05MayPBPage 1 of 14 5/16/2024
May 16, 2024
1. Call to Order of the Randolph County Planning Board.
There was a meeting of the Randolph County Planning Board on May 16, 2024, at 6:30
p.m. in Meeting Room A, Randolph County Office Building, 725 McDowell Rd,
Asheboro, NC. Chairman Pell called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance.
2. Roll call of the Board members. (Completed by staff.)
The County Planning staff completed the roll call of the members of the Board as they
arrived to the meeting. Reid Pell, John Cable, Melinda Vaughan, Reggie Beeson, Ken
Austin, Brandon Hedrick were present. Kemp Davis was absent. County Planning
Director Tonya Caddle and County Attorney Ben Morgan were also present, along with
County Planning staff members Kayla Brown, Melissa Burkhart, David Harris, Kim
Heinzer, and Tim Mangum.
3. Consent Agenda:
● Approval of agenda for the May 16, 2024, Planning Board meeting.
● Approval of the minutes from the April 2, 2024, Planning Board meeting.
On the motion of Cable, seconded by Austin, the Board voted 6-0 to approve the
Consent Agenda as presented.
4. Conflict of Interest:
● Are there any Conflicts of Interest or ex parte communication that should be
disclosed? (If there is a Conflict of Interest, the Board must vote to allow the
member with the Conflict of Interest to not participate in the hearing of the
specific case where the Conflict of Interest has been identified.)
There were no Conflicts of Interest or ex parte communication identified by any
Planning Board member.
5. Old Business.
6. New Business.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST #2023-00000665
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified
quasi-judicial hearing on the request by TILLMAN
INFRASTRUCTURE, New York, NY, and their request to obtain a Special
Page 2 of 14 5/16/2024
Use Permit on Wall Rd, Liberty Township, Sandy Creek Balance
Watershed, Tax ID #8725469448, 19.58 acres, RA - Residential Agricultural
District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain a Special Use Permit to
specifically allow a two-hundred forty-foot telecommunications tower as per
the site plan. Property Owner: Barbara Kivett Wall
Caddle presented the first case of the night and site plans for the Tillman
Infrastructure Special Use Permit Request.
Pell opened the public hearing and called on someone representing the applicant to
address the Planning Board.
Morgan administered the oath to Tom Johnson, an attorney with William Mullins, 301
Fayetteville St, Raleigh, and Johnson asked for the application and all the provided
materials to be submitted for the record and Morgan stated that information is
already a part of the record.
Johnson stated that as part of his presentation, he, or others with him, would
establish the finding of facts that are required to approve Special Use Permits in
North Carolina.
Johnson started with the first finding of fact, "That the use will not materially
endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed
according to the plan as submitted and approved." Johnson stated that the proposed
tower exceeds all the required setbacks on the property line and that it meets
building code and zoning requirements. Johnson stated that the proposed tower
would provide wireless telecommunications service and internet services to an area
that is not well served by telecommunication services.
Johnson then moved to the second finding of fact, "That the use meets all required
conditions and specifications." Johnson referred the Planning Board to the
information included in the agenda packet. Johnson stated that the applicant wants
to use the existing trees and vegetation so they could be used as a buffer instead of
the required Level III buffer required by the Randolph County Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) as they feel that the proposed trees and vegetation should be
sufficient. Johnson stated that the site would be enclosed with a chain link fence and
all setbacks are being met as the closest property line is 260 feet away from the
proposed tower. Johnson stated that the proposed tower is more than 1,500 feet
from the existing tower in the area and that the facility would be unmanned once
construction was complete other than for occasional maintenance. Johnson
referenced a letter showing the hardship and expenses caused by staying on the
existing SBA Communications tower. Johnson stated that the proposed tower would
be designed to allow other co-locations and that all approvals from the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) had been given since there was no evidence of
hazards to air travel or interference with other telecommunication equipment.
Page 3 of 14 5/16/2024
Johnson stated that if the tower was no longer used by carriers, it would be removed
from the site.
Johnson then turned to the third finding of fact, "Thet the use will not substantially
injure the value of adjoining or abutting property, or that the use is a public
necessity." For this portion of the discussion, Johnson called up Michael P.
Berkowitz, 1100 Sundance Dr, Concord, with MPB Real Estate, LLC, to discuss the
impacts on property values. Johnson passed out Exhibit 1 to the Planning Board.
(See Exhibit 1 at the end of the minutes.) Berkowitz stated that he has been an
appraiser for over twenty years and that he conducts studies on the impacts of
telecommunications towers on property values. Berkowitz stated that it is often
difficult to study the impacts of telecommunications towers in rural areas but that
there is data that shows that the towers do not injure property values. Berkowitz
shared a story of a location where a property owner had a tower constructed on his
property and then successfully built a subdivision on the remainder of the property.
Berkowitz stated that homes in that subdivision are selling in the range of $600,000
to $700,000. Berkowitz did say, and pointed to Exhibit 1, that there is quantitative
and qualitative evidence to show that towers do not injure property values and that
these towers are designed to be able to handle the increased demand placed on
them.
Pell asked if the Planning Board had any questions for Berkowitz.
Austin stated that he noted in the packet that many of the comparisons are all in
Robeson County. Berkowitz stated that some in the packet are also in Bladen
County as he could not find anything similar in Randolph County. Austin asked how
Randolph County compared to other counties and Berkowitz stated that it is"not so
much the county, as the location."
Cable stated that most of the towers in the exhibit are 195 feet and one tower is 295
feet and he asked how this compares with the proposal. Berkowitz directed the
Planning Board back to the information about the tower at Cypress Village
subdivision in New Hanover County.
Austin asked Berkowitz how a developer looks at towers and if there were deterrents
to development. Berkowitz again referred the Board to the Cypress Village
subdivision and stated that towers are not that important when establishing the
valuation of the property. Berkowitz said that other factors such as power lines,
nearby operations, etc., like the Liberty Raceway Park impact property values more
than telecommunication towers.
Pell asked if the Planning Board had any other questions for Berkowitz.
Johnson came back to address the Planning Board on the last part of the third
finding of fact, "... that the use is a public necessity." Johnson stated that
subdivisions often do not have access to cellular communication and internet
Page 4 of 14 5/16/2024
services in rural parts of the County and that this tower will provide these services
along with access to emergency services in the case of emergencies or natural
disasters.
Johnson then moved to the last finding of fact, "That the location and character of the
use if developed according to the plan as submitted will be in harmony with the area
in which it is to be located and in general conformity with this Ordinance." Johnson
stated that case law and General Statutes make this point clear--if the use is allowed
in the zoning district, the use must be allowed. Johnson stated that Ashely Cline with
Verizon Wireless was present and could present information on the location and
character of use if the Planning Board wants to hear this information.
Johnson then addressed the fact that Robert E. Hornik, Jr, 1526 E Franklin St, Suite
200, Chapel Hill, an attorney with The Brough Law Firm, was present in opposition to
this request but he did not feel that Hornik had standing to present on this request
and that he would raise an objection at the appropriate time. Morgan said that now
was the time for Johnson to present his objection based on standing.
Johnson objected to Hornik being able to address the Planning Board based on
standing as Hornik's client, SBA Communications has not suffered any monetary
damages and they have no reason to complain other than Tillman Infrastructure is
one of their competitors. Johnson said that there is nothing in the laws that allows
competitors to complain and that SBA Communications is not a neighbor and asked
the Board to find that Hornik has no legal standing.
Pell asked if the Planning Board had any questions for the applicants.
Austin asked who determines when the tower is not being used. Johnson stated that
based on the UDO, if a tower is not used for 120 days it must be removed and that is
determined by seeing if there is any power being used. Austin asked if checking the
power meter falls back on the County and Johnson said that is part of the code
enforcement process.
Cable asked about a backup generator at the site. Johnson said that the generators
that they use are very quiet and may only run on a testing cycle or if there is a loss of
power.
Hedrick asked about the utility poles shown on the site plan and asked if there was
an easement for the powerlines and pole and Johnson stated that he did not recall.
Hedrick said that he asked the question because if there is an easement, the power
company could come in at any time and cut the existing trees and then there would
be no buffer on the site. Johnson said he is willing to amend the application to state
that if the existing trees are cut in the utility easement, the applicant would plant a
Level III buffer as needed.
Pell asked if Johnson was making this planting of Level III buffer if the trees in the
Page 5 of 14 5/16/2024
existing easement are cut as part of the conditions for the application and approval
and Johnson said yes. The applicant was updated and signed by Johnson.
Hedrick asked about the distance and height to the existing right-of-way and Johson
said that the proposed tower would not have any impacts on the power lines as
many times power lines run beside the telecommunications tower and the towers are
engineered to withstand multiple hits from debris in the case of natural disasters.
Cable asked if the proposed tower was an all-steel structure and if it would be made
to look like a tree that can be seen in surrounding communities. Johnson said that
the tower would look like a tower because they have found that making a
telecommunication tower look like a tree, it attracts more attention.
Austin asked about the schedule for maintenance at the site and Johnson stated that
most of the maintenance could be done remotely but someone may come to the site
every thirty days or so to ensure that there are no problems. Johnson stated that
there would be more traffic there during construction and a crane might be brought in
from time to time for maintenance, etc. Austin asked if the gate was secured and
Johson said the gate would be locked and the site would be secured and there
would be 24/7 remote video monitoring.
Beeson said that there is a telecommunications tower at the end of his drive on a
neighbor's property and the tower has been on the site for maybe 15 years. Beeson
said the tower is not really an issue and it does not have a buffer and that he would
rather have cellular service in the case of an emergency instead of being without
access to emergency services.
Pell asked if there were any other questions from the Planning Board members.
Morgan stated that he wanted to address the standing issue and he stated that it is
the policy of the Board to allow anyone who wishes to speak, to address the
Planning Board. Morgan stated that there is nothing in State rules that clearly defines
what standing is and the decision is up to the Courts.
Johnson objected stating that standing does go to the weight of evidence presented
and it is relevant to the decision made by the Board. Johnson stated that he reserved
the right to re-address the Board due to information presented by Hornik.
Hornik, rose to address the Planning Board on behalf of his client, SBA
Communications who is the owner of the existing telecommunication tower close to
this site. Morgan administered the oath to Hornik who stated that he agrees with
Morgan's statement about standing but that Hornik will not concede anything about
standing. Hornik stated that Verizon Wireless is currently a tenant on the SBA
Communications telecommunication tower and that the lease will expire in March
2028 and Verizon Wireless is going to be a tenant on the proposed
telecommunications tower.
Page 6 of 14 5/16/2024
Hornik asked about the economic hardship letter that Johnson mentioned earlier and
Horkin said that no such letter was in the application packet and that he checked as
early as the morning of the meeting to see if the letter had been submitted and he
stated that there was an affidavit but no letter regarding the economic hardship was
in the agenda packet.
Hornik then turned to the UDO, specifically Article 600, Section 621, and the section
on Telecommunication Towers. Hornik stated that the UDO has a policy to
encourage co-location and not have multiple telecommunications towers all over the
County and that the policy has a one-mile requirement. Hornik stated that he tried to
submit information to the Planning Board but was not allowed to due to the provision
in the UDO requiring comments to be received two business days before a public
hearing. Hornik then submitted Exhibit #2 into the record. (See Exhibit #2 at the end
of the minutes.) Hornik stated that the proposed lease with Tillman Infrastructure is
going to be $10.00 less a month than staying on the SBA Communications
telecommunications tower and that there is no need for an additional tower only
2,700 feet away. Hornik said the proposed telecommunications tower is the same
height as the SBA Communications telecommunications tower and that the
submitted application and supplemental information do not meet the requirements of
the UDO and that the request should be dismissed and denied.
Pell asked if there were any questions from the Planning Board members.
Austin stated that based on the testimony, Verizon Wireless has a contract to use
the existing SBA Communications tower. Austin asked if there was a penalty for
early release. Hornik stated that Verizon Wireless has asked for an early release
from the contract but the SBA Communications has denied the request to terminate
the contract early.
Cable said that the Planning Board is being drawn into a contractual agreement
between different vendors and that is not the role of the Planning Board.
Austin asked if, under the existing contract, there is additional capacity on the SBA
Communications tower. Hornik referred the Planning Board to the information in the
exhibit and stated that Verizon Wireless had been on the SBA Communications
tower since 2021 and two telecommunications towers this close could cause
interference.
Cable asked if Verizon Wireless is the only carrier on the SBA Communications
tower and Hornik stated that he was not sure.
Austin asked if the current SBA Communications tower would be out of use if
Verizon Wireless left the SBA Communications tower. Hornik stated that the existing
SBA Communications tower would have a user so it would not be required to be
removed.
Page 7 of 14 5/16/2024
Pell asked if there were any other questions from the Planning Board. No one else
had signed up to speak in opposition to the Special Use Permit request so Johnson
came back to address comments raised by Hornik.
Johnson apologized to the Planning Board and stated that he thought the economic
hardship letter had been submitted but they discovered during the meeting that it
was not submitted. Johnson submitted Exhibit #3, the economic hardship letter, to be
included in the record. (See Exhibit #3 at the end of the minutes.) Johnson called on
Ashley Cline with Verizon Wireless to address the economic hardship letter.
Cline rose to address the Planning Board and stated that he works with Verizon
Wireless and that Verizon Wireless does look at many factors when deciding
whether to stay on an existing telecommunications tower or move to a new
telecommunications tower. Cline said that their first consideration is cost and that
they do data analysis and look at user data to determine locations for their
equipment as Verizon Wireless wants to provide their customers with the best
service possible. Cline stated that the company also looks at expenses versus
capital as Verizon Wireless is a publicly traded company that has to answer to its
shareholders. Cline stated that management wants to save money and the way they
do that is by looking at existing contracts like the one with SBA Communications.
Cline stated that the contract between Verizon Wireless and SBA Communications is
a "supplement contract" and to move forward with this proposed site, the agreement
would need to be redone. Cline then talked about the annual cost differences as
shown on page two of Exhibit #3 and he said that there is data to support the
findings of economic hardship by staying on the existing SBA Communications
telecommunications tower. Cline said the problem is with SBA Communications and
their leadership due to the expenses of Verizon Wireless staying on the existing SBA
Communications tower. Cline stated that many of the contracts between Verizon
Wireless and SBA Communications contain language that allows "modifications" to
impact rent. Cline stated that Verizon Wireless is constantly changing their
equipment and every time they touch the tower, the rent is increased by SBA
Communications. Cline also told the Planning Board that the average modification
that Verizon Wireless does on existing towers can cost more than $200,000 and that
requires engineering work to make sure existing towers can support the new
equipment. Cline said in this case, the SBA Communications tower cannot support
the improvements that Verizon Wireless wants to make.
Pell asked if there were any questions from the Planning Board.
Cable asked if Cline knew how many towers Verizon Wireless operates and Cline
said he did not have the exact number but would assume it is in the thousands. Cline
said that Verizon Wireless wants to build its network and not be in the business of
building and managing telecommunications towers.
Hornik rose to remind the Planning Board of language in UDO that the applicant has
Page 8 of 14 5/16/2024
to provide information that they investigated other towers in the area and Johnson
stated that that specific information has already been submitted into the record.
Johnson stated that the master agreement that has been discussed tonight is for the
entire country--not just this one site. Johnson stated that rent on an SBA
Communications telecommunications tower is 101% higher than on a Tillman
Infrastructure-owned tower. Johnson restated Cline's statement that the site rent
goes up every time the tower is touched for whatever reason. Johnson said that the
application meets the requirements of the UDO and Verizon Wireless will be able to
save money at this site and be able to invest those savings in other locations.
Pell asked if there were other questions from the Planning Board members.
Hedrick talked about the information that had been provided according to page 232
of the UDO.
Pell closed the public hearing.
Hedrick stated that there is nothing in the UDO about economic hardships.
Cable stated that as much as he travels it is important to be able to contact
emergency services and that he does not want to cover the landscape with
telecommunication towers but after hearing the testimony, it sounds as if this is a
contract dispute between Verizon Wireless and SBA Communications. Cable stated
that other businesses close because they cannot serve their customers and move to
different locations to serve the customers. Cable said he was concerned with citizens
losing service and it sounds like Verizon Wireless is not going to stay on the SBA
Communications tower. Cable said he thought the hardship had been met and that
the service was needed and all four tests for the finding of fact had been satisfied.
Hedrick stated that the plan meets the requirements but that he would like to see a
Level III buffer on the site.
On the motion of Cable, seconded by Beeson, with a vote of 6-0, the Board voted
to approve the request with the motions contained in the Planning Board packet.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST #2024-00000061
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified
quasi-judicial hearing on the request by KIMBERLY BUSH, Seagrove, NC,
and their request to obtain a Special Use Permit at 7207 Erect Rd, Brower
Township, Tax ID #8606731562, 174.37 acres, RA - Residential Agricultural
District. It is the desire of the applicant to obtain a Special Use Permit to
specifically allow a second residence to be placed on the property for a
family member.
Page 9 of 14 5/16/2024
Caddle presented case and site plans for the Kimberly Bush Special Use Permit
request.
Pell opened the public hearing.
Morgan administered the oath to Kimberly Bush, 7207 Erect Rd, Seagrove, the
applicant for the Special Use Permit request.
Bush stated her desire to put a home on the land near the existing pond and that the
existing residence on the property is where her elderly parents live. Bush stated that
they do not plan to divide the property or create a subdivision.
Pell asked if there were any questions from the Planning Board members.
Beeson asked about the dirt road going through the property and Bush stated that
the road starts on Erect Rd and it continues through to Antioch Church Rd and they
are planning to only use the Erect Rd portion of the road. Bush stated that the
neighbors have never had any problems due to the road being present,
Morgan asked Bush if she understood that if the Planning Board approves the
Special Use Permit, both residences that would be on this property would have to be
sold together with the land and Bush stated that she understood that requirement.
There were no more speakers signed up to speak on this request and Pell closed the
public hearing.
On the motion of Cable, seconded by Austin, with a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to
approve the request with the motions contained in the Planning Board packet.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST #2024-00000855
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified
quasi-judicial hearing on the request by RAEFORD DOUGLAS
SPIVEY, Asheboro, NC, and their request to obtain a Special Use Permit at
6454 Clyde King Rd, Richland Township, Tax ID #7676908544, 15.10
acres, RA - Residential Agricultural District. It is the desire of the applicant to
obtain a Special Use Permit to specifically allow a third residence to be
placed on the property as per the site plan.
Caddle presented the case and site plans for the Raeford Douglas Spivey Special
Use Permit request.
Pell opened the public hearing.
Morgan administered the oath to Raeford Spivey, 529 Hoover St, Asheboro, and
Page 10 of 14 5/16/2024
Hannah Spivey. H. Spivey stated that they wanted to place a third residence on the
property in the location as indicated on the site plan.
Pell asked if there were any questions from the Planning Board members.
There were no other speakers signed up to speak on this request and Pell closed the
public hearing.
On the motion of Hedrick, seconded by Beeson, with a vote of 6-0, the Board voted
to approve the request with the motions contained in the Planning Board packet.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST #2024-00000892
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified
quasi-judicial hearing on the request by KRYSTAL POUNCEY, Thomasville,
NC, and their request to obtain a Special Use Permit at 1842 Fuller Mill Rd
N, Tabernacle Township, Lake Reese Balance Watershed, Tax ID
#6794636233, 16.95 acres, RA - Residential Agricultural District. It is the
desire of the applicant to obtain a Special Use Permit to specifically allow a
second residence for a family member.
Caddle presented the case and site plans for the Krystal Pouncey Special Use
Permit request.
Pell opened the public hearing.
Morgan administered the oath to Krystal Pouncey, 1842 Fuller Mill Rd N,
Thomasville. Pouncey stated that she wanted to place another residence on the
property for a family member.
Pell asked if there were any questions from the Planning Board members.
There were no other speakers signed up to speak on this request and Pell closed the
public hearing.
On the motion of Austin, seconded by Vaughan, with a vote of 6-0, the Board voted
to approve the request with the motions contained in the Planning Board packet.
REZONING REQUEST #2024-00000767
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified
legislative hearing on the request by COLLINS & LINEBERRY
CONSTRUCTION, Liberty, NC, and their request to rezone 6.89-acres on
Low Bridge Rd, Columbia Township, Sandy Creek Critical Area Watershed,
Tax ID #8704315721, Rural Growth Area, from RA - Residential Agricultural
Page 11 of 14 5/16/2024
District to RLOE-CD - Rural Lot Subdivision Overlay Exclusive - Conditional
District. The proposed Conditional Zoning District would specifically allow
the division of lot number three of the existing minor subdivision that would
result in a fourth lot being created.
Caddle presented the case and site plans for the Collins and Lineberry Construction
Rezoning Request.
Pell opened the public hearing.
Russell Lineberry, 6841 Layton Rd, Liberty, addressed the Planning Board and
stated their desire to divide existing lots three as shown on the proposed plat.
Lineberry stated that they plan to build a site-built home on lot number four and that
the existing house on proposed lot number three is already under contract. Lineberry
stated that they had already remodeled the existing house and had cleaned up the
property. Lineberry also stated that they do not plan to remove any trees on the
property, and they plan to do very limited clearing on the property and that they have
already obtained the driveway permit from the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT).
Pell asked if there were any questions from the Planning Board members.
Austin asked if there would be individual drives to each house and Lineberry stated
that each house would have one driveway and that each lot would have its own well
and septic system and they are only planning on installing the new well and septic
system on the proposed lot number four.
Cable asked if the new drive would be off of Sandy Ridge Dr or Low Bridge Rd and
Lineberry stated that the new drive would be on Low Bridge Rd as that is the only
frontage for the property and he estimates that the proposed house would be 200
feet from Low Bridge Rd.
Austin asked about the speed limit along Low Bridge Rd and Lineberry stated he
thought the speed limit is 55 miles per hour since it is not posted.
Pell asked for anyone in opposition to address the Planning Board.
Amy Howe, 1680 Sandy Ridge Dr, Liberty, rose to address the Planning Board in
opposition to this request. Howe stated that the lot is 14.08 acres based on the
recorded plat. Howe stated that the applicants purchased the property in July of last
year and that in February of this year, they divided the property. Howe stated that
this area is in a Rural Growth Area and it was the desire of the GMP to preserve
farming, wildlife, and other features important to the rural community. Howe stated
that this request would harm agricultural land and could cause an increase in
population in this part of the County. Howe concluded her remarks by asking the
Page 12 of 14 5/16/2024
Planning Board to consider what the community wants and to maintain the culture of
the area by following the rules.
Pell asked the Planning Board if they had any questions for Howe, Hearing none,
Pell asked Lineberry if he wanted to address the concern raised by Howe and
Lineberry declined to speak.
Pell closed the public hearing.
Hedrick stated that when the County was going through the GMP update, part of the
discussion was on protecting the rural lot subdivision and that the Plan does not
recommend conventional subdivisions in the Rural Growth Area. Hedrick stated that
based on the UDO, Rural Growth Areas require a minimum lot size of three acres
with 100 feet of State road frontage. Hedrick stated that he felt the existing buffer
was adequate and that the applicants had cleaned up the property and the request
meets the standards for the rural lot subdivision.
Beeson stated that the distance on the roadway is over 360 feet and this request is
very good compared to the normal 100-foot lot widths that the Board normally sees
in subdivisions.
Vaughan said that she felt there was not much the Planning Board could do about
the loss of farmland as often families sell the property to be able to take care of the
older family members.
Cable said that he wanted to commend both speakers for using this forum, Cable
stated that he does not expect farming to take place on this property and the
applicants are planning to place the drive in an area of the property that would be
less invasive to the surrounding community. Cable stated that he felt this request
was more suited for this area and the proposed lot sizes would be greater than the
lot sizes in the adjoining Sandy Ridge subdivision along Sandy Ridge Dr. Cable
stated that the proposal meets the GMP and the UDO.
Austin stated that the GMP update looked at adjoining developments and he thinks
this request fits with what is in the area and also fits into the acceptable growth
outlined in the GMP..
On the motion of Cable, seconded by Vaughan, with a vote of 6-0, the Board voted
to approve the request with the motions contained in the Planning Board packet.
REZONING REQUEST #2024-00000895
The Randolph County Planning Board will hold a duly published and notified
legislative hearing on the request by HARDIN II, LLC, Liberty, NC, and their
request to amend the Conditional District Permit on 16.70-acres at 2604 Old
421 Rd, Columbia Township, Rocky River Balance Watershed, Tax ID
Page 13 of 14 5/16/2024
#8735602322, Rural Growth Area, from HC-CD - Highway Commercial -
Conditional District to HC-CD - Highway Commercial - Conditional
District. The proposed amendment to the existing Conditional Zoning District
would specifically allow an additional sixty-foot by two-hundred-foot building
for mini-warehouse storage as per the site plan.
Caddle presented the case and site plans for the last case of the night for Harin II,
LLC, Rezoning Request.
Pell opened the public hearing.
Billy Hardin, P O Box 400, Liberty, the applicant, addressed the Planning Board and
stated that he wanted to add another building to the site. Hardin said there would be
no other changes to the property and that everything else would be the same as the
existing buildings.
Cable asked if the new building would be using the same entrance and Hardin
replied yes.
Austin asked which building is the new building and Hardin stated that is building F
as shown on the site plan.
Beeson reminded the Board that in the previous rezoning request in 2022, there was
a neighbor with complaints about water. Beeson asked if the problem had been
resolved. Hardin stated that this building location is lower than the other locations but
that he did go by the site when it was raining earlier in the week and all of the run-off
was in the ditch along the road.
Hedrick asked about the lighting plan and Hardin said the lights were only on at night
but he tried to keep the light pointing down and that there are only three lights along
the building and a light at the entrance to help people entering the site. Hardin stated
that there is a berm between his property and the adjoining neighbor.
Austin asked if the proposed building was for storage only and Hardin stated the
buildings are only for storage.
Pell asked if there were any questions from the Planning Board.
Caddle advised the Planning Board about the different GMP in the site and that if the
Planning Board approved this request, due to State law, the GMP would be
amended to make the plan and this use "consistent."
Beeson stated that he thought this area and corridor should be Primary Growth Area.
Hedrick stated that he expects to see changes in the GMP like this due to proposed
Page 14 of 14 5/16/2024
uses and rezonings.
Pell asked if there were any other questions from the Planning Board. Hearing none,
Pell closed the public hearing.
On the motion of Beeson, seconded by Austin, with a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to
approve the request with the motions contained in the Planning Board packet.
7. Update from the Planning Director.
HC - HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REVISIONS
Proposed changes to the Randolph County Unified Development Ordinance
as it pertains to the HC - Highway Commercial zoning district.
Caddle explained the proposed changes that staff had made regarding the updates
to the HC - Highway Commercial District. Caddle stated that she wanted to present
these ideas to see if it is more in line with what the Planning Board wants for the
proposed update.
The Planning Board discussed the proposed changes and that they felt it was a step
in the right direction and also wanted to know about design standards, colors of
buildings, and other items such as trash management that could make commercial
uses blend into their surrounding community. Caddle said that staff would review
these suggestions and bring information back to the Planning Board probably in July
2024.
8. Adjournment.
At 8:45 p.m. on motion of Cable, seconded by Vaughan, the Board voted 6-0 to
adjourn.
Chairman
Clerk to the Planning Board
Approved by Randolph County Planning Board
June 4, 2024
12082 CN 'pTOCUOC A^riO aaUepunS OO L L
c]] 'll.vtsl lvlu 8dh
tzoz 'q r AVN
-/
\-
srsMoI llac lo tcedurl
*
SISAIVNV ]AIIVIIINVNO
a
\
{fr.
Rural Towers This example includes three towers in Robeson County that
provides a reflectionofthe impact. ifany. ofa cell tower. Ihe
first tower is located at.l74 Long Road southeast of
Lumberton. As wilh mosl rural areas. the market data is
sparsei however. lhe lbllowing provides adequate information
to isolate the visual impact ofthe tower.
-
474 Long Road The tower is a monopole wi$ a height of 195 f'eet. -lhe land
uses in the area are primarily agricultural. The low-density
residential developments include homes constucted over a
wide time span. The market dala for single family dwellings
are summarized in the following chart.
SFD SALES
Addre6a Sale Oate Sales Prico Year Built SF si sF
46 SURRY
121 SURRY
5t2 2005
1012912007
s68,
$93,
000
000
1986
1978
1,152
1,443
234
1
$ 59.03s 64.45
285 JUNE 5/15t2449 $41.000 2000 1,632 1 $ 25.12
992 LONG RD 812012007 $57.500 1978 972 1 $ 59 16
867 LONG RD 111512009 927.000 1962 800 152 $ 33 75
719 LONG RD 6t4t2015 $87,000 1989 1,437 437 $ 60 54
1148 LONG RD 8t14t2015 s227.500 2005 2 429 18 $ 11212
The analysis of these sales as well as other sales presented
later in this section includes several factors including but not
necessarily limited to size, age, and lot size. The most
compelling market data is the consistency in the pdces paid
per square foot forthe highlighted properties. The comparison
of the data shows some ofl'setting characteristics bul does
e- -:X
'1
r=
LAND SALES
Address Sale Date Sales Price Acres $/Acre
18T TROY DR 6n t2010 $150,000 19 63 $ 7.641
WILKES RD 51112013 $20,000 739 $ 2,706
859 LONG RD
OFF LONG RD
8122J2012
3t24t2015
$15,000
$22,000
1.24
3.43
$ 12,097$ 6,414
provide evidence that the cell to\rer located along Long Road
does not substantially injure property values in the area.
The second data s€t is lbr land sales fbund in the area. fhe
highlighted propenies are lbr residential lots consislent with
the low.density development pattems in the neighborhood.
Contrary to the market data for single family dwellings. the
most compelling inlbrmation from this data set is the price
point for the residential lots. The size ofthe lots is the most
influential t'actor on price point. Again. the market data
indicates that the tower has not impeded demand for land
along the Long Road corridor nor has it diminished and/or
impaired land values in the area.
This tower is a guyed to\er with a reported height of295 tcet.
The market does providc information adequate to isolate to
the greatest extcnt possible the impact ofthe touer.
I have applied the same methodology with the previor-rs
analyses and segregated the data into single family dwellings
and vacant land. The sales for single family dwellings are
summarized in the lbllowing chart.
7746 E. 5rh Street
)
.-/
:EE 9 *a?-!
SFD SALES
Sale Oate Sal6s Price Year Bualt SF S/SF
913 ttARRtS RO
4642 OLD ALLENTON
146 BEAR 8AY
877 OLD ALLENTON
1131t2017
12t712015
11t13t20',14
6t25t2013
$6s 000
$64 000
$48 000
$46 500
2005
1950
1980
1969
1,443
912
1.456
1,506
1
1
2.69
1.5
$ 4s 05
$ 70.18
$ 32.97$ 30.88
9697 NC 211
8355 E NC HWY 211
6t26t2012
6/3/2015
$61 000
s75.000
1955
1988
1,170
1,152
124 $ 52.14$ 65.10
LAND SALES
Addres6 Sale Date Sales Price
NC HWY 211
699 BAY BEAR
12t1712014
611e/2015
$17,500
$17,000
0.59
8.13
$ 29,661
$ 2,091
HARRIS RD
HARRIS RD
3 PIT]MAN
WILKES
511412015
811712015
41412014
511t2013
$8,500
$9,000
$250,000
$20 000
1
1.27
739
$ 8,500s 7 087
$ 2,682
$ 2,706
481 HARRIS RD 21812013 $2s,500 n.92.u 5 ,,j17
538 DERWOOD
OERWOOD
PIT]MAN
9t1?t2012
7t19t2012
5121t2012
$45 000
$80,000
$15,000
17 74
24 84
14 08
$ 2,s37$ 3,221
$ 1,065
1'he physical variance in this data sel \aould require a higher
level ofadjustment. Notwithstanding this t'act. the sales along
the 2l I corridor provide a similar price point and price paid
per square foot. The ol'f'setting nature of the variances is
rellecled in the similar price point fbr most sales with the
propeny closest to the tou'er having the highest price point.
'Ihe analysis ofthis dau set provides f'urther evidence to our
conclusion.
1'he lbllowing chart provides a summary of land sales for the
area. Again. applying the same methodology as the previous
analyscs.
The best matched pair in this data set is from the sales of tuo
mobile home lots. While the price point was higher for the
sale on Harris Road. the price per acre was higher for the lot
on Highway 2lL This indicates that size was a significant
f'actor in the price paid. The only other sale found lies on the
lower end of the range of the data set. which is considered
reasonable given its physical characteristics including some
areas that appear undevelopable.
1097 Kinlaw Road -l he land sales in the area provide evidence of the impact ol
the tower on property values. The following chart provides a
summary ofland sales in the area.
The sale closest to the tower sold fbr the highest price peracre.
Again. the markel data tbr land around this cell tower
indicates thal lhe tower does not diminish the prices paid fbr
land in the neighborhood.
The following is a summary o1' single-famill-. dwelling sales
tbund in the neighborhood.
LAND SALES
Address Sale Date Sales Price $/Acre
HOWELL RD 5t25t2012 $98.000 47 $ 2,085
TARHEEL RO
346 BARNHILL
5168 TARHEEL
12J12/2012
9/3/201 3
1t3t2011
113,000
$28,500
130,000
3.37I
s.{5
s 3,858$ 3,563t 3,279
KINLAW RD 91412014 $27,000 6.87 $ 3,930
SFD SALES
Address Sale Date Sales Price Year Built SF $/sF
88 BARNHILL 4/3U2412 s76.000 1995 1 458 2.01 $ 52 13
6876 HOWELL
7889 HOWELL
512212012
121712012
$ss,000
$37.500
1988
1950
1
1
344
454
1.98 $ 40.92$ 19.23
5168 TARHEEL
6225 HOWELL
6257 HOWELL
306 TARHEEL
5t912013
8110t2016
211012017
10117t2013
$125,000
$200.000
$225,000
$177,500
1958
1999
2007
1953
1.980
2 A37
3,303
3.087
5
101
1
5.03
$ 63 84
$ 100 05
$ 112.11
$ 90 89
3M7 TARHEEL 9t5t2014 $46,000 1992 1,296 $ 23.09
5478 TARHEEL 1013t2014 $125 000 2AA2 1.920 84 $ 62.44
819T HOWELL 1111012014 $71,000 1980 1,032 1.O2 $ 35.86
470 KINLAW RD
KINLAW RD
12t3',12014
6t15t2015
$42 500
$73 500
1982
1962
1.338
1.485
1.5
0.89
$ 21 44
$ 37 46
,.l
-rI7
I he review ofsales of single-l'amily dwellings reveals that age
and condition of the improvements is the most signilicant
tactorin the prices paid. Development in the area is sparse and
supply side pressures in the market and low number of
lransactions indicates that the neighborhood is in the stable
phase of its economic development. This is similar to the
subject's neighborhood. The sales price paid lbr the propenies
along the corridor wilh a tower and other corridors is
consistenl.
'I he market activity in the area indicales that the presence of
the cell to\\er does not impede normal development pattems
as sales along Tarheel and Kinlaw Road corridors are
proceeding consistent with other teniary roads in the area.
Most land maintains its agricultural uses \\'ith lo\! densitv
residential interspersed. The area also has seveml mobile
home parks. which arc common lbr rural areas throughout the
Carolinas.
Gaston Drive This tower is in Bladen County. The tower is located otT
Gaslon Drive. The single-family dwelling sales in the
neighborhood were insumcient quantity (two sales found). to
provide a credible analysis. However, the sales of land as
shown on the following chart provide a refleclion of the
market. The following chan is a summary ofthe sales. Note
the two first sales in the cha( are for mobile home lots.
The land sales fbr lots near lhe tower are consistent with other
lot sales lbund with no visual influence fiom the tower. The
two lots highlighled in yellow reflect the upper end of the
range for vacant land. The market data indicales that
development near the tower has not influenced the normal
course of development lbr the immediate area. Further. the
market data indicates that buyers are paying similar prices lbr
lots within the visual sphere ofinfluence ofa cell tower.
LAND SALES
Address Sa16 Date Sales Price $/Acre
2392 GUYTON 7t19t2412 s10.000 1 $ 10 000
3OO GASTON DR 212312015 $19,000 1.7 $ 11,176
I\,,IASSEY RD
GUYTON ROAD
GUYTON RO
MASSEY RO
MASSEY RO
1023 STORMS RD
303 GASTON DR
1011612012
5131t2013
10118t2013
12t3t2013
4t23t2014
3t20t2015
8/29t2015
$25,000
$9,000
$20,000
$6 000
$31 500
$9 000
$11,000
15.35
0.98
5.57
0.9
12.37
2
0.89
$ 1,629
$ 9,184
$ 3.591$ 6.667
$ 2,546
$ 4,500
$ 12,360
Trl
1ljjl l.
f
s
A tower is in Ro\aan County in a residential area ofTareyton
Drive. This is an older residential area u'ith most of the
dwellings constructed in lhe I970's. As sho.,m on the
lbllowing aerial. the tower is in an open field with a highet
visual impact than most towers. The touer is a monopole
lelecommunications tower with a height of 195 t'eet.
The following sales were lbund in the area. The two properties
highlighted in green have the highest level of visual impacr
f'rom the tower.
Sales 5ummary
Parcel Address Land (Acres)Bedrooms Baths 5F Year&/ilt Sele Date Sales Price P.elsl
102 561 :tflB DaisyCt 0.25 3 1 1,500 1974 1/13117 S 3s,m S 21.88
102622 442 Newcastle Rd o_22 3 1 1,lm 1974 12129/11 S 4s,m S 40.91
102 501 3218 Sprinq Valle!0.34 4 2 1,518 1972 10/to/16 s 78,000 5 s0.72
102 491 3220 Sprins Valley 0.3 3 1 1,82 7972 12h4/11 S 99,0m s 90.56
152 857 655 Kilborne Dr o.2 3 1 1,050 19/A 812UtS s 32000 S 3s.24
1s2 839 60l Dundeen Dr o.22 3 1 1,075 1978 12/3r/15 $ 36,000 S 33.49
152420 630 Dundeen Dr o2 3 1 1,050 1/5/11 S 48,ooo s 45.11
752791 636Col€brook Dr 0.2 3 1 1,mo 1977 11/Tl16 S 6o,om s 50.m
737166 609 Belfast Dr o.27 3 1 1,050 1976 7 /28/14 s 45,0m S 42.86
11115a 602 Belfast Dr a_2 3 1 1,050 1976 8/2r/1s S 3o,om S 28.s7
137114 657 Eelfast Dr 0.21 1 1,050 1975 tl/21111 s s3,0m 5 so.48
All the sales have similar lot sizes. location and year built. As
with many older homes. the most signiticant factor
influencing the price paid is the condirion of rhe
improvements. The first "green" sale in the chan included a
basement. u'hich would require an adjustment. The presence
of the basement skews the price paid per square foot. Upon
1911
3
l
II
lirrther research. this dwelling was reported as 'needing some
work." From a price point. the sale is on the louer end ol'the
range. which is reasonable given the reported condition ol'the
improvements and presence ofa basement.
The second "green" sale did not include a basement and was
reponed to be in I'air condition. Again. this sale is consistent
with the other sales in the data set. The analysis of this sale
sho*s consistency with other residential sales in the area
despite ils location and visual impact from the tower. We note
lhat the tower is only panially visible from this property.
A toller in (iaston County visually impacts some lo\ {ensity
residential developments. I'his tower is close to the road in an
open lield with a higher level of visibiliq. The lbllouing
exhibits provide an aerial and street scene for the tower.
1852 County Line Road As shown on the previous aerial, there are residential
developments across the s[eet liom the tower. This lgs-tbot
tower is a monopole construction. The lbllowing data consists
of some modular homes that sold along County Line Road
across the streel from the lower to some modular homes that
sold in Lewis ['arm Estates. The tbllowing chan provides a
summary ofthe sales.
Property Sales Summary
Address Sale Date Sales Price Acres SF Price/SF Year Buill
1848County Line Road sl24/11 s 100,000 1 1,908 5 s2.41 1999
1846County tine Road 11/16/O7 S 9o,oo 1.03 7,512 S 59.s2 2004
1519 Lewis Farm Road 3/s/ls 5 116,m 2.42 1,842 s 62.98 1999
1526 Lewis Earm Road 8/2s/07 5 17o,mo 2.88 2,881 S 59.01 2006
There are several factors that contribute to the price paid. The
smaller lot sizes tbr the propenies near the tower \rould
warrant a downward adjustment to these sales. Regardless. the
range of prices paid per square tbot is considered small. The
indication from this analysis is that similar single family
dwelling prices paid are compamble despite the visual impacr
of the cell tower. The market data indicates that even with
7"
i'
absence of a vegetative bufler. the tower does not
substantially injure the value ofadjacen abutting properties.
Another tower on a residentially zoned property is located
along the NC Highwa] 138 corridor in Stanly Counry. The
tower is a monopole with a height of 195 l'eel. Research of the
market tbr the adjacent prope(ies revealed a sale of thc
adjacent property to the north ofthe property improved with
the to$'er. The following chart provides a summary of sales
lbund in the area. The sale of the adjacent propert-v is
highlighted in yello*. 1he other sales are for properties
providing similar utiliry.
As shown on the previous chan. the sale of the propeny
adjacent to the tower sitc is on the upper end ofthe range on
a price per square foot as well as price point. After researching
and adjusting these sales for physical and market variances in
comparison to the sale adjacent to the to\^er, the analysis
indicates that there is no diminution in value caused by thc
presence oia to\ er on the adjacent properB-.
Matched Pair Analysis
Sale Date Address size (SF)Year Built BR BA Sale Price Price/sF
3112120
7l30l20
6113179
t1l26lL7
sho/20
th7 /19
4h6/19
6/18/8
6/16/19
12i183 NC Hwy 138
12514 NC Hwy 138
32621Chapel Rd.
32512 Chapel Rd.
33515 S. Stanly School Rd
12028 NC Hwy 138
12018 NC Hwy 138
11636 NC Hwy 138
12273 Old Aquadale Rd.
2
1.91
2.59
2.M
14.46
1.06
0.95
0.68
L.2
1,s00
1,070
1,734
1,42\
1,008
1,860
1,501
1,709
1,865
1955
1954
1993
1981
1959
1947
1949
1945
1965
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
I
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1.5
S r4o,ooo
S 103,ooo
5 lso,ooo
5 114,ooo
s 117,000
s 150,000s 149,000
s 115,000
s 170,000
s 93.33
s 96.26
5 86.s1
5 80.23
5116.07
s 86.02
S 99.27
5 61.29
S 91.1s
Residential Subdivisions
ffi
The data for the subdivision was limited as only six homes
sold. The six sales closed within a six-monlh period in 2021.
I
\
The first data set is fiom a subdivision located o1T Carolina
Beach Road called Cypress Village in New Hanover Count!.
This subdivision was in the conslruction phase a1 the time ol'
the analysis. The fbllo*ing provides an aerial and a PLAT of
this development. 'Ihe tower. constructed in 1999. is located
on the adjacent properi-.
t
d
,a
\
7 IE(
il 1
t
a-aaa
r
,)
J
il
rl
H
Two of these properties \^,ere closest to the tower. The sales
closesl to the to\lerwere in the middle ofthe range ofthe data
set. While the quantity of data is limited, the sales priccs do
not reflect a diminution in value based on the proximity and
visual impact of the touer. Further research of this
subdivision showed consistency in the price paid for the lots.
The third factor extracted is the t'act that a developer was
attracted to the site knowing the visual influence ofthe to$.er.
The market data and activity provide evidence that the tower
does nol present an adverse impact on property values.
The next example is from a suMivision in Comelius, Nonh
Carolina. Victoria Bay is a waterfront communily. This
development is adjacent lo Lake Noman. This subdivision
includes some homes with frontage on the water. We have
excluded these sales to assist in isolating the influence ofthe
tower if any. The fbllowing chan provides a summary ofthe
sales. The sales highlighted in yellow have visual inlluence
fiom the tower. The sales highlighted in green are for a resale
ofthe same propeny.
l,|L-'.r
tT
[:ll
T I
-t &,
I
\i
,rf";ra
{
F
I
I
Victoria Bay
sire (sr)S/sr
003 381-44
003 381 40
003-381-30
19911 Marina Village Or
18505 Victoria 8ay Dr.
18526Victoria 8ay D..
Aprit13,2018
November 13,2018
]!ly 1,2020
1,620
1,620
2,279
s 138.27s 1ss.86
s 145.11
s
5
s
224,OOa
252,500
322,000
003 381-62
003 381,65
lE6UVictona 8ay Or
18623Victona Bay Or
November15,2018
february28,2018
1,620
1,620
5 146 91
5 139.51
5
s
238,000
226,OOO
003-381-55
003-381-25
003-381 14
003-382 02
003-19s 09
003 195-05
003-195-01
003 195-23
003-19612
(x)3-19&12
003 196 36
003-194 57
003-195 59
003 194 51
003 194,25
003 194-25
003 194-25
003-194-34
18627 victoria Bay or.
18524 Victona 8ay 0r.
20030CoralCove Cl.
18122 Bluff lnlet Rd
18111 Blufl lnlet Rd
18021 Eluff lnlet Rd.
18001 Eluff rnlet Rd.
20E15 BinkreySt.
18208 hrtorMin Rd.
18208 H. ftor Mist Rd.
20933 Brinkley 5t.
20102 BeardSt.
20U5 Bea rd St.
20914 BinkleySt.
18307 Victo a Bay Dr.
18311 Victoia 8ay Dr.
18327 Victoria 8ay Dr.
18409Victoria Bay 0..
october18,2018
November20,2018
lanuary 11,2018
1une19,2020
May 18,2018
l!ly 16,2018
April17,2020
)rne !7, 2O2O
February23,2018
Autust 3, 2018
September 7,2018
A06ust 21,2020
September4,2018
oecember27,2018
February21,2018
September21,20l8
lanuary 24,2018
AuAUst 13,2018
1,620
2,O52
1,520
2,077
2,052
2,072
1,645
2,610
2)@
2,7(B
2,524
2,385
2,263
2,@9
2,332
2,582
2,@9
2,555
5 1s1.23
I 119.40
5 134.s7
s 1s3.31
5 121.83
s 136.68
5 151.98
5 128.35
S ro8.9os 124.03
s 128.56
5 r5s.07
s 124.61
5 109.62
s r25.2t
5 l!4 25
s 105.40
5 tt9.i1
245,m0
245,000
218,000
317,500
250,000
275,000
2s0,000
33s,000
295,@0
336,000
325,000
370,000
282,000
285,000
292,OOO
295,000
275,000
318,000
s
s
s
s
5
s
5
5
s
st
5
5
s
The sales shown have an average price per square foot of
$132.1l. Three ofthe four sales with visualinfluence fiom the
tower are above the average. Six of the sales in the data set
were of the same model. Three of the sales have visual
inlluence from the tower. The prices paid per square foot are
comparable. The indication fiom the market is that the visual
impact from the tower does not adversely impact propedy
values in Victoria Bay.
l'he next louer with adequate data is a latticc tower located al
2517 Providence Road in Weddington. North Carolina. This
tower as sho\an on the photograph the tower has a large visual
footprint on the subdivision to the north, Invemess al
Providence Road. The following chart provides a summary ol'
market data lbr homes in the subdivision. The sales
highlighted in yellow have visual impact from lhe tower. The
sales highlighled in green are resales ofthe same property to
rellect the appreciating markel.
ilt u
il" x
lnverness
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Median
3,105 S391,500 S 89.63
5,s07 S 568,500 S 186.17
3,894 Ss01,287 S 130 6s
3,879 5 500 5 128.09
.J
-
Summary
Sire Sale Price S/SF
The most significant t'actor in the analysis of the data is the
date ofsale. The housing shortage resulted in a spike in prices
paid. The price poinl averages approximately $500.000. The
sales prices for the houses with visual influence from the
tower range fiom $448,000 to $553.500 which is consistent
with the sales ofhomeswithout avisual influence despite their
older sale date. The price per square foot fbr the impacted
houses ranges from $ll5.ll to $141.45 per square foot.
Again. the rates bookend the median and averages for the
neighborhood. The indication ftom the analysis is rhar the
presence ofa celltower posing a higher level ofvisual impact
with a light did not significantly impact rhe value of
properties.
The Vickery subdivision located in Waxhaw. Nonh Carolina
has acell touerjust north ofthe lots atthe terminus ofVickery
Drive. The analysis lbr fiose properties closest to the tower is
compared to those $ithin the remainder of the subdivision.
The lirllowing chart provides sales within the subdivision with
the properties closesr ro rhe rower highlighted in yellou.
707s308
7075305
6742@2
6't8S G6
0.{45 3 104,@
3 43&@
l,!53
,,421
!,78S
s 110 56
s 129 4t
s 117,89
s 11s.@
9/211fi16
9/2!7a$
9/26/2ot6
9tzetm$
9t$t2,t6
5 393,200
5 353,1@
s 3&2@ 1159(
2015
2D15
2016
7075315
7Ur5lO9
7075303
61 91t
6&7 378
5€O7 603
0.604
0.s3
S 39,@s 436,s00s 49s,ses so,8!5
S 435,@
1,03
3,S5
3,571
s 133.47
I 142.04
s 122.89
s 13L65
s 121.31
Lal4/?016
to/27/2at6
10/24/2ot6
fil2,l?016
to/3!2!16
5 316,9@
5 140,2@s 387,3e
$ {6,70
5 152,4@
123%
tza*
lzsx
tlJl.
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
m7!14
70r5r7
ml5326
7D75330
7D75335
7D75331
m75332
ml5112
6835 5'
&32a2
6843 !67
5€.a2al
6413 737
5&a 307
635172S
6451304
0.514
0 49a
0.529
0.504
o 542
!t23 VrCtGiY 0i
2028 DONOVAN DR
2011 CHA€I u.l
5 {&,706
s 4&,9@
S 470,@s 4so ses 433,5@s 4)5,N7s 492d8s 454,3A
1.9$
1,850
1,612
2,922
3,42
3,672
4,432
3,037
s 121.s1
s Lb.ls
I 12&@
s 19t.13
s 120.40
5 119.41
s 101.82
5 125.42
s 137.31
1,Ulbt6
12h6/2A$
12/t9/,ot6
12lr9l?ot6
D/22/2016Dlr/mfi
11/21t2016
12/29/7016
\U29/mt6
s 388205 37s,es 3615@s 324,1@s 3sts@s 363,7&s a20,5@s 3588es 333,s@
t24%
Lga
496
!2i%
131%
t21%
t2i%
2016
2016
2016
mt6
2016
2016
)o16
6459111
6a62 313
s !62,fi
5 448,836
5 152.29
5 123.17
!Blmt1
!B/mt1
5 33,m
5 375,sm
2016
m75313
70753tt
6880472
6342 304
6aa3 $0
0€3
0513
s 476,851
5 4s9,09
s 499,9@
s 11625
I 133 33
s 117.90
u2umD
u24/mt1
2/212Afi
s 39t1O
s 406,5@ rli%
2016
bL6
7075333
m75117
7075331
7qr5306
701s13,
5346 457
6491603
6892 523
6494 492
689607r
0.517
0 531
4.4'71
0 534
0.rt52
0.557
3021 CHALET LN
3015 CHALET tit
2012 DONOVAN 0R
S 506,@s 442,890
s 432,@
S 4s5,os 469,9@
3,303
3,036
3,4€8
3,430
s 131.05
t 145.33
t 13r,.05
5 133 95
s t8,68
s B7.m
3/21Nt7
1/LOlNll
!8tzai
1/16lNt1
3lmlfrl7
r/3o/2a17
s 36qes 323,s@s 382,s@s 3l6jes 366,6@s 35910
t29%
t2a%
131%
2oL6
2016
mt6
2016
2016
70L6
mE3l5
7075143
6924779
69y oto
0.521 3&3 CHALET U,l
]OU CHALET U{
s 558,532s s02,@
a,2$
3,t46
3,609
5 131 13
s 137.69
s 13a13
5/9/N!1
3/ta/2a17
sl3117a17
s 4o3,7ms !66,5a05 166,2@
1341"2otl
mll
20t7
to)5322
74',75797
7075351
7ar1t6
6955 571
@5125)
6961816
6&1621
6&2472
@5130
055
0.516
o53
o.492
0.509
0 554
]@CHALET LX
,O]oCHALET tx
s s12,Ss s12,ms 499,9@9 465,335s 493,500
s s07,5@
5 rr49,9@
3,910
4,1O2
3,413
3,8a5
3,523
!524
s 126.36
s 130,95
s 122.31
s 12O 31
s 131.1)
5 1O.63
s t24.12
5171.52
6taN!',
6/$/2A11
6/E/mr7
6/2V&t1
6/2A/2lr7
6/2A/&r7
5/3a/2017
6/{/j011
s {@,3m
S 333,s5 39s,6@s 3$,7m
5 39s,105 3s8,3@
5 371,9@5 353,2m
s 353,4&
125*
132%
t%
132r(
1319(
Lt6X
125%
lr%
2016
xt7
mr1
2A]7
2017
2016
2016
6973225 o \6'7 s s28,250 1,913 5 13s.@ 1/2!?ot7 s 390,2@ r35%2at1
7o1s 29 0 541 s ts2.47 9/27/Nt7 s 341,2@
ml5123
7075323
tu75339
7029 563
7043 655
0 505
0512
3031 CHALET U{
s rr59,5@
s 513,50s 443,@
s !71,0€5
3,963
3,@9
s 1s2.73
5 129.57
S 1,14.11
s 130.51
\0/6/mt1
\a/3a/2071
s l42,cos 391,.4@s 333,8@
s 153,S
131%
L13%
133%
2017
?o77
mrl
0 52S 5 495,0@ 14!s/20t1 s r}3e
7131330 s 509,m 3,715 s 116 23 4/9/zala s 362,s@ 2016
For lhe anal]',sis. we used several units oi comparison. The
pdce point tbr the propertics closest to the tower are within
the range of the resl ofthe subdivision. While one sale is on
thc lower end oithe range another is on the upper end olthe
range indicating that the proximity to the cell tower does not
influence the price point. We also looked at the price per
square foot. Again. the sales in proximity to the tower werc
consistent with nominal variances with other propenies in the
suMivision. We also compared the sales prices to the assessed
values of the propenies. Again. this comparison yielded the
same results that the market and prices paid for properties in
proximity to the tower were not impacted by the tower.
The next tower found is located southeasl of thc Prestwick
subdivision in Charlotle. North Carolina. Thc fbllou'ing aerial
shows the tower to the southeast ofthe subdivision.
The tower is a monopole tower with some trees between the
lower and the residential propenies within Prestuick. The
following chart provides a summary of sales within the
subdivision with the propenies highlighted in yellow having
some level ofvisual inlluence from the tower.
N
jr
ri.,
't
l
:!1
1
il I
Boot & Pde Sire SID{Sr)5. € hte
xol
Y€rB!ill
7115197
71t5211
7115214
7L)52l,
713S2iU
rusia
7l35238
7135243
7D5A0
7135193
7135196
7135198
7135213
7135215
1135731
74589
745279
7135284
7135201
713"56
71i517!
705E3
6710543
ml1t$
6918096
6991S6
6636ml
5728 U4
6756 020
nz8n74
7\914n
77,J47\
7154843
6S1572
7199856
6S505
6r{m
68m854
ru7p6
7131065
7m2t0
6ml9
7212 509
a43l'3
016
015
014
015
017
017
0.111
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.16
016
0.14
014
017
0.a
014
016
018
014
015
015
5810 PARruTONT DR
5&}7 PARrcIONI DR
5m1PARI(STONEDR
5TlTPARKSTOIII DR
5707 PART'IONE DR
57S PAXISr0U 0N
3107 R0YAI n00N tN
U5 ROYAT TROON IIi
SD4fAUlRl( tN
58M PARKSTON E DR
gBPARKSIONI OR
S8I2PAfiKSIONIDR
$03 PAR$roflt 0R
5723 PARKSION E DR
5714 PARIcIOI{E DR
]105 ROYAT NOON DR
911 PAR(STONT DR
5SI PAR$IOIIE DR
5818 PAR(STONE DR
5mtALXtR( u{
5910 PAR(STONE DR
5S] PAR$TOI{I DR
S247,om
s20,m
t24tm
u71m
S2!o,m
S242,0
52m,m
Sasm
t74 m
s287,5m
52s6,m
$262,m
tzm
t4s,m
s88,m
t6o,m
5211m
tB,m
s2m,0m
$82,m
973,m0
5255,m
3,2t8
1844
2,14
2,82
1,144
2,662
1,1U
1,955
2,855
3,026
2,1U
1,7U
l,Bt
1258
1,794
I,nz
lan
l$3
l&17
2,104
1075
t6v
57s.u
S9r42
S89.D
599.19
S9r11
$125
S94.7s
s120.14
Sgs.94
s95.01
S93.D
59s.48
s10r39
s74.97
sl3z66
595.17
579.s0
s93.19
S9r6s
s110.S
ls.E
t96.fr
1l26lnt6
9l8lnt7
4l24lni
tholn'\7
,lnlnt6
l79et6
8/29/m$
8Arma
l10/ma
81 n18
s/r/na
rltal7{iT
Tlryna
71N1011
3/&/2017
r!1611016
10/212018
glqM8
u1512011
th912016
tholzot'
5l nfl
5246,m
S24,m
Szr,4m
sll8,5m
$2m,m
$21l3m
5217,m
S1,9,4e
s2t3,6m
52n6m
sn9.m
$217,50
S2E m
5244,m
$176,m
52.25,m
Snl,2m
sstm
S24m
Sr92,m
52ltm
52n,n
lcf{
116i(
113%
D4%
11r(
1149(
12096
11196
Dj*
D&
11S(
Dg,
l1fl,
lff"
1l5X
115%
w
lMl
11696
ulx
116%
flk
2m
2ffi
2m6
2ffi
2m
2ffi
2m
2ffi
2ffi
2006
2m
2m6
2fl16
2m6
2m6
2m6
2m7
2m7
2m7
2m7
2m7
2m7
Despite consideration of adjustments to the data set for a
variety oi physical and market variances. the single-t'amily
dwelling with the highest level of visual impact fiom the
tower lies within the range of the data set presented. This
anal,vsis indicates that the visual impact ofthis tower does nol
impact prop€I!)* values of residential properties.
QTJALIFICATIONS OF TH 1: ANALYST
Michael P. Berkowitz
MPB Resl [strte. l,LC
| 100 Surdance Drir€
Concord. NC 28027
Phone (70.1) 6040595
EDUCATION AND CREDENTIALSr Duke University
Major: llconomics I 985- I 989
Centrsl Piedmont Communitv College
R-l -
R-2 -
G-t -
Introduction ro Real Estate Appraisal. 2002
Valualion Principles and Procedures. 2002
Applied Residendal Propert) Valuation. 2002
Introductt)n to Income Propeny Appraisal. 2003
Advanced lncome Capitalization Procedures, 2003
Applied Property Income Valuation 2004
Highesl and Best Use and Market Analysis. 2004
Rates. Multipliers and Ratios 2005
Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches 2006
Aparlment Appraisal. Concepts & Applications 2009
Appraising Distresses Commercial Real Eslate 2009
Appraising Convenience Stores 201 I
Analyzing Operating Expenses 201 I
Bob Ipock and Associltes
(i-2 -
(i-3 -
Apprsisol lnstitute
520
Seminar
530
Seminar
Seminar
Seminar
Seminar
AFFILIATIONS AND ACTIVITIESo AssociationMemberships
North Carolina State Cenified General Real Estate Appraiser. October 2006. Cenificate No
A6169
RELATED EXPERIENCEr Provided real estate consulting seNices for a variety ofclients including real estate brokers,
property owners and financial planneN.r Performed financial feasibilig srudies fbr mulriple property rypes including golfcommunities.
and renovation projects.o Developed plan for self-contained communities.. Racetrack expertise
APPRAISAL EXPER]ENCE
A partial list oftypes ofproperties appraised include:
Retail Propenies, Single and Multi-'fenant. Proposed and Existing
Oflice Single and Muhi-Tenant Proposed and Existing
Mixed-Use Properties. Proposed and Existing
Industrial Prope(ies, Warehouse, Flex and Manufacturing
Vacant Land
Condemnation
C-Stores
Racetracks
(.LIEN'I'ELE
Bank of America
Transylvania County
Cabamx County
Mecklenburg County
City ofStatesville
NC Department of Transponation
Henry County, GA
Town ofLoudon- NH
First Citizens Bank
RBC Centura Bank
City ofcha otte
City ofConcord
Union County
BB&T
Aegon USA Realty Advisors
Sun Tmst Bank
First Chaner Bank
Regions Bank
Charlotte Housing Authority
Alliance Bank and Trust
Broadway Bank
Duke Energy Corporation
Hamilton. Fay. Moon. Stephens. Steele & Manin
Senalor Marshall A. Rauch
Perry. Bundy. Plyier & Long. LLp
Robinson. Bradshaw & Hinson
CSX Real Propeny
Baucom. Cumberland. Burton. Morgan & Wood. pA
City of Mounr Holly
Our Towns Habiht fbr Humanity
Parker. Poe. Adams & Bemstein- I-l-p
Central Carolina Bank
Southem Community Bank and Trust
Atta(hments:
Sent:
To:
Subje(t
L6
Thursday, May 15, 2024'l1:00 AM
Tim.Mangum@randolphcountync.gov
SUP Request #23 00000655//Tillman lnfrastructure, Wall Road Telecommunications
Tower/Opposition of SBA Communications Corporation
sba villa tillman letter.pdf; SBA Letter - Jason Laskey Randolph County. 5 16-2024
PDF.pdf
You may recatt that you and I spoke a iew days ago about the above referenced Sup apptication which
is on the Ptanning Board's agenda this evening. I represent SBA Cornmunications, which owns and
operates a tetecommu nications tower at 6958 watt Road in statey, tess than % mite from the location ol
the proposed new tower for which Tiltman seeks approvat. please find attached two (2) tetters from my
cLient onerfromMikeVitta,SBA'sSeniorDirectorofSiteMarketing Site Leasing and one frorf Jason
Laskey, Principat Zoning Manager providinginformationfortheplanningBoard,sconsiderationin
opposition to TiLtman's SLJP AppLication.
As you witl note, Tittman's proposed "tenant" shoutd its new tower be approved and buitt is Verizon,
which is currentl.y a tenant on the existing SBA tower (and has been for more than 20 years). According to
my ctient, Verizon has not expressed to them any economic hardship for Verizon to remain on the SBA
tower (the current [ease term woutd expire in 2028, as I understand the situation). f4oreover, as
expressed in Mr. Vitta's tetter, SBA witI match whatever monthty rentai rate Tittman has offered to
Verlzon, tess $10.00, contingent on Verizon providing SBA with a copy of bona fide documentation of the
monthty rentaI rate offered by Tittman. I\4y cLient submits that the Tiltman apptication does not satisiy the
requirements of Randotph County's UDO Section 621, which requires TitLman to provjde certain
information documenting its efforts to coordinate cotocation on towers within a 1 mite radius ofthe
proposed site.
Ptease distribute copies of this emait and the attached tetters to the Ptanning Board members for their
consideration this evening. I witt be present to discuss my ctient,s position and answer any questions the
Ptanning Board may have.
RespectfuLty,
Bob Hornik
TH T
BROUGH
LAW FIRM,ILLC
a,l
EXHIBIT
II
IIH
Phone 919 929 3905
Mobite 919-614 0204
Robert E. Hornik, Jr
Robert Hornik
l4ay 16,2024
Tim:
I
w€b W!!!.blaqqhl@tltrr!.lsB
E rnai I lqrk{Oblalq[byrlt!!.laD
1526 E. Frankln St., Ste. 200
chapelHrll, NC 27514
contid.nthllt! Noti.e. This messaqe and its aftachne.ts may be an atlorney.liEnt
communlcatlon and as such ls orvleqed and confldentlal, Ifthe readerofthis message ls
notthe lntended reclpent or a. aqent respons ble for dellverinq ltto the lntended reclp ent,
you are hereby rotified that yo! recelved this docoment in error and that any revlew,
disseminatlon, dstrtbution or cooyinq ofthis messaqe ls stn.ny prohlblted. It you have
r.ceived thrs communicatlo. rn eror, please nohfy me mmediately by e-mail and delete
Public R..o.ds: This messaqe and lts attachments, and any response you may provide,
may be subject to North carolina Publrc Records law.
1
SBA D
SBA Communicalions Corporation
8051 Consress Av€nue
Boc€ Raton, FL 33487-1307
T + 561 995 7670
F + 561.995.7626
May 16, 2024
Randolph County
Department of Planning & Development
204 E Academy St.
P.O. Box 771
Asheboro- NC 27204
RE:'Iillman lnfrastruclure, LL( ("Tillman") request for a Spccial llse Pcrmit to construct
a 2J0-foot telccommunicxtions to$ er at \\'all Road, Stalel, \C 27355,
I)ear Commission Members
My name is Mike Vill4 and I am the Senior Director of Site Marketing for SBA Communications
Corporation ("SBA") in North Carolina. It is my job to interact with carriers, such as Verizon
Wireless ("Verimn"), who have collocated antennas, or are interested in colocating, onto an SBA
cell tower. I maintain an open line of communication with the carriers to discuss tenant issues.
including but not limited to collocation, tower mounted equipment changes or additions, pricing
and facilitating the €xecution ofnew agreements. This would includc the 250 foot tall cell tower
SBA has owned, operated, and maintained since December 1999 on property commonly known
as 6958 Willard Road, Staley, NC 27355 ("Existing Cell Towei').
Tillman InAasiructure, LLC ("Tillman") has submitted a Special Use Permit Application
requesting approvalto construct a new 240-foot self-support tower with Verizon antennas mounted
at an antema height of 235' AGL. fhe proposed tower is located a mere 2,400 feet from the
Existing Cell Tower on which Verizon is colocated at the same height. In my p or conmunications
with Verizon, they havc not mentioned any concems or issues with the Existing Cell Tower nor
inquired whether the Existing Cell Tower could acconrnodate additional equipment.
Accordingly, I was quite surprised by Tillman's application. Verizon has been a tenant on the SBA
tower since 2001. Over the years, SBA has worked with Verizon on numerous requested network
improvements, antenna changes and equipment upgrades, Mth the most recent upgrades
completed in 2019. SBA has never denied or delayed any request by Verizon to modify their
installation as nceded.
On April 21, 2021, Verizon and SBA entered into a Master Lease Agreement ("MLA") pertaining
to Verizon's lease ofSBA towers nationwide, which includes the Existing Cell Tower. The MLA
established mutually agreed upon rental rates and lease extensions between Verizon and SBA.
Notably, there has been no discussions with Verizon surrounding any cost concems for this site
which is furtler govemed by thc MLA.
'fo the extentthatthere exists an ecoromic burden for Verizon to remain collocated on the Fixisting
SBA Tower, as claimed and asserted in l'ilkDan Infrastructure's application, the existence of the
2021 Master Lease Agrcement between Verizon and SBA establishes that ongoing colocation is
reasonably feasiblc. Tillman's application refereflces an "Economic Hardship Letter" provided by
Verizon as the basis for which the proposed tower should be approved under the county ordinance.
SBA has not been provided a copy ofthe letter nor can we confinn the letter exists or was included
in f illman's submiftal.
As a furthcralce ofSBA willin8ness to accommodate Verizon Wireless for continued collocation
at this site. SBA will malch the corresponding monthly rental rate cu(ently offered to Verizon by
Tillman lnfiastructure on thc abovc referenced site. less $10.00. contingent upon Verizon
providing a copy of bona fide documentation of the monthly rc[tal rate offered by 'fillman
Infiastructure.
Verizon is currently a tenant on over 6,750 SBA cell towers nationwide, including ten (10) towers
in Randolph County. Given our relationship with Verizon we would certair y appreciate the
opportunity to work with Vedzon to stay collocated on the Existi[g Cell Tower. Verizon
remaining on the Existing Cell l'ower would prevent the unnecessary and needless prolif'eration
ofcell towers in the area.
Respectfully, we request thal the Tillman Special use application be denied by the Planning
Commission as there is no evidence thal the Existing Cell Tower is conmercially impractical or
that SBA as the tower owner is unwilling to negotiate a fair market value, to the cxtent one even
exists.
We look forward to continuing to work with Verizon and Randolph County to provide access to
wireless networks via SBA's telecommunications infrastructure.
Kind Regards,
/s/ Mi*e lilld
Mike Villa
Serior Director of Site Marketing - Site Leasing
Mvilla@sbasite.com
sBA 0
sBA 0l
SBA Communic€tions Corporalion
8051 Congress Avenue
Boca Raton, FL 33487-1307
56'1.995.7670
561 995.7626
T+
May 16,2024
Randolph County
Department of Planning & Development
204 E Academy St.
P.O. Box 771
Asheboro, NC 27204
RE: Tillman Infrastructure, LLC ("Tillman") request for a Special Use I'crmit to construct
a 2.10-foot telccommunicatiotrs lorver rt Wall Road, Stalef, N('27-155.
My name is Jason Laskey, and I am a Zoning Manager for SBA Communications. I have over
twenty ycars ofsite acquisition and zoning experience in the wireless industry and have been
employed by SBA Communications for over fou(een years.
ln 1999. SBA Communications (SBAC). apublicly traded company, made a long-term investment
in Randolph County in developing multiple strategically placed towers thal would provide a
platfom from which multiple wireless service providers and other users can provide reliable
wireless coveragc and in way that minimizes the proliferation oftowers.
SBA and other Wireless lndustry Representatives worked closely with the Randolph County
Planning Board in drafting the county's wireless ordinance that addrcssed the needs and goals for
both the residents and the wireless industry. The Planning Board's resulting ordinance was
recommended for approval by the Board on June 24, 1999, and then adopted by the County
Cornrnission on August 2,1999.
On September 28, 1999, nine towcrs meeting the goals of responsible and appropriate to$ er siting
eslablished by the new ordinance received Special Use approval from the Planning Board. The
SBA tower located at 6958 Willard Road, Staley, NC 27355, was one ofthe nine approved. ['he
tower is a 250' self-support tou,er which cu[ently provides antenna space for T-Mobile at 250 feet
and Verizon at 235' feet AGL.
Traditional tower developers, like SBA, coordimte with wireless carriers as true build -to-suit
partners placing new towers wherc coverage is needed with a goal to encourage colocation,
expand coverage in communities and minimize tower impacts on local communities. This
benefits the local community ftom a common-sense planning perspective and minimizes tower
proliferation. 1he carriers benefit by not having to use capital to construct and maintain the tower
from which their equipment opeEtes. Leasing space to multiple tenants on a structue is an
obvious benelit to the owner. If new towers can simply be approved dght next to one another, it
sets a bad precedent foi future tower applications and it removes a major incentive for tower
owners to invest in that jurisdiction.
Spccialirts in "lluild to Relocate" atrd "Overbuilding"
Tillman Infrastructure has submitted a Special Use permit application which has no benefit to the
local community. Tillman Infrastuctue specializes in "Build to Relocate" tower development. It
is the practice ofbuilding cell towers next to an existing legacy tower to siphon ofitcnants with
the offer oflower rents and reduced costs. They larget existing towers in rural areas and
jurisdictions where there are minimalto no zoning regulations. They typically seek tower heights
slightly taller than the existing nearby stucture to promote as an advantage.
The result is overbuilding. This is the construction ofunnecessary dllplicative towers somctimes
within 100's of feet ofan existing flrlly ftlnctional tower. There is no public benefit in terms of
new or expanded cell service since the relocation tower serves the same geographic area that is
alreadv served.
SBA does not have a tower monopoly in Randolph County, nor does il oppose tower
dcvelopment by competitors. It would be more appropriate for Tillman to develop new towers in
areas where there is no existing wireless infrastructure. Towers that would actually provide new
coverage and wireless signal improvements.
SBA is not unique or alone. Tillman Infrastructure is actively developing duplicative "Build to
Relocate" tou.ers targeting not ody SBA but also American Tower, Crown Castlc, and othcr
independent towcr owners using similar tactics, claims, form lefteB and assertions.
Respectfully. we request that the Tillman Special use application be denied by the Plauring
Commission as there is rro evidencc that the Existing Cell Tower is commercially impractical nor
does the proposal meet the goals established by the county wireless ordinance.
We look tbrward to continuing to work with VerizoD and Randolph County to provide access to
wireless networks via SBA's leleconrmunications infrastructure.
J6son Laskey
Pindpal Zoning Manager
561.981 7455 + T
954 822 1496 + c
sBA 0
Jat\vary 31,2024
Attn:Tonyacsddle PlannarE Oi€cto.
Randdph County Officot Plan*rg and Zryltlg
204 E Academy St
Ceitral P8rmittng Bulldng
Ashebo.o, NC 27205
RE Special Lrse PermitApdicatbn byTillrnan lnfrastruchneLLo f'fi rnan') lornewcellulat
tower ('TillIl|an Tower Applicatbo').
Ste Name TIOPP-1975$4ZI Uberty
Site Localbft WaI Bod, Stanly, NC
Dear Ms Caddle
I 8m employ€d by V€rizon and s€rl/ts on its Neturcrk Resl Estate T€am. Wiob dut* indude ovsrsight
ol high rent to\.rsr sites in tie State of l\lorfi Carolina Plesse scceDt this letter on b€hall o, V6.izoo to
serve as substsntatiq tor the abow rofs€nc€d coltulsr tov6r applicatbn, bssd upon th6 €conornic
burdefl experienced by Vedzoo.
Specifcally, piJrsusnt to fre Rsndclph Corty Unified Oarslop.neot Code (1JDC'), &th-le 600, Sectitn
64, Guildines and R€qulrements tor T€hcommuicatico Tor€rs, Rsndolph County'rnaycondde. the
reasorlaue teastitty ol co{ocatirE rEn, anternss and eqiprn€nt oo an axbting wireless s.rpport
sfucture or structrrrB within an appliEnt's s€srcfi ring." Furthennore, in accordSncs wi0l the UDC,
collocatbn of Verizon's wird€cs laciitiG fi the exigtjng tor\.€. is not r€sorEbly teasible because
'collocation is commercislv impraclixble or the oti,ner of the existing to{er is unwitllng to eiter into a
contract lor sucfi use at lsir markol vetJe,'sa furh€r d€€crib€d b€lo,v. AccordinSv, the Tiflrnan
Appicatioo sf|ouE be appro/ed.
Vsizon p.essr ry l€ss€s sp€ce q| at existirE cs[rar tol,r,€., ot,\,r|€d 81610r op€r8t€d E SBA Tcmers
(SBA) and locat€d d 7214 mted RD. Stanly. NC. Vsizoo d6i6s to retocate its widoss l*imk}s hom
th€ existirE SBA Eitgto tne fropossd ne1 /c€0u|a[tor€r to be olvn€d, and op€.eted by'Iillrnan, whkfl is
tho cliect Ttlhun Apptcatim ($e'Tlfnan Tov/€r'). Tlis letter eviJ€ncss Vrizon's intsnt to retocate
its wireless racilities onto the propo€ed lllrnan Torr€r tor the r€ssons sat fofth her€in,
Verizon does not rursua relocalbn lrom exMng gtss witurt a consilerable arnount of careful and
deliberate corlideratoo, gi\€n the addtional the, costg ard otfort required fo. r€locatim a site This isparttularv the case wh€.t it &termiEs that a site rolocatioo 6 n€cessary due lo mrasooabbeconomb corditixls at extslirE dtes flat far exc€€d rnarket conditbrs, cofitrnooly reteryed to as llilhrEotrelocati]fts'. h sucfi instarces, th6 high costs llavs s lnitir€ imDet on caniers'finsncialrcsotrces
to s€rve a psrtcuh. corrnunity, whin !h$| limils a canies abifty to expsd 8nd impro!€ wirebgss€rvbes need€d to mset ths d€,nands ol its custoriers ln some instanc€a, a single cell tower in ajurisdiction can 6eate an anti-competitiw, nrcrlopolMc conditioo, where the tolver owrrer controb tneertire local markot and l€aves csriers with no other t€aEtus optbn.
ln thbc8e V€rizon r€qu€sts as(qrdot th. IfmenApplc, b, b€cause of sgA's €co.Efl*:fyureasonsdecoct&
Rontal Fsfid Elcahddl$
3
EXHIBIT
verizonr'
Based upofl vqi@n's cunent market rat6 pail ior neu, to\,rr€.s h similar locations, the lair
market raie for this l@tixr suppo.ts a rnonthly reotsl rats bstlve€o $1,8OO 8rd $2250 witrl I2
to 3% annuai escalator.
By way ol illustration, SBA'S cunent rental lee ctErg€d to Verizon ls approximately 101% higher
than the reflt Verizon wguld pay oo ths'Iillman Tor\rer. a p.ile ditfe.ence that would signifrcantly
grow o\,/er thg years, giwn Tillman's la, rnore llexibl€ terms For illushation, in 10 years, the SBA
rent will be in exce€s of $'IOO,OOO 8nd 20 frBars o/er $160,000 annua y in comparison to
Tillrnan's rent of approximatev $29,OOO 8rd $3O,OOO annual rent respecf^/ely. This does not
include equipment modification.
Eouioment Modificatir Cosis,
.'nllrnan'spricesarcalFirdusive,wtl€rsesSBActraryssadditionel,unreasorEbleteesandr€ota,
increases for almost e\rery tectlItological upgrade or rnodincation - wiotler Verizoo s€6ks to
add or replace its equipment Due to SBA'8 coet-prohtiti\,/e rentalrat6, e€cahtion terrrs and
oti€r costq Verizon has held ofi on modificatixrs or upgrad6 to it9 €q[iprnent m the SBA
Tow€a.
In cootrast the Inrlran Tolrr,€r end lsae teflrB \rrould irm€dbtely ofter d€dicated space io
accornmodate Veaizon's rE€(E to irlprov€ and modily fie wireless tecinology ssrving the
Staflly comrurity lor many ys€Is,
. Furfiefipre, the SBA Tower may require c6tty stnrctural tq,ver npdificatirrs to
accomrnodate nev,/ Verizofl equipm€ot whictr slso has I chilling ettect on making
improv€ments The Tillrnan Tower is design€d to proviJo amplo sltsrctural support tor luture
wireless eqiprEnt n€eded to meet the growing needs and demands ot tie Stanly community.
ln summary. urder the existing lease tor the SBA Tover, Verizm would be forced to spend o\rer 10096
more than wt|at Verizoo lr/ould pay und€( its agreernent tor the Tillman Tower. This amount assumes
that Vedzoo vould perform !e tednologi, ufprades io its oreot oquignert on the SBA Tou.er,
which wouH resutt in additioml reot increas€s. Vefiofl co.[inuously wo.ks to mske upgrsd€s lo its
equiDment on towers to irrcrovo service fo. its ostomers Verizon seeks to rdocate its facilities to the
p.opos€d Tllman Towef, whjcfi will proliije a towsr oplrcn with economicalv ressonsble rates and te€s,
consistent with cunent market rat6. and will provide Verizon an opportunity tro rnaks technicai
improvem€nts uMer reasonable terms and conditioos in accordsnce with Artide 64.
Thank you in ad'\rance for your consideration of $6 fillman fuplication.
Sincerely
Eric Mann
Sr. Director, Ngtwgrk Engineering
Carolina/Teon€ssae Resion
Et
verizonr'
'y(-