he said. "I guess you could say that, but I don't think that's the only thing you would want to judge by what's in harmony with an area. Obviously, if people are upset it's not harmonious, but I think you need to look at the needs of the entire community," Pearce said. "It is in harmony with the needs of the City of Reidsville?"

The Community Development Director said one of the Planning Board members made the comment that if we were waiting to find a cell tower that everybody liked, we were never going to have any more cell towers. "I think that's a key point here," Pearce said. "I think that American Tower has provided evidence that it needs to be somewhere in this small area of the City of Reidsville. Residential properties are all around. What are the chances that we'll find another property within this whole area that everybody is going to like? It's going to be close to some residential area somewhere." Pearce said he thought when looking at whether or not this is harmonious with this area, the City needs to think about these types of things.

The fifth and sixth findings of fact are in regards to the conditions that have been suggested for the Special Use Permit application. Pearce noted that initially three conditions had been suggested: lighting on the tower be by "flash" technology; wiring be inside the tower; and the tower must be designed to collapse upon itself.

Pearce noted that the lighting was required by the FAA due to the proposed tower's proximity to the Warf Airport. However, American Tower says there is technology that will reduce the intrusion of that light into the surrounding area, he added.

MetroSite Management had suggested that, even though the original design showed wiring on the outside of the tower, that the wiring be concealed within the tower structure.

The third condition is that it be designed to collapse upon itself. Pearce said the City could probably drop that because American Tower has shown that they intend to construct a tower that will collapse upon itself.

Fifth Finding of Fact: "If applicable, additional development conditions are based upon the purpose and goals of this ordinance."

The Planning Board voted unanimously that the conditions that had been suggested were in concurrence with the purpose and goals of the ordinance.

Sixth Finding of Fact: "If applicable, additional development conditions are reasonable and capable of being accomplished."

Pearce said this is to stop people from suggesting conditions that the cell tower be made invisible, something which is impossible. The Planning Board voted unanimously that they thought the proposed conditions were doable and reasonable.

Pearce asked if there were any questions from Council? None were forthcoming. Mayor Donecker stated that American Tower would now be allowed to make a presentation.

City Clerk Stadler swore in all those planning to speak.

American Tower Presentation.

Mr. Jerry Eatman of 2626 Glenwood Avenue, Raleigh, legal counsel representing City of Reidsville landowners Elton and Sallie Trent, applicant American Tower and the proposed occupant of the tower AllTel Communications, then came forward to address Council. He noted that he had represented Alltel since this system was handled by Centel Cellular in 1988. He introduced those accompanying him, Mr. David Hockey and Mr. Jimmy White of American Tower and Mr. Matthew Jerry of AllTel's Charlotte office and Mr. Zlatko Bibic with AllTel Communications' home office in Little Rock, Arkansas. Mr. Eatman noted that Mr. Bibic, a radio frequency engineer, will be testifying today. He also introduced Mr. Graham Herring of Raleigh, a real estate analyst who testified before the Planning Board.

Before beginning his substantive presentation, Mr. Eatman said he wanted to take care of a few procedural matters. He noted that, as Mr. (City Attorney Bill) McLeod had probably told them in the past, a Special Use Permit (SUP) proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding, which means everyone will be sworn in and certain evidentiary guidelines will need to be followed. He said part of the reason the North Carolina Legislature adopted this process was so that there would be certain safeguards for landowners when they were coming to ask a city for the right to do something on their own property. That, if they were denied, it was because the proposal failed to meet certain specific requirements in your ordinance, including the six SUP findings which are the same in some variety or another to those SUP findings in every other city and county in the state. What this means for the process today is that he would be submitting evidence, some of which would be in question-and-answer form. He said he would do that to speed the process along. He said he would call witnesses up and ask them to speak to certain things. If they don't cover it in general, he would prod them along so everybody wouldn't be here all afternoon.

The other thing is, since this is a quasi-judicial proceeding and because it is subject to review by the courts, Mr. Eatman said he has the obligation as counsel to the applicant, to object from time to time if there is evidence being offered by the opposition which does not meet the evidentiary requirements for competent, substantial and material evidence. A good example is hearsay. Since nobody wants him jumping up and down all afternoon, he said he was going to start out making a couple of general objections for the record. He noted that Ms. Laura Anderson of Kernersville, their court reporter, is with them today.

Mr. Eatman then outlined a couple of general objections. One is that the evidence has to be material, meaning it has to relate to one of the requirements in the City's ordinance. He said he was going to go for the record now, that any evidence submitted that doesn't have to do with the requirements of the ordinance will be objected to. Specifically, there are two things: (1) The applicant is not required under your ordinance to prove that it looked at every other piece of property in Reidsville. The only property in question here, the only alternative locations, are those on Table A. After being denied by the Planning Board, Mr. Eatman said they were inundated with requests to lease property to them. "I appreciate all that effort from the residents of Reidsville, but that really was not appropriate for us until prior to this hearing. Mr. (Larry) Somers was nice enough to call me and offer up some alternative property, but we have a contract with Mr. Trent and we had a hearing pending with City Council so it would not have been appropriate to go in that direction, and certainly, we didn't," Mr. Eatman said. Similarly the fact that there are other properties out there is not something that they have to address or is required by your ordinance, the attorney said. (2) The second main area that this is going to come in is under the Special Use Permit requirements. Mr. Eatman said they have to establish that this tower is not going to substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting properties. "So right now, we want to object to any evidence that is submitted about the impact of this tower on any property that is not adjoining or abutting the Trent property. It is not our obligation to address any properties outside of that. I think you will find, or hope you'll find, some comfort in our information about properties outside that area. All the ordinance requires is that we address adjoining and abutting properties so we're going to go ahead and register that objection to keep me from jumping up and down when the opposition speaks. If there are any questions about that, we'll jump right in," he said.

Mr. Eatman stated that they have to meet those specific development criteria in the general Special Use Permit. He noted that Mr. Pearce has testified, based on the application American Tower submitted and on the recommendation of the Planning Board which has reviewed those development standards, landscaping, etc., that American Tower's application complies with that. "That meets our burden of evidence," Mr. Eatman said. "We have established that based on his testimony. We could go through all of those in excruciating detail if necessary during the course of the hearing, but I think we'll go ahead and offer up Mr. Pearce's testimony on those issues and drive forward to the bigger issues we've got pending."

He asked if he had any questions from Council regarding landscaping, etc.? None were offered.

Mr. Eatman stated that one of those development standards is the Table A properties. "We have to establish that the facility we are proposing could not be reasonably located on one of those other Table A locations," he said. Mr. Eatman said that in order to do that, it is important first of all to explain what American Tower needs the tower for and then they can explain why those locations on Table A don't work. He said he was going to ask Mr. Bibic to come up but first, Mr. Eatman said he would give the layman's version.

AllTel has two tower sites serving this area, Mr. Eatman noted. One is at 2549 Holiday Loop Road, which was placed in service in 1995, which will be referred to as the Williamsburg site. The other one is at 915 Johnson Street, which was placed in service in 1997, which is referenced as the Wentworth site. Those two facilities functioned pretty well during the first few years after they were placed in service, he said. "But I don't think it's going to come as a surprise to anybody that AllTel and all the cellular companies have had enormous growth in their customer base," Mr. Eatman noted. "What's interesting about it is not only that the customer base has grown, but the amount of time that residents use their wireless phones has increased dramatically."

He said the shorthand version is that those two towers are at capacity. "They can no longer accommodate the traffic in Reidsville," Mr. Eatman said. "It was fine in 1997 but in 2003 and beyond it cannot meet the coverage objectives or the capacity needs of the community." Mr. Eatman said there are certain things you can do to increase capacity of the system before you have to build a new tower, and AllTel has done this. It has modified its equipment and adjusted their antennas on existing sites and done everything they can do, he explained. Now the only way AllTel can fix that problem is with a new site strategically located in between those two, which as they say "splits the two cells."

"Now the goals of this site are to be close enough to Williamsburg and Wentworth so that they can 'off load', so they can talk to those towers," Mr. Eatman explained. "They need to be far away enough from Wentworth and Williamsburg so that it doesn't create interference. So you're talking about a very small area where you want to locate this tower to off load and add capacity."

He said one other technical thing about capacity issues and growth in the system is that one of the byproducts of a system like we have now is that the use way exceeds capacity. "You also start to see a degradation in coverage so not only are you having trouble getting on the system with the fast busy, inability to make the call a long way, but because there is such demand, the coverage area is degraded. So the other thing you want to do with this strategically located tower is to try and expand coverage and capacity, this is what this tower is designed to do," he said.

Mr. Eatman then introduced Mr. Zlatko Bibic to tell Council about what's been going on with the AllTel system and how they've addressed the Table A options.

In his presentation, Mr. Bibic used a chart, labeled "Picture #1" and a chart showing the Table A properties. Mayor Donecker asked that the charts be located so that they could also be seen by the audience. The Mayor also noted that Council had some diagrams in their informational packets.

At the request of Mr. Eatman, Mr. Bibic spelled out his name and stated that he was from Alied Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72202. Mr. Eatman asked Mr. Bibic what his position was with AllTel? Mr. Bibic replied that he was an RF (radio frequency) engineer in charge of North Carolina. He said he was the one who designed these towers.

Mr. Eatman stated that in the application and in the City Council's material, they have quite a bit of radio frequency material, propagation maps, etc. "Did you prepare that and to the best of your knowledge is it true and accurate?" Mr. Eatman asked. "Yes, I did," Mr. Bibic replied.

Mr. Eatman then asked Mr. Bibic to explain to the City Council in a better way what he just told them. Mr. Bibic stated that in order to explain the capacity and coverage issues, he would give a simple example of the technology and how it works. He relayed the following: In using a wire line phone, he stated that there is a dedicated line between you and me and that line is only for us. In cellular technology, everybody is sharing that line, in this case, a RF spectrum. How this technology works, he asked Council to imagine that there is a bar full of people, and you have trouble getting in. They are talking to each other, but at one point, the noise in that bar is too high and people cannot understand each other anymore. That means a capacity breach because no more people can be accommodated in that bar. So what do you have to do? You have to build another bar, over here, but these two bars cannot be too close to each other and they can't be too far away from each other because people need to be able to walk between these two bars and be able to talk to each other. If they're too far away, you will have a hole over here, and your call will drop. If they're too close to one another, the noise among these two bars will be too high and you won't be able to achieve anything.

Mr. Bibic continued, noting there is a fine line between how far you can have a cell tower between these two bars. He said that right now, you have an existing site over here and an existing site over here. In this sector or bars in this example are going to run out of capacity in this area over here, and this area over here. In order to cover these sectors and make the system work, he has to have a site over here that's going to cover this area and this area. "I can prove that any other property that is on this map is not going to fulfill this requirement," he said.

The second issue is the 911 issue. "I am ordered to locate someone in a space because your home phone number has an address and it's fixed. The 911 operator knows where you are at. Since you're making a call from the City, it doesn't know where you're at. If you are like a stranger in the City like I am, I don't know the streets. In order to find my location in space, we need three points, these three coordinates have to be provided from three towers. That technology is called triangulation," he said. Looking at the map, he noted he has triangulation over here in this area. "So anybody in this space would be located within a space of six feet," he said. "In order to provide that, I have to have a tower in a space like this."

Mr. Eatman asked Mr. Bibic if he didn't bring some call data? Mr. Bibic responded in the affirmative. Mr. Eatman asked him to place the chart where Council members could see it. The lawyer said he wanted Council to see a little bit of what he was talking about when he talked about the volume that they're dealing with here.

Mr. Bibic showed statistics that had been pulled from AllTel's switch in Rockingham County. He showed data from two months, November and December. He noted there had been a big ice storm in December. He said he tried to do a comparison between these two months to prove to Council in case of emergency or extreme situation that the people are having to use the phones. He added that as you can see from the numbers here, origination failure means that if everybody is using the phones, and there is a time limit on how many people can use the phone at one time.

Mr. Eatman interrupted because he said he wanted Council to focus on the importance of this. He looked at the December 4, 2002 data on the day of the ice storm. He said if Council looked at this, there was an 18.8% -- nearly 20% failure rate -- in some 1,500 attempted calls. "So what's happening is, day to day, this thing is barely functioning," he said. If there's any spike at all, you lose 20%, which he described as an enormous percentage in the industry. Accepted percentages are somewhere between 1-2% on call failures, Mr. Eatman added, saying that's the kind of thing we wanted to show you, along with the call volume. The data discussed had been on the Williamsburg site, but Mr. Eatman said he wanted to look at the Wentworth site. He showed that on that same day, there were 2,234 calls that failed -- almost a 28% failure rate. "We've got a problem, and the issue is how do we solve it," he said.

Councilwoman Zdanski referred back to the comments made about triangulation and about being able to trace a 911 call back to within six feet. She noted that her former cell phone had a Greensboro number. If she called 911 on that number, she would have to be sure and tell them that she had a Greensboro number. She asked if when the other tower was put in, did that mean this would no longer be necessary? "Yes, ma'am," Mr. Bibic said. "The technology would provide that information to 911. You wouldn't have to do anything. They would know where you are at." He added that is if you have an AllTel phone.

Councilman Festerman said his question had to do with failure rate. He asked if they were talking about calls that were dropped while they were in progress or people who attempt to make calls from cellular phones? "Yes, they try to make calls and because of the limited resources that we have right now, they were not able to make them," Mr. Bibic said. Mr. Eatman added they were failed attempts, not drops. Councilwoman Zdanski asked if they were weather-related? Mr. Eatman said, no, they were not weather-related. The system was functioning, but it was just overrun, he added. "We threw in the storm to show the importance of when you have a problem and that we're at capacity now," he said. Mr. Eatman said one can look day in and day out at both Williamsburg and Wentworth and one can see the enormous number of calls and call attempts that are being dropped on a regular basis. "This facility, not including the rent that we'll pay, will cost approximately $375,000 to put in service, that's just the equipment, that doesn't count the rent, the cost of the rent, just the radio transmission equipment is at a minimum of $350,000-$375,000," he said. "We wouldn't make that investment unless we had a problem," Mr. Eatman stressed.

Councilman Henderson asked whether as the business of AllTel increases, does that mean that there could be towers anywhere in the City of Reidsville without guidelines for the residences? Mr. Eatman said, "No, sir, not at all." He noted that sometimes, again, it's a matter of diminishing need. Right now, we only have two, he added. Councilman Henderson asked about in the future? Mr. Eatman said that if the company has to add one transmission site every six years, and if we have the same growth in the next six years that we've had in the past six, which doesn't seem to be happening although AllTel is experiencing growth, AllTel would probably have to add another site. "We would hope maybe, in that instance, since it would be in a different part of the City, that you could use an existing tower or an existing water tank," Mr. Eatman said.

"About 50-70% of new transmission sites are co-locations," he explained. "There is a very small percentage of new towers. So, it doesn't necessarily mean a new tower, Mr. Henderson," Mr. Eatman said, it means a new site.

Mr. Eatman then asked Mr. Bibic to address the Table A properties. The legal counsel stated that when they were at the Planning Board, they addressed the options on Table A by showing that they couldn't locate this transmission site in any area outside the service area and still accomplish the goal. The only other site that was within that service area was the fire station, he noted, which the Council has heard testimony about and obviously, it couldn't be used. Mr. Eatman said the Planning Board had wanted them to address that in greater detail so they've done that in the interim. He said he had asked Mr. Bibic, even though they knew before they did them that these locations were too far away to be of any use, to run the radio frequency propagation tests on each site so that they could come here today and say they've looked at all the Table A properties, and they will not work to fix the problem.

Mr. Bibic showed a map with the proposed location of the tower. He pointed out what he described as high traffic areas. He said he put each of these properties on a map with the green areas showing existing coverage.

Mayor Donecker asked Mr. Bibic to show the relationship with the SBA Tower. Mr. Bibic noted that the SBA Tower was on another chart. While he looked for it, Mr. Eatman said they actually went over that one in the Planning Board meeting. He said that site was actually one they don't have to look at under the ordinance, but they did because it was just outside of that one-mile area. "We had hopes that it might work," he said.

Referring to the map, Mr. Bibic noted that the green color is the south side area of Reidsville. The blue is the SBA Tower area. He noted that there is some overlapping, but the problem is that this sector needs capacity. He pointed out areas where the blue color representing SBA's coverage area doesn't reach. He showed various spots where he had holes in coverage, in both the green and blue. He noted that Council can see for itself why this tower doesn't work because he has a "hole" over here. He said he even tried to rotate the sectors to try and fix the problem but it didn't fix it at all.

Councilwoman Zdanski asked if the tower is put in that proposed location, what does it do to SBA? Mr. Eatman said it won't do anything to the SBA Tower. The SBA Tower has some other carrier on it so it won't have anything to do with the SBA. "No interference?" she asked. "No Ma'am, none whatsoever. In fact, these facilities can locate on the same tower. Under your ordinance we have to design the tower because of that." Councilwoman Zdanski noted then American Tower's tower wouldn't be there if it was on that one. He again stated that there was no interference.

Mayor Donecker asked how the chart he was looking at correlated with the color-coded chart about "hands off." He said this chart was basically assuming that we're looking at one tower operating by itself and would be in its coverage. Mr. Eatman said he understood what the Mayor was asking. "What is it propagating with?" Mr. Bibic offered to explain the meaning of "hands off." He noted, that like he said before, using a phone at home is using one line. A cellular phone is, in fact, using four lines or four resources, he explained. Pointing to the map, he noted that he is using resources from two sectors and partial resources from two other sectors. Speaking in terms of the color codes, he said the "hands off area" means he wants to have as much pink and blue area as possible, but that he doesn't want to have this area over here, especially not red. "When that happens, no hands off," he said. "That means this sector is dominant in this area. That serves my traffic." Mr. Bibic stated that he doesn't want to have any green color over here.

Mr. Bibic continued, noting that "no hand offs" means he's not utilizing a lot of capacity over here. In looking at another map, he noted he doesn't have this problem anymore. "I'm in two-way handoff," he said. "It means that my phone, instead of using the resources from one sector, is using the resources of both sectors and he's not capacity offloading his system."

Mayor Donecker asked if that meant that would be a "dead spot" then or a "hand off"? Mr. Bibic replied that it would be a "hand off" because he wants to minimize the amount of red and green as Council can see on the map legend. "I want to have three-way handoff. That means for one phone call, instead of having three people talking, only one guy is talking at the same time. I want to eliminate that. That's why there's a fine space where I can set this tower to eliminate this problem." Referring to a picture, Mr. Bibic said this sector is dominant. The only guy over here in this area and this guy over here will use the resources of this sector, not both of them, which would be waste of resources, he said. He pointed to a picture with plot of SBA, stating that anyone over here will be using resources of both sectors.

Mayor Donecker said he was having a hard time trying to understand "hand off" versus what Mr. Bibic said a few minutes ago that we would have a "dead spot" in the same area. "To my simple mind, it's not going to be a dead area, it will be where we're handing off and we won't know because we're having constant communication," he said.

Mr. Bibic asked the Mayor if he considered a "dead spot" where his phone would drop? The Mayor said, in the drawing behind this one, when two were being evaluated, it looked liked there was a dead spot being proposed based solely on Freeway Drive, right around the Harrison Street intersection. In these two, it seems like it's been "hand offs" and not "dead spots," that they are different, the Mayor said.

Mr. Eatman interjected a comment as a lay person. He said that people are used to looking at these issues in terms of coverage areas and dead zones. "That's a coverage issue -- where are you not going to have signal," he said. "What we're dealing with here is a capacity issue that exists throughout the system. The problem that we're facing here is that if we don't off load the travel, then you could have dropped calls or more to the point, failed call attempts, anywhere in this area. It's not a dead zone concept, Mr. Mayor. We have some coverage issues because of the thing I mentioned, the degradation of coverage area. But if you can, think of it for a minute as coverage and capacity being two separate issues. It's not as much as a geographic problem that there's a dead zone here, it's that, without offloading these two sites, you're going to have capacity problems up and down the system."

Mr. Bibic said the problem is that he must have this type of dominance over here (referring to the map). He showed varying sites of dominance and where there needs to be dominance. "It's about who's going to be dominant, who's going to shout louder," he said. This site cannot reach this area, but Mr. Bibic said he needs to have somebody over here who's going to be strong enough to say hey, I'm the strongest guy over here and this area is going to disappear.

Mr. Eatman said that way you don't lose capacity here with this sector dealing with calls over here. When Mr. Bibic says dominant, what he's trying to do is put this in a position that these two sites can deal with a bigger area and more people, Mr. Eatman explained. "If you don't strategically locate it, you have the same problem. You don't add to the capacity," he said. Mr. Eatman noted he was seeing some difficult looks from Council.

Mayor Donecker said he had a problem because if you look at the distance between the Williamsburg site and the SBA Tower and the SBA and the north Reidsville site on Johnson Street, those distances -- from Williamsburg to SBA is just about the same as from Johnson Street down to the south Reidsville site. "Basically it looks like they're a mirror image, that they basically have the same distances but just that one is closer to another tower," the Mayor said, noting it is strategically placed. "My question is are we still not achieving that with the SBA Tower?" the Mayor asked.

Referring to the map, Mr. Eatman and the Mayor discussed the differences between the towers. The Mayor said they appeared to have basically the same relationship but are just flip flopped. Mr. Bibic drew a triangle and discussed the concept of triangulation. He noted that the triangle had to have these sides of equal distance. "As you can see, I am closer to this one but look how far away I am from this one," Mr. Bibic said. He drew another triangle and commented how much better this one looked and he had equal distances from this one and this one. The Mayor told Mr. Bibic he thought he ought to take a protractor to that and that he'd find there's a longer distance from south Reidsville to the Williamsburg site and would match the distance of the SBA Tower up to north Reidsville. Mr. Bibic, pointing to the map, stated that his goal was to offload this area and this area. "If he has a tower over here, he would only be able to achieve one goal," he said. If he has a tower over here, he's offloading in this area and this area, Mr. Bibic said.

Mayor Donecker called for a short break at approximately 4:25 p.m.

Upon returning from recess, Mr. Eatman said now might be a good time to hear testimony from Mr. Al Ott of Metrosite. He noted that in the ordinance was the right of the City to retain an independent consultant so that the City could get independent verification of questions like those being posed here today of a radio frequency nature. He said Council's application materials actually go a step beyond what is required, because the City not only has Mr. Bibic's report but it also has a report from an independent engineering firm, Kimly-Horn & Associates. He asked if Council had looked at that report? "As you'll see in that report, it confirms the information that has been provided today by Mr. Bibic that there is a need here, that the SBA Tower in particular does not work and that the Table A properties are not situated in an area where a new tower or co-location would also meet that goal," Mr. Eatman said. He then suggested they hear from the City's consultant.

However, the Mayor asked Mr. Eatman to go to page 2 of the Kimly-Horn letter. (A COPY OF THE KIMLY-HORN ENGINEERING REVIEW STATEMENT IS HEREIN INCORPORATED AND MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES.) The Mayor referred to the diagram on increasing capacity and reducing hand-offs that showed the black circles (in yellow) as existing wireless towers. He said he didn't understand why those two spots are closer to each other when, if you look on a regular map, they are actually further apart than the actual proposed tower. "What's the point of having that distance misrepresented and not being accurate?" Mayor Donecker asked.

Mr. Eatman, noting that this statement was prepared by Kimly-Horn, said he thought it was prepared by the engineering firm to translate to Council the radio frequency data. This is not a geographic map prepared to scale, he said. This is not intended to show streets and locations of parts of the town or particularly these towers, he said. All of the engineering firms, and he pointed out that Kimly-Horn is a very reputable independent firm, utilize radio frequency propagation mapping tools which give you this type of information. They feed in the locations, the transmission data, the relative topography, all of that allows them to look at this and see how the site will perform. This is not intended to be a "to-scale" representation of these towers," Mr. Eatman said, asking and receiving confirmation of this from those who came with him. It is a demonstration for Council of how these sites would function, he added.

The Mayor asked if Mr. Eatman was saying that the size of the ovals associated with the antennas are not based on distance geographically but based on radio signals? Mr. Eatman replied in the affirmative.

Mr. Eatman said Council should note on that same page that there is some discussion from Kimly-Horn on why the SBA alternative is not a workable alternative for fixing this problem. "You have a certain "belts and suspenders" approach here," the attorney said. "You have our information, which is pretty detailed, you have Kimly-Horn telling you the same thing, and last but not least, you have your own consultant, Mr. Ott, who is going to confirm to you that this is an accurate state of affairs based on this information."

Mr. Eatman said, as a sidenote, that AllTel has a master co-location agreement with SBA. "We can go on any one of their towers anytime we want to," he said. "We've agreed up front for the rent, it's an expedited process. If that SBA Tower would have worked to fix this problem, I can't begin to tell you how much money we would have already saved to put it up there. We've looked at that very, very hard. If we could make it work, we would have because we would have been way ahead of the game at this point, if it would have. We gain nothing by not going on the SBA Tower."

Mr. Eatman asked if Council had any other questions for Mr. Bibic. There were none. Then Mr. Eatman asked Mr. Bibic the following for the record since they had gotten sidetracked on that information, which is necessary: "You did look at all the Table A properties?" "Yes, I did," replied Mr. Bibic. "And you determined that none of them would work for purposes of fixing this problem?" Mr. Eatman asked. "No, they would not," Mr. Bibic said.

Mr. Eatman said he thought they had heard some testimony on the fire station, and that City Council has a pretty good idea of what the problems were associated with that. "It is in a location that if we could have built a tower there, it would have worked," he said. "That would have been useful for us. Unfortunately, it's not a feasible location for this type of facility, and I think the testimony from Mr. Pearce and everything in the record supports that conclusion."

Mr. Eatman said that pretty much takes care of the dangling development standards that they needed to address with you and takes us into the Special Use Permit requirements, unless the Council had any additional questions about development standards? There were none.

The first of those Special Use Permit requirements is that the use will not endanger the public health and safety, Mr. Eatman said, noting there are a couple of things they need to focus on. As Mr. Pearce indicated in his report, the Planning Board had questions primarily in this regard about the collapsing nature of the tower, he said. He stated that Council has in its materials that Mr. Pearce distributed ahead of time, the sealed engineering drawings, which indicate that this facility, in the unlikely event of a failure, would collapse upon itself within 20% of the tower height, fully within the boundary lines of the Trent property. Mr. Eatman explained that one of the reasons this was not provided to the Planning Board, is that ordinarily what happens in these cases, if the SUP is granted, then you go out and contract for specific engineering drawings and this type of information is certified by a professional engineer when you submit a request for a building permit and it is reviewed by the inspections department. "This is kind of the cart before the horse but the Planning Board seemed to be concerned about that so we wanted to go ahead and provide that documentation which seemed to be lacking at the initial Planning Board hearing on this particular issue," he said.

Mr. Eatman then asked Mr. David Hockey to come forward and talk about the structural integrity of these facilities and some experience that they've had with them. "Obviously we've presented you with evidence that if they're going to fall, it's going to fall within that property line," Mr. Eatman said. "We'd like to take a little step beyond that and talk to you a little bit about our experience with these facilities."

Before Mr. Hockey identified himself for the Council, Mr. Edward Lord, counsel for the Ashcroft residents, wanted to ask a question. He asked if the engineer, Mr. Michael DeBoer, whose seal was on this report was available for questioning? Mr. Eatman said that he was not. Mr. Lord said he would submit that this report is just hearsay. City Attorney Bill McLeod Jr. said Mr. Lord's objection was noted.

Mr. David Hockey of 796 Johnny Dodds Boulevard, Mt. Pleasant, SC, then appeared before Council. He noted that what he wanted to do was, as part of the documents signed and sealed by the engineers, to verify this information. He also wanted to give a pictorial representation of what has happened in conditions which are bordering on catastrophic, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, etc., and how these towers essentially react because that was one of the concerns when the drawings were submitted.

Mr. Hockey then distributed to Council various pictures of a tower in the Atlanta, Georgia area, which was in the path of a F-2 Class tornado with winds up to 150 mph. This site was intact while substantial damage was sustained surrounding the site, he said. The pictures show the kind of damage that was sustained by the natural surroundings, which encompassed the tower itself. "As you can see by these three pictures, there are a number of mature trees with large diameters surrounding the cell site," Mr. Hockey said. "In all three of those you can see they've been literally snapped up." The first picture shows a tree halfway down, literally sheared, he continued, noting that this tower did stand after the tornado had passed. "As I said, I have documentation from NOAH/ National Weather Service dating the storm as well as the class of the storm and the area in which it occurred." Mr. Hockey said. "They have verified as a part of their report that there was widespread and significant damage to trees and homes. The tornado's ranking has been rated at the top of the F-2 class, which resulted in maximum sustained winds of 150 mph." He added that the path of this tornado, in fact, was 19 miles long with a width of about one-half mile.

Councilman Festerman asked Mr. Hockey what was the height of this tower? Mr. Hockey replied that it was approximately 180 feet, very close to the tower we have.

Mr. Hockey said these types of structures are designed to withstand incredible forces of nature, whether it be wind or tornado or hurricane, and this is the kind of thing they were meant to withstand. He said he wanted to give Council a pictorial representation because a lot of times people say they've never seen the results of what happens when a storm hits one of these areas and has a direct impact on something like a cell tower or other tower. He said he wanted to provide Council with documentation that there is clearly significant damage surrounding that site indicating that it had gone through the tornado and this site was sustained.

Mayor Donecker, looking at the picture provided, asked about the kind of lighting that would be on the tower. Mr. Hockey stated that what the Mayor was referring to was not actually lighting but the mailing devices that some carriers use for wrap. The wrap is what the antennas are mounted to.

Councilman Turner asked about a memo that Mr. Hockey sent to Michael Pearce. "Can you tell me how far this tower would be located from the storage tanks, the Rentz Oil storage tanks?" the Councilman asked. Mr. Hockey referred to a map to show the storage tanks. Noting that one inch on the map equals 200 feet, he said the cell tower is approximately 400 feet from the oil tanks.

Councilman Turner said he noticed that they said these would be grounded in this memo? Mr. Hockey asked if the Councilman would like him to elaborate on that? Councilman Turner said yes.

Mr. Hockey said the grounding is a separate issue. In the event that lightning struck this tower, which is equipped with safety devices, including a lightening rod, as well as a fully grounded system, it means the tower is equipped with a system that essentially takes the electricity down through the site and disperses it safely into the ground.

Mr. Hockey said he could provide Council with copies of a letter from the engineer who designed the site discussing the grounding. He essentially says what Mr. Hockey said he had just explained. He stated that if a lightening strike were to occur and hit this tower, there are sufficient safety devices in place on the tower such that the strike would be channeled down and dispersed safely into the ground surrounding the site, surrounding the tower base itself. He noted that is the difference between the structural strength of the tower and if you had a facility that only had a lightning rod.

Councilman Turner said he was quite sure this grounding was different from the lightning rods that he was familiar with. The Councilman said when he first read Mr. Hockey's memo, he thought immediately of the lightning rods on his family farms, and they're still struck by lightning. "Yes, sir," Mr. Hockey said, noting that is the case if it is struck by lightning. However, there are proper safety devices built into the tower and the ground such that the lightning will be channeled safely into the ground, he stressed.

Councilwoman Zdanski asked, in regards to all the towers he has, what experience does Mr. Hockey have with lightning strikes? Again, Mr. Hockey said all he could say was that all of their towers are equipped with these types of devices. The towers have been struck, but he could not speak to any damage because he said he knows of no damage because of these safety devices.

Mr. Eatman noted that Mr. Jimmy White has more experience with that.

Mr. Jimmy White of 796 Jimmy Dodds Boulevard, Mt. Pleasant, S.C., noted that he is the development manager for American Tower in the southeast region, which covers a seven-state region. Mr. White said the towers are designed with a lightning rod system. "Basically, in our experience, if lightning strikes a cell tower, we don't even know it," Mr. White said. "Our towers are sometimes monitored by systems. This system will be monitored, and we'll get what we call a "break" in the system, where we'll find there's an electrical surge in our system that has dissipated. Our monitor system tells us that the system is still okay, still operational and nothing has gone wrong. The carriers have equipment within their own shelter, which also tells them this, that something happened in the system; however, everything is fully operational and nothing has happened to the system." Mr. White said property owners have told him that during a major storm, they saw where lightning hit the tower and nothing came about. The lights were still going on the tower, including the blinking beacon lights on the side of the tower. He said he's told them it's because of the grounding system they have designed, which brings the lightning down to the ground and dissipates it. He added that the industry standard says just two ground rods, but they have them placed strategically throughout the compound. He noted his company overgrounds according to the standards that they're governed by.

Mr. Eatman said they're not reinventing the wheel at that particular location. These tower sites are rotated, and this type of area or more populated areas are all over the state. AllTel has a monopole tower located in the playground at Daniel's Middle School in Raleigh. This tower is only a 100 feet, but it's right there next to all the school trailers and school buildings in one of the nicest areas of Raleigh, he noted. He said they have a tower site at Meredith College, right there in the middle of the college at Duke University, over at Sanderson High School, Cedar Falls Park in Chapel Hill. "This is not a radical concept, and the reason these towers can be located in the area is because there is no problem with structural integrity, they are designed in the way you see, they do not present an issue for lightning strikes because of the grounding mat," he said. Mr. Eatman explained that a "grounding mat" is actually a detailed system of grounding that's located at the base of that facility. These are safe facilities or they wouldn't be at places like the Daniel's Middle School, he said. He noted that the company also has a 250-foot tower located next to Durham Academy in Durham, right there at the ballfield.

Councilman Turner said he thought he had read recently that many cities and towns were limiting the proximity of cell towers to schools. Mr. Eatman said that actually his experience was just the opposite because more and more municipalities are becoming comfortable with these facilities and beginning to see the leasing of property for tower sites as a source of revenue. Right now, the Wake County Board of Education is aggressively marketing its property for cell tower sites in Cary and Raleigh, he said. One site is pending at Wake Forest School. "Wake County is certainly not doing that, and I would suggest to you, in my experience, that the Town of Chapel Hill is one of the toughest places to get this sort of thing done," he said. "And their school system, the Carrboro-Chapel Hill School System, recently approved one at one of their schools and are actively marketing their sites for cell tower locations. Their policy is that they want multiple users. Let's find one great location and put it on one of the schools and put as many carriers on it as possible so that we don't have more towers."

Mr. White, again citing his job qualifications, said he gets lots of phone calls every day and 15-20 letters from jurisdictions asking him to bid on requests for proposals for cell towers so that they can market their own school systems and their own city properties. "I think that's one of the reasons that your City ordinance looked at City properties also in your Table A" he said. He pointed out that the ballpark field off Vance Street is a site where the City Council had approved to put a tower there underneath an administrative review as long as an applicant meets the standard requirements of landscaping, parking, etc. "They know it's a safe system, they just want to put it into an approved area, which is one of your school areas," Mr. White said. "It is a safe tower. Like Jerry said, we're not recreating the wheel here. American Tower owns and operates over 1,400 towers in North Carolina and South Carolina and over 14,000 towers across the nation. We didn't get where we were today if it was a situation in which every single tower was a safety hazard to the community because all of these would be taken down. We would be out of business, and we wouldn't be in front of you today."

Mr. Eatman said he wanted to finish with the health and safety issue. He said Council basically has three questions here. One is structural integrity, which he said he thought they had dealt with. Is it going to fall? No. 2, does it pose a hazard for airspace safety? Congress has said there is only one body that gets to make the decision about airspace safety, and that's the FAA, he explained. He noted that Council has in its packets the FAA determination no hazard letter. He handed a copy of the letter to the City Clerk for the record. (A COPY OF THE FAA LETTER IS HEREIN INCORPORATED AND MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES.) He said Council would note from the FAA determination letter that this is not going to be a hazard to airspace safety.

Mr. Eatman said the next question is the radio transmissions for the tower. Again, Congress has said that the one agency that gets to regulate that is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. "So what it says basically is that as long as the applicant certifies that this facility will meet the safety guidelines for emissions, that is satisfactory evidence on that front," Mr. Eatman said, adding that Council has that in their packages. He asked Mr. Bibic to step up front for a minute and asked him: "Did you personally run the calculations for determining radio power density at this location?" "Yes, I did," Mr. Bibic responded. "Is it within the mandated safety guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission and the American National Standards Institute?" "Yes, it is," Mr. Bibic said.

Mr. Eatman said he did want to note that this is a multi-user facility so it would be reasonable for somebody to decide that while AllTel's equipment meets that requirement, what happens when you get two or three users on the tower. He said there were two answers to that question. "First of all, we've run that it will still fall within the safety guidelines," he said. "But more importantly, when somebody comes down to do that, they will have to come either before you or the staff and submit evidence, I think the same kind of calculations and certifications so that you can monitor that. I can tell you now, it's not going to be a problem, for your comfort, you'll be able to monitor that every step of the way. It's an admin approval site, but they still have to certify that they meet those requirements to the staff."

He asked if there were any other questions about the public health and safety? None were offered. Mr. Eatman then asked Mr. Pearce the following: "Let's go back to that engineering report on collapsing towers. You've reviewed that report and the City Engineer has reviewed that report. Did you determine for your purposes that it was satisfactory?" "I was satisfied with it," Pearce replied. Councilman Festerman asked that Mr. Pearce's answer be repeated. Mr. Pearce said, "I was satisfied with the documentation." Mr. Eatman then asked, "And that's the kind of thing you typically look at when you're making a decision like that, is it not?" Mr. Pearce agreed.

Mr. Eatman said that the next requirement is that the use complies with development standards. He said that again, that goes back to what they addressed initially, the setbacks. He noted that Mr. Pearce had addressed that in report. He said they could go over landscaping, etc., on the site plan if they needed to if there was any question that they don't meet those development standards.

He said the last, but certainly not the least, of the two Special Use Permit requirements is that the proposed use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. And lastly, that the use will be in harmony with the surrounding area and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Eatman said he'd like to address harmony first because the two of them are related. He said he liked Mr. Pearce's discussion of this issue because it puts it into focus that it is a matter of how you look at it. Fortunately, the courts have given some guidance on this issue, the legal counsel said. "That constitutes a legislative determination -- your determination -- that a cell tower is under certain circumstances in harmony with the area," he said. "It's effectively that initial verdict. Now, if there are other factors or evidence submitted by the opposition that it's not in harmony that's obviously not enough to carry the day. But we start with the assumption that there must be something to this because it is a permitted use subject to a conditional use permit. What they've gone on to say is that when you look at the harmony issue, you have to look at where the City has set the bar. After the Planning Board hearing, we gave some consideration to what kind of evidence we could submit here tonight that would address the issue of where you set the bar." He said that here again, the Table A properties gives a little bit of guideline because the City Council had pre-approved those sites, that they are appropriate locations and subject to administrative review.

Mr. Eatman said they wanted to look at a couple of those locations. Mr. Hockey aided Mr. Eatman with the maps. Mr. Eatman also noted that Mr. Hockey would talk about these sites even though he was sure Council was very familiar with each one of these locations. Mr. Eatman said they would be putting up maps of their sites and maps of the Table A properties so that Council can see how they might compare the two and determine where they fall in the harmonious spectrum.

Mr. Hockey stated that, as Council knows, American Tower has its sights on I-1 pieces of property, surrounded in two cells by R-12, to the east I-1 and to the west I-1 and to the north RA-20. In the general area, there is a mixture of zonings.

Lowes Ballfield: Mr. Hockey pointed to the ballfield, which is situated within an R-12 district. "As Mr. White had discussed, the fact that this is one of the properties on your Table A, which it has been determined through the ordinance and through your consideration would meet all the criteria if located within this, as long as it met development standards. Therefore, it would satisfy all the criteria that we are examining on our site," Mr. Hockey said.

Mr. Eatman called to Council's attention that what they're trying to do is to look and say, this is our site and we know what's around it. Mr. Hockey noted that the Lowes site is completely surrounded by residential. Both are R-12s, which are similar to the ballfields, and also R-6. There are homes located surrounding this property.

Mr. Lord then asked Mr. Hockey some questions. He asked if there were homes at that location? Mr. Hockey replied, "yes sir." Mr. Lord asked if they substantially similar to the homes in the Ashcroft subdivision? It was noted that this was not a question about zoning, etc. Mr. Eatman told Mr. Hockey to answer the question. Mr. Hockey asked Mr. Lord to repeat the question. "Are the homes in the Ashcroft subdivision similar in size and value?" Mr. Lord asked. "No, sir," Mr. Hockey replied. "Are those homes subject to restrictive covenants that require utilities to be run underground to the homes?" the attorney asked. "That I cannot speak to," Mr. Hockey said. "Are there any restrictive covenants that you're aware of that prohibit satellite dishes on these homes?" Mr. Lord asked. "No, sir," Mr. Hockey replied. "Power lines?" asked Mr. Lord. "I do not believe so,." Mr. Hockey responded.

Landfill Site: Mr. Hockey described the site, which is one of the Table A properties. He stated that the site has access off of Freeway Drive and could be considered by the City as an administrative approval site. The tower that would be approved administratively for this site would be a 300-foot sky tower. Adjacent to the south you have an existing neighborhood, which is relatively new and similar to the Ashcroft neighborhood, he said. He provided some visual pictorials of these. (COPIES OF THE PICTURES ARE HEREIN INCORPORATED AND MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES.) He said he wanted to do this to show Council that there are some very striking similarities between the two. He said he also wanted to show them where these were taken and the vantage point that they were looking at. He said the vantage point was basically at the dead end of the road, showing the east and west sides of the street. The point is to show that these homes have large spacious front yards and buried utilities, and the fact that they have spacious yards with landscaping which dead ends with the large tree buffer is very similar to the Ashcroft property, Mr. Hockey said. He then distributed photos of the Ashcroft property taken from similar angles. He talked again of the similarities, spacious yards, homes set back, buried utilities, a dead end with a tree buffer between it and the Trent property. "Therefore, there are some very, very similar characteristics with this property as well as the Ashcroft property," he said. "The one thing I would note is that with our property, we are proposing a 180-foot monopole. This property would allow up to a 300-foot guide tower." Table A tells what kind of tower it would allow on the properties, he noted.

Mr. Eatman noted that this is a much larger parcel than the Trent property so you've got some flexibility to move the tower a pretty good distance from this subdivision. "But once again, you're talking about a tower three times -- not quite, a little less -- the height of the monopole and a guide tower," he said. "You can move it some, but you've got a very comparable situation."

Mr. Hockey also said he thought it was important to note that this subdivision, the way it is, could be further expanded upon, just as the Ashcroft development has additional land that could be expanded into new home lots. He said this property has existing residential, but there's nothing to say that this cannot be expanded. In fact, the very two last lots in this development have not been built upon, but they are existing because they have services, stubs on the lots, he noted.

Councilman Festerman asked whether, for the record, the subdivision near the Landfill site could be referred to as the Village Oaks subdivision.

Mr. Hockey noted again that this property is zoned RS-12. The property under the administrative permit consideration, the old landfill, is zoned RA-20. He noted that similar to their site, there is some highway commercial, so again, not only in terms of visual but also in terms of the zoning, it has more residential zoning.

Mr. Lord said he wanted it clear for the record. This site where the tower could be located is a former landfill? It is what they qualify as the old Landfill site, Mr. Hockey replied. "That property presumably would already have a detrimental impact on development around there?" Mr. Lord asked. Mr. Hockey said he was not qualified to answer that. "Do you know whether, I want to be clear about your testimony, do you know whether that tree buffer that you testified about is under the control of the developers of the subdivision, in other words, do you know whether they can develop it or not?" the attorney asked. "No, sir," Mr. Hockey said. "Do you know whether the property was identified as a site that's suitable for a tower before or after the subdivision development was started?" Mr. Hockey indicated he did not know.

Mr. Eatman asked when Table A was adopted? Mr. Pearce replied, "February 2000." A discussion ensued about when the subdivision was established. Ms. Donna Setliff, Assistant Community Development Director, said it was around 1985.

Mr. Lord then asked Mr. Hockey whether he knew the value of the homes in that subdivision? "Yes, sir," Mr. Hockey said. "Do you know whether they are comparable in value to the Ashcroft subdivision?" Mr. Lord asked. "I'm not qualified to answer that," Mr. Hockey replied.

Mr. Eatman said he wanted to ask one final question to Mr. Hockey before going to the next two sites. "In looking at locations where towers are allowed, did you make a distinction between the value of the personal homes in determining whether there was an approved tower site?" "No, sir," Mr. Hockey replied.

125-foot Water Tank on Thompsonville Street: Mr. Hockey said this is an existing City water tank. He distributed pictures of the water tank, taken from a position looking southwest at the tower. There are a number of homes located adjacent to this property as well as across Thompsonville Street, he said. The second shot was taken from the intersection of East Street and Barnes Street. Again, looking at this you can see the proximity of this water tank to the existing homes in this area, he noted. He said he also needed to point out that this was in a R-6 zoned residential district literally surrounded by additional residential zoning, both R-6 and R-12.

Mr. Lord asked him the following: "About how much height would a tower or antenna add to that water tower?" Mr. Hockey replied, "In terms of putting it on top, there are many different ways of mounting it. I can't say for sure."

Mr. Eatman stated, "It would probably be no more than 30 feet." Mr. Lord then asked, "In that situation, we're talking about adding possibly 30 feet to an existing structure as opposed to this situation constructing a new tower of 180-some feet?" "As our attorney said," Mr. Hockey replied.

Public Works Building on Vance Street: Mr. Eatman stated that the Public Works Building on Vance Street is pre-approved for a 190-foot monopole, which is virtually identical to what American Tower was proposing. He said he was somewhat struck by the similarity. "We have an I-1 piece of property, surrounded by residential development and residential zoning," he said." The only difference between this pre-approved site and ours is that we only have residential on one side. The industrial property surrounds this property, the Trent site, with the exception of the property line with that 33-acre undeveloped portion of the Ashcroft subdivision."

Mr. Hockey showed the homes located along Third Avenue as well as along Vance, which demonstrates that there is existing residential surrounding this I-1 zoned property.

Mr. Eatman noted he thinks that when going through the code and trying to determine where the bar has been set in the City, the Table A properties, which are pre-approved locations for exactly this kind of facility, are a good guide. "And we would submit those as evidence, those maps and your information and those pictures, all of which you personally prepared, did you not David?" Mr. Eatman asked Mr. Hockey. "Yes, sir," Mr. Hockey replied. As evidence that this site is in fact, arguably, in some instances a little bit more harmonious, Mr. Eatman said he liked Mr. Pearce's report. In that report, Mr. Pearce noted that this is not really about what is more or less harmonious but whether it meets that standard and where you want to set that bar, the attorney said. "I will also tell you that in looking at this, we looked at the zoning surrounding the area, what is it, what it has been, and what it's likely to be," he said. And with any of those Table A properties, they look like the Trent property, which Mr. Pearce has testified has been industrial property zoned and used for over 40 years, Mr. Eatman noted.

Mr. Lord asked Mr. Hockey: "Do you know how close the tower would be to residential zones in that situation?" Mr. Hockey said that would be determined by the City where it would be located. "The open space at the back of the property would be a classic area to locate it," he said. "The first picture that I handed out shows that there is a home literally around the corner on Third Avenue in the R-12 district. That home in relation to our parcel would be less than 50 feet."

Mr. Lord asked, "It could be more than 45-50 feet from the nearest home?" Hockey responded, "Depending on where the determination was to meet the development criteria, but it could be that close."

Mr. Eatman asked, "There are existing buildings on that property are there not?" "On the city property? Pearce asked. Eatman said it would have to be located in the back, to which Pearce agreed.

Mr. Lord asked Mr. Pearce, "Could they, in fact, facilitate the tower within the tower's height? Pearce said it could be built no closer than the height of the tower. He noted that if it's 150 feet, it would have to be built at least 151 feet away.

Mr. Lord asked, "So they couldn't build a tower on this public works site within 45 feet of an existing residence?" "That's correct," Pearce said.

The Mayor asked if Mr. Pearce could stand up and answer the question so Council could hear it.

Pearce said, "You could not build any closer than the height of the tower to an existing residence. So the proposed tower, if it's 150 feet, it would have to be 151 feet away from an existing residence."

"That is measured, is it not, Mr. Pearce, from the residence, not the property line, correct?" Mr. Eatman asked. "Exactly, from the house," Mr. Pearce replied.

Eatman asked Council if there were any other questions on the harmony issue?

Councilman Turner said before they leave this, although this property is not on the Table A list, but a question arose at the Planning Board meeting concerning Rentz Oil. "I wanted to clear up one thing," the Councilman said. "Rentz Oil is not being monitored by the State for oil spillage. That has been cleared up. I think the leasee was very interested in getting that cleared up."

Mr. Jimmy White addressed Council on this issue. He said he thought that what it was that the company had been monitored in the past. "The FCC restricts us from going on property that has been monitored in the past or has violations of spillage whether its oil spillage or gasoline spillage or pesticides," Mr. White said. "We can't put towers there. There is a FCC guideline against it. I think the testimony that was probably given was probably misconstrued there. It's because it has had a spillage in the past. It has been monitored in the past. It has been cleaned up, but FCC won't let us go on these sites. It's a guideline regulation and we have several guidelines and regulations that we have to go on."

The tower construction on the Trent property will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting properties, Mr. Eatman asserted. As Mr. Pearce indicated, you've got I-1 zoning on two sides and you've got a 33-acre undeveloped portion of land on this side and industrial across the street. The property in issue here is the 33-acre undeveloped portion of Ashcroft, he noted.

Mr. Eatman stated that at the Planning Board meeting, they submitted some tracking studies from Orange County and Durham County in an effort to provide objective evidence of what happens in these kinds of cases. "I find after all these years, that dueling experts only become confusing for the boards," he said. "And so, I try to go out and find you something that you can look at that's not somebody's opinion. And that's why we prepared these tracking studies." Mr. Eatman said Orange County and Durham County were chosen because those are places where property turns over and there's lots of towers. The legal counsel noted that even the Chairman of the Planning Board stated in the hearing that he could understand why because there are only four towers in Reidsville anyway. "It's pretty difficult for us to find sales and resales of a volume so as to make it meaningful," Mr. Eatman said.

"What we provided to the Planning Board and what we will provide to you today is 10 years of studies in these areas, Mr. Eatman said. "You may determine, and that's your prerogative as the finder of fact, just like the Planning Board did or certain members of the Planning Board did, that what's going on in Wake, Orange or Durham County is not relevant to your determination or is not as compelling to you as some other testimony you may receive from the opposition," he said. "But what I'm going to offer to you is the fact that we are attempting to give you some objective evidence, which in our experience shows, that a 190-foot monopole located on a place like this is not going to substantially injure the property values of an adjoining or abutting property.

Mr. Eatman noted that Mr. Herring had prepared his report. Mr. Eatman said he also supervised the preparation of the report for a case he had in Durham and he handed that up at the Planning Board meeting.

Mr. Eatman noted that they have several towers which are right on top of these subdivisions. "So you go and track sales and resales of those properties for a long period of time and you look to see if there's any dissolution of value," he said. "Then to make sure that you haven't missed an impact, you'll look at a subdivision in the same area with no tower what the real estate people call a 'comparable.' And you look back at the same time period, sale and resales, and see if they are any different from the ones over here with the tower. That way you not only know over here, that they didn't go down but they went up, and in fact, went us as much as the ones without the tower. And again, that's evidence for you to weigh and decide what's true, but we offer it in good faith in an effort to give you something objective to hang your hat on. We did try to locate some more site-specific, Reidsville-specific information but we were not able to do so, not through any lack of effort. Property just doesn't change hands as fast in Reidsville as it does in some other places."

Mr. Eatman then asked Mr. Herring to come forward and offer his report.

Mr. Graham Herring, 8052 Grey Oak Drive, Raleigh, NC, 27615, introduced himself. He stated that as Mr. Eatman had indicated, American Tower and AllTel had employed him to look at this tower's proposed location for the purpose of determining the extent, or what his opinion would be, of the negative demolition of value and impact on surrounding contiguous properties. "I personally visited this site, reviewed the specifications and plans as submitted and looked at it from the standpoint of determining, if I believe, if there is any potential significant demolition of values," Mr. Herring said. He noted that he had been personally involved in over 750 such type reviews throughout the state over the past eight years. "It is my opinion if this tower is built as it is proposed will not have significant impact and demolition value on the residential property in question and the surrounding property," Mr. Herring said.

Mr. Eatman asked, "Mr. Herring, now, just so we understand, you're basing your opinion on the tracking studies you did in Orange County and other places which I've described to the City Council?" Mr. Herring replied, "Orange County, specifically, and the reason that was used was because of the period of tracking time for the towers that were in that area and their relationship to those residential areas. "And by looking at it over a 10-year plus period, it gives you some indication outside of the economic influences that impact property values and the sale of property. We also tracked studies in Wake County and in, specifically, Wake County those houses in that study referenced houses that were in the $300,000-500,000 sales price category." Mr. Herring said he didn't submit that study because he didn't think it was as relevant because in Wake County at the time, and for the last 10 years, houses have been in high demand, in an extremely high demand art-market area. He said he didn't think it was as relevant as the situation in Orange County.

Mr. Eatman asked, "Your methodology here, so they understand it, is to continue to track and update this report. When you go to a site like the one here on the Trent property, you operate from the assumption of looking to see if there's anything about that property which would dictate that the result would be different, is that correct? So basically you determine as a general proposition that these facilities do not have a negative impact on the surrounding property values? And then you go and look at the specific sites to determine if there is something different about that site which would change your mind?" Mr. Herring replied, "That is correct. It's a form of interpolation and substitution, which is in the appraisal process." Mr. Herring noted that he is not an appraiser, but a developer. He said he has 35-plus years of development, retail, industrial, commercial and residential properties and recreational properties in the state of North Carolina.

Mr. Eatman asked, "How many tower sites have you testified on in Rockingham County?" Mr. Herring replied, "In excess of six that I can remember right off the top of my head." Mr. Eatman asked if all of those sites were approved? Mr. Herring replied, "Yes, they were."

Mr. Eatman, noting that he wanted to ask Mr. Herring questions about this site, asked,

"You looked at the 33-acre parcel and its proximity to the existing industrial area. Since you're not an appraiser and you're not going to give an opinion on value, do you think the existing industrial there has any impact on that property?" "It certainly has some influence on the property," Mr. Herring responded. "And I'm sure as the counsel stated earlier that with the landfill situation, that possibly the I-2 and existing improved uses of the I-2 property that it borders and also the commercial properties that were developed by the developer of Ashcroft subdivision as I believe has had their influences, whatever they are."

Mr. Eatman asked, "Some of this property is located adjacent to the oil company with those oil tanks. Are those oil tanks going to have an effect on the value of that property?" Mr. Herring replied, "Absolutely." Mr. Eatman questioned, "Do you believe that the addition of the cell tower is going to have a substantially additional negative value on that property?" Mr. Herring responded, "I don't believe so. As the developer of Ashcroft accommodated a buffer zone between his planned residential and multi-family commercial development, there was some confusion as to whether, I was under the assumption or we were under the assumption or anybody was under the assumption that the existing tree line that borders the immediate southern perimeter of Mr. Trent's property was some type of buffer. The only assumption that I made in that regard was that, if and when that property is developed, that the City would require a buffer zone between that and the I-2 development. I