2010-064 - (SUP 10-01) - Town of Morrisville

2010-064 

SUP 10-01 AT&T CLEGG Telecommunication Tower - 

2399 Weaver Forest Way 

Briefing Sheet 

Version #1 

Update Dates: 09/03/10 PZB 

Lead Department: Planning Action Officer: Rodney Wadkins, Senior Planner/GIS 

Subject: 

Action Requested: 

AT&T CLEGG 199’ Monopole Telecommunications Tower – Special Use Permit 

and Site Plan 

Act on Resolution 2010-064 Pertaining to a Special Use Permit (SUP 10-01) and 

Site Plan for the AT&T CLEGG 199’ Monopole Telecommunications Tower 

Briefing: Public Hearing: Action: 

Item Schedule 

Schedule 1: Brief twice – vote once (six weeks) 

Schedule 2: Brief once – vote once (two weeks) 

Schedule 3: No briefing required (one week) 

Select One 

Updates/History of Briefing: 

Executive Summary and Background Information: 

This project is a proposed 199’ monopole telecommunications tower located off Weaver Forest Way 

near Church Street and NC 540. The subject property is currently zoned Industrial Management (IM) 

and a telecommunications tower is a permitted use in the IM district; however, a Special Use Permit is 

required. 

Site Data 

Property Owner: 

Developer: 

PIN: 0746-47-8679 

Location: 

Project Type: 

Proposed Tower 

Use Area: 

Parcel Size: 

Building Size: 

Katherine R. Everett Heirs c/o Robinson Everett 

American Tower Corporation 

2399 Weaver Forest Way (near intersection of Church Street and Weaver Forest 

Way) 

199’ monopole telecommunications tower (195’ tower with a 4’ lightning rod) 

0.56 acres (24,330 square feet for the lease area and access drive) 

12.54 total acres 

228 square feet (equipment buildings contained in the fenced compound area) 

1 of 9

Parking: 

Impervious Surface: 4.09% 

Setbacks: 

1 space required/2 spaces provided 

Front: 200 feet 

North Side: 100 feet 

South Side: 200 feet 

Rear: 200 feet 




Maximum Height: 200 feet (per the Morrisville Zoning Ordinance) 

Zoning: 

Industrial Management (IM) 

Surrounding Zoning/ Uses: 

North: Industrial Management (NC540) and Residential Multifamily-CU (Everett Crossing) 

South: Residential-8 (Providence Place) 

East: Residential-8 (Providence Place) 

West: Agriculture District (AD) – Vacant and Progress Energy power line easement 

FEMA Floodplain: Property is not located within a 100 year FEMA floodplain. 

Stream Buffers: Property is located within the Cape Fear River Basin and there are fifty-foot (50’) 

stream buffers. 

Site Plan Features 

Site Access 

The developer is proposing access to the site via one entrance along Weaver Forest Way. 

Sidewalks 

No additional sidewalk is proposed. Sidewalk currently exists along Weaver Forest Way. 

Lighting 

No lighting is proposed on the 199’ monopole telecommunications tower. A small motion-detector 

light will be installed in the compound area for technicians if repairs at night are necessary. 

RDU Airport Noise Contour 

The proposed 199’ monopole telecommunications tower falls within the Airport Noise contours; 

however, since none of the equipment buildings are habitable, soundproofing is not required. 

Additionally, because of the height of the 199’ monopole telecommunications tower and the fact that 

it falls within airport flight paths, approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), was 

required (see EXHIBIT 8). 

Transportation Improvements 

No transportation improvements are proposed nor are they required. 

Greenway 

Per a requirement of the Special Use Permit the developer will be responsible for constructing a 





portion of a 10-foot asphalt greenway within a 30-foot public easement (see Site Plan Sheet C-1), 

which will located within the 100-foot landscape buffer adjacent to NC 540 to the north and within the 

Progress Energy power line easement to the west. 

The proposed greenway will stop short of the stream (near the southwest corner of the property) so 

the Town can make an easier transition into it with the construction of the Providence Place greenway 

segment coming up from the south. 

Landscaping and Buffering 

The proposed landscape buffers, street yard, and fenced compound area foundation plantings meet 

the minimum standards of the Zoning Ordinance. 

The Planning Department determined that allowing the greenway within the 100-foot landscape buffer 

was in the public interest because by doing so provided better separation between the proposed 

greenway and telecommunications tower fenced compound area and the access drive. Additionally, 

the greenway will meander through the existing wooded area to minimize the removal of existing 

vegetation. 

Special Use Permit (SUP) Process 

Per Part C, Article IV: Table of Permitted Uses of the Zoning Ordinance, a telecommunications tower 

located in the Industrial Management (IM) Zoning District requires approval of a Special Use Permit 

(SUP) from the Morrisville Town Council. 

The applicant is required to submit a site plan, a written description of the project and evidence to 

support the findings of a SUP. 

A public comment session shall be held by the Planning and Zoning Board and a public hearing shall be 

held by the Town Council. 

Per the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Board shall review the SUP, site plan and supporting 

documents, and forward a recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial to the 

Town Council. The Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation “shall be based on compliance with 

specific standards of this ordinance and conditions applicable to the proposed special use.” 

The following six (6) general findings, based on evidence and testimony received at a public hearing, 

must be made in order for the Town Council to approve any SUP (Part C, Article VII, Section 1 of the 

Zoning Ordinance). The evidence submitted by the applicant in support of these findings is provided 

in EXHIBIT A. 

a) That the proposed development or use will not materially endanger the public health or 

safety; 

Staff response: Based on the information provided by the applicant, the development or use as 

proposed will not materially endanger the public health or safety. The proposed development 

will adhere to applicable local, state, and federal regulatory requirements, as well as comply 

with the Town of Morrisville Zoning Ordinance. 

b) That the proposed development or use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining 

property; 

Staff response: Based on the information provided in the property impact report prepared by 





Craig D. Smith, MAI, the development will not have an adverse impact on adjoining property 

values. 

c) That the proposed development or use will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, 

density, and character of the neighborhood in which it is located; 

Staff response: Based on the information provided by the applicant, and due to the fact that 

NC-540 is located immediately to the north and a 265 foot wide Progress Energy Transmission 

line is located immediately to the west, the development as proposed is in harmony with the 

scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of the neighborhood in which it is located. 

d) That the proposed development or use will generally conform with the Comprehensive plan 

and other official plans adopted by the Town; 

Staff response: Because the applicant will be constructing a greenway, the development as 

proposed will generally conform to the Comprehensive plan and other official plans adopted by 

the Town. 

e) That the proposed development or use is appropriately located with respect to 

transportation facilities, water and sewer supply, fire and police protection, and similar 

facilities; and 

Staff response: Based on the information provided by the applicant, the development or use as 

proposed is appropriately located with respect to transportation facilities, water and sewer 

supply, fire and police protection, and similar facilities. 

f) That the proposed development or use will not cause undue traffic congestion or create a 

traffic hazard. 

Staff response: Based on the information provided by the applicant for other similar tower 

sites, the use as proposed will not cause undue traffic congestion or create a traffic hazard. 

Furthermore, twenty (20) additional findings for certain special uses, based on evidence and testimony 

received at a public hearing, must be made in order for the Town Council to approve the SUP 

specifically for a telecommunications tower (Part C, Article VII, Section 2.10 of the Zoning Ordinance). 

The evidence submitted by the applicant in support of these additional findings is provided in 

EXHIBIT B. 

Finally, per the Zoning Ordinance, if Town Council approves the SUP, the use shall be exercised or 

consummated within a time limit set by the Town Council or within one (1) year if no such time limit is 

established. Otherwise, the permit shall be null and void. “Exercised and consummated” shall mean 

that binding contracts have been set for the construction of the principal structures; or in the absence 

of contracts that the principal structure is under construction to a substantial degree; or the 

prerequisite conditions involving substantial investment are contracted for, in substantial 

development, or completed. 

Staff Recommendation: 

In staff’s opinion, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation to satisfy the required findings 

for the Special Use Permit. 

Therefore, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Special Use Permit and Site Plan 

(signed and seal date of August 18, 2010) for the AT&T CLEGG 199’ Monopole Telecommunications 





Tower to be located at 2399 Weaver Forest Way subject to the following condition: 

1. Prior to the acceptance of the maintenance of the 10-foot greenway, the property owner shall 

dedicate a 30-foot wide public greenway easement containing the 10-foot greenway. 

Attachments: 

• RES 2010-064 for SUP10-01 AT&T CLEGG Telecommunications Tower 

• SUP10-01 document to be recorded 

• EXHIBIT A – Article VII – SUP Findings from applicant – Supporting Evidence 

• EXHIBIT B - Article VII – Additional SUP Findings from applicant – Supporting Evidence 

• EXHIBIT 1A – Map of existing towers within 2 mile radius 

• EXHIBIT 2 – Collocation Certificate 

• EXHIBIT 3 – Tax map with 500 foot buffer 

• EXHIBIT 4 – RF Justification letter 

• EXHIBIT 5 – RF Emissions Certification 

• EXHIBIT 6 – Photo Simulations of tower height 

• EXHIBIT 7 – Cover Letter and Surrounding property owner notification labels 

• EXHIBIT 8 – FAA approval letter 

• EXHIBIT 9 – NC Historic Preservation Office clearance form 

• EXHIBIT 10 – Tower Design – stamped PDF ATC CLEGG 

• EXHIBIT 12 – Property Impact Report CLEGG TOWER – 6-7-10 

• EXHIBIT 14 – CLEGG Stormwater Impact Analysis – 6-3-10 

• EXHIBIT 15 – ToM completed site plan check list 

• EXHIBIT 16 – Letter from applicant to surrounding property owners 

• EXHIBIT 17 – Foundation Design – Stamped PDF 

• EXHIBIT 18 – Site Plan and CD Set PDF - AT&T CLEGG Telecommunications Tower 

• EXHIBIT 19 – Public Notice letter from Planning Department to surrounding property owners 

• EXHIBIT 20 – Aerial and Zoning map 

Advisory Board/Committee Review: 

Planning and Zoning Board – September 9, 2010 

Board/Committee Recommendation: 

Advisory Board/Committee Meeting Date and Minutes: 

September 9, 2010: 

Meeting Goals and Initiatives Adopted by the Council: 

(Select by checking the box for all Initiatives that are met by this briefing sheet’s proposal. Area for 


additional comments under table. ) 

Goals 

1. A mix of land uses that is 

environmentally sensitive 

and sustains livability in a 

changing community 

2. A strong and stable financial 

position that fully utilizes all 

resources in a responsible, 

efficient and effective 

manner 

3. Community services that 

sustain or enhance the 

quality of life 

4. Plan transportation and other 

public infrastructure to 

address community needs 

5. A town image with a strong, 

positive identity valued by 

residents, businesses and 




Initiatives 

1.1 Implement Updated Land Use Plan 

1.2 Continue Implementation of adopted Town Center Plan 

1.3 Maintain a formal acquisition and implementation strategy 

for parks, greenways, and open space 

1.4 Evaluate ordinances and policies that contribute to a 

sustainable and well planned community. 

2.1. Maintain a strategic financial plan 

2.2. Ensure proper use of resources by enhancing internal 

controls 

2.3. Identify potential new funding opportunities for specific 

town projects and services 

2.4. Continue developing town infrastructure evaluation 

programs to analyze costs, prioritize maintenance, and 

secure funding 

3.1. Provide a safe community 

3.2. Continually evaluate emergency response needs and 

capabilities 

3.3. Provide and promote healthy community activities and 

programs 

3.4. Provide accessible and safe public parks, recreational 

programs, cultural resources and facilities 

3.5. Continue developing and implementing strategies to 

enhance customer service 

3.6. Refine and implement a performance measurement process 

to provide better information for budgetary decision-making 

and create a stronger link between allocation of resources 

and desired results. 

3.7. Continually review and identify internal processes and 

community services to improve their efficiency and 

effectiveness 

4.1. Implement and maintain updated Transportation Plan 

4.2. Continue developing a reimbursement policy, developer 

requirements and regional partnerships for transportation 

and public infrastructure 

4.3. Develop and implement a Stormwater Management Plan, 

including creating a self-sustaining funding mechanism 

4.4. Identify critical areas of traffic congestion and appropriate 

strategies to resolve transportation problems, drawing on 

NCDOT and regional partners. 

4.5. Continue developing a capital fund strategy for 

infrastructure needs, including the Town Center 

4.6. Continue evaluating the costs and benefits of in-house vs. 

contract engineering services 

4.7. Work to promote installation of infrastructure in a timely 

manner to support private development 

5.1. Develop and maintain liaison with other elected officials, 

agencies, jurisdictions, and stakeholders 

5.2. Promote transparency in town government programs and 


visitors 

6. Regional partnerships to 

grow and develop new 

resources and opportunities 

7. Environmentally responsible 

and energy efficient 

community 

8. A healthy and rewarding 

work culture where 

employees are our primary 

asset in delivering high 

quality services to the 

community 




processes 

5.3 Promote high quality development and attractive 

community appearance 

5.4 Continue to require professionalism and friendliness of staff 

5.5 Cultivate a responsive environment encouraging community 

comments and feedback. 

6.1. Develop and maintain liaison with other elected officials, 

agencies, jurisdictions, and stakeholders 

6.2. Provide educational training for Committee/Board members 

and Council members 

6.3. Continue active participation in forums for regional 

cooperation 

7.1. Evaluate and implement changes to town operations 

7.2. Evaluate and implement changes to Town Ordinances, plans 

and policies 

8.1. Recruit and retain competent committed staff 

8.2. Create a healthy work environment that promotes high 

morale 

8.3. Foster career development and growth opportunities 

8.4. Encourage employees to identify opportunities to improve 

efficiencies and effectiveness 

9. Citizen Involved government 9.1. Encourage citizens to volunteer within the community 

9.2. Diversify the methods of communicating with citizens to 

provide information on town news and issues 

9.3. Increase contact with the business community about town 

news and issues 

9.4. Develop and advance opportunities for partnership with 

local schools and non-profit groups 

9.5. Increase public involvement in town government programs 

and processes 

Goals and Initiatives Additional Comments: 

NONE 

Resource Impact: 

Staff time required if item is approved: 

Other Potential Impacts: 

NONE APPLICABLE 

No Additional 

Staff Coordination: 

Check the box for those required to comment on left. To comment-click in the box and select. 

(2 nd Briefing is used when information has significantly changed from the first briefing.) 

Required Staff Member 1 st Briefing 2 nd Briefing 

Town Manager No Comment No Comment 

Town Clerk No Comment No Comment 

Senior Director Business Management No Comment No Comment 





Budget and Analysis Manager No Comment No Comment 

Internal Auditor No Comment No Comment 

Senior Accountant No Comment No Comment 

Information Technology Director No Comment No Comment 

Contracting and Purchasing Manager No Comment No Comment 

Senior Director Development Services No Comment No Comment 

Planning Director No Comment No Comment 

Town Engineer No Comment No Comment 

Building Codes Administrator No Comment No Comment 

Economic Development No Comment No Comment 

Senior Director Community Services No Comment No Comment 

Risk Manager/Safety Officer No Comment No Comment 

Police Chief No Comment No Comment 

Fire Chief No Comment No Comment 

Parks & Recreation Director No Comment No Comment 

Public Works Director No Comment No Comment 

Public Information Officer No Comment No Comment 

Town Attorney No Comment No Comment 

Human Resources Manager No Comment No Comment 

Disagree or comment, explain: 

Public Information Plan: Answer the following questions and notate the level of PI Plan needed 

Question 

Select 

Does the item’s subject matter affect the majority of our population? 

No 

(Note: specify the target audience within the Executive Summary section above.) 

Would action have a direct effect, positive or negative, on community services? 

Yes 

Does the item propose an internal policy change? 

No 

Does the item propose an external policy change that would result in an amendment to our No 

town codes, ordinances, Land Use Plan, or Zoning Map? 

Does the item require an appropriation of funds equal to or over $90,000? 

No 

Will/does the item relate to a Capital Improvements Project? 

No 

Are there any ordinance or general statute requirements for public notification? 

Yes 

(Note: If so, cite the ordinance or general statute language within the Executive Summary section above.) 

Does the item require a Public Hearing? 

Yes 

Will there be a public forum session held on the subject to gather input? 

No 

Public Information Plan 

Select 

“Get Noticed” - five or more YES answers 

“Legal Ease” - three or four YES answers 

“Standard Issue” - two or less YES answers 

Town Council Approved Minutes: 

(Staff Member/Action Officer Insert Minutes here after Council Adoption) 






TOWN OF MORRISVILLE * PO BOX 166 * MORRISVILLE, NC 27560 

RESOLUTION 2010-064 OF THE MORRISVILLE TOWN COUNCIL 

PERTAINING TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN FOR AT&T 

CLEGG TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER OFF WEAVER FOREST WAY 

(SUP 10-01) 

WHEREAS, Tower Engineering Professionals consulting engineers, on behalf of American 

Tower Corporation, submitted a proposed Special Use Permit with Site Plan for the AT&T 

CLEGG 199 foot monopole telecommunications tower; and 

WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board has forwarded a recommendation for 

a condition on this proposed Special Use Permit with Site Plan; and 

with 

WHEREAS, the Town Council, which is authorized to approve or disapprove the proposed 

Special Use Permit with Site Plan, did receive the Planning and Zoning Board’s 

recommendation at its Briefing Meeting on ; and 

WHEREAS, on , the Council held a public hearing on the special use permit application 

and related matters; and 

WHEREAS, at these hearings the Town Council heard sworn testimony and received 

documentary evidence and had the opportunity to ask questions of those testifying; and 

WHEREAS, following the hearings and based on the testimony and information received, the 

Town Council makes the following findings and conclusions: 

FINDINGS 

1. The subject property consists of a total of 12.54 acres with the proposed 

telecommunications tower use occupying 0.56 acres for the lease area and access 

drive. 

2. The subject property is located at 2399 Weaver Forest Way near the intersection 

of Church Street and Weaver Forest Way. 

2. The property is zoned Industrial Management (IM). 

3. The proposed project is a 199 foot monopole telecommunications tower. Under 

Part C, Article IV, Table of Permitted Uses, a telecommunications tower is a 

permitted use in the Industrial Management (IM) Zoning District, but requires the 

Town Council to issue a special use permit. To issue the permit, the Council must 

make six (6) findings. 



4. Based on the evidence and testimony received, the Council finds: 

a) That the proposed development or use will not materially endanger the public 

health or safety; 

Based on the information provided by the applicant, the development or use as 

proposed will not materially endanger the public health or safety. The 

proposed development will adhere to applicable local, state, and federal 

regulatory requirements, as well as comply with the Town of Morrisville Zoning 

Ordinance. 

b) That the proposed development or use will not substantially injure the value of 

adjoining property; 

Based on the information provided in the property impact report prepared by 

Craig D. Smith, MAI, the development will not have an adverse impact on 

adjoining property values. 

c) That the proposed development or use will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, 

coverage, density, and character of the neighborhood in which it is located; 

Based on the information provided by the applicant, and due to the fact that 

NC-540 is located immediately to the north and a 265 feet wide Progress 

Energy Transmission line is located immediately to the west, the development 

as proposed is in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and 

character of the neighborhood in which it is located. 

d) That the proposed development or use will generally conform with the 

Comprehensive plan and other official plans adopted by the Town; 

Because the applicant will be constructing a greenway, the development as 

proposed will generally conform to the Comprehensive plan and other official 

plans adopted by the Town. 

e) That the proposed development or use is appropriately located with respect to 

transportation facilities, water and sewer supply, fire and police protection, 

and similar facilities; and 

Based on the information provided by the applicant, the development or use as 

proposed is appropriately located with respect to transportation facilities, 

water and sewer supply, fire and police protection, and similar facilities. 

f) That the proposed development or use will not cause undue traffic congestion 

or create a traffic hazard. 

Based on the information provided by the applicant for other similar tower 

sites, the use as proposed will not cause undue traffic congestion or create a 

traffic hazard. 



CONCLUSIONS 

Based on the foregoing Findings, the Town Council of the Town of Morrisville concludes that 

the applicant has met the requirements for issuance of a special use permit for a 199 foot 

monopole telecommunications tower located in the Industrial Management (IM) Zoning 

District, in accordance with Part C, Article IV, Table of Permitted Uses in the Morrisville Zoning 

Ordinance. 

DECISION 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE MORRISVILLE TOWN COUNCIL the 

proposed Special Use Permit and Site Plan for the AT&T CLEGG 199 foot monopole 

telecommunications tower subject to the following condition: 

1. Prior to the acceptance of the maintenance of the 10-foot greenway, the property 

owner shall dedicate a 30-foot wide public greenway easement containing the 10-foot 

greenway. 

Adopted this day of 2010. 

______________________________ 

J.S. Holcombe, Mayor 

ATTEST: 

_____________________________ 

Diana R. Davis, Town Clerk 


PREPARED BY: TOWN OF MORRISVILLE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

RETURN TO: P.O. BOX 166, MORRISVILLE, N.C. 27560 


SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP 10-01) 

AT&T CLEGG 199’ Monopole Telecommunications Tower 


KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned property owners, by and through their 

authorized representative, having applied to the Town of Morrisville for a Special Use Permit for the use 

and development of the property hereinafter described, the same was issued by the Town of Morrisville on 

, the terms of which are as follows: 

NAME OF PROJECT: AT&T CLEGG 199’ Monopole Telecommunications Tower 

NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER: Kathrine R. Everett Heirs 

Location 

Size 

Zoning District 

Wake County PIN 0746-47-8679 

DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES 

2399 Weaver Forest Way (near intersection of Church Street and Weaver Forest 

Way) 

12.54 total acres (telecommunications tower occupies 0.56 acres (24,330 square 

feet for the lease area and access drive)) 

Industrial Management (IM) 

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT 

This proposed AT&T CLEGG 199 foot monopole telecommunications tower project is located at 2399 

Weaver Forest Way and near the intersection of Church Street and Weaver Forest Way. The Special Use 

Permit was presented and approved together with a corresponding site plan, which documents are 

referenced herein and made a part of this approval. 

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT 

The following conditions are made a part of the special use permit and related approvals: 

1. Prior to the acceptance of the maintenance of the 10-foot greenway, the property owner shall 

dedicate a 30-foot wide public greenway easement containing the 10-foot greenway. 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT KNOWN that the Town of Morrisville Town Council by adopting 

Resolution 2010-064, dated , has the above described Special Use Permit which shall 

apply to this property unless voided in accordance with the Town’s Zoning Ordinance or unless revised or 

revoked by the Town Council. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town of Morrisville has caused this instrument to be executed in its name 

as evidence of the issuance of said permit, and the undersigned being the property owner of the property 

above described, have executed this instrument in evidence of their acceptance of said Special Use Permit 

as a covenant running with the land. 

TOWN OF MORRISVILLE: 

ATTEST: 

_________________________________ 

Diana Davis, Town Clerk 

Town of Morrisville 

_________________________________ 

J.S. Holcombe, Mayor 

Town of Morrisville 

NORTH CAROLINA 

WAKE COUNTY 

I,________________________________, A Notary Public for said County and State do herby certify that 

________________________________, Mayor of the Town of Morrisville personally appeared before me 

this day and acknowledge the due execution of the foregoing instrument which was also attested to by 

________________________, Town Clerk of the Town of Morrisville. 

Witness my hand and seal, this the ____ day of _____, 2010. 

(Official Seal) 

_________________________ 

Notary Public 

My commission expires ________________________ 

PROPERTY OWNER/DEVELOPER: 

____________________________ 

__________ 

Date 

NORTH CAROLINA 

WAKE COUNTY 

I,________________________________, A Notary Public for said County and State do herby certify that 

, ________________________________, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledge the 

due execution of the foregoing instrument. 

Witness my hand and seal, this the ____ day of _____, 2010. 

(Official Seal) 

_________________________ 

Notary Public 

My commission expires ________________________ 


SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR SPECIAL USE FINDINGS 

American Tower Corporation Site – Clegg 

2399 Weaver Forest Road 

Morrisville, NC 27560 

EXHIBIT A 

A. That the proposed development or use will not materially endanger 

the public health or safety; and, 

The proposed use will maintain and promote the public health and safety, if 

located and developed according to the plan submitted. The proposed use is located, 

designed and proposed to be developed so as to maintain and promote the public 

health and safety. The proposed use will have virtually no impact on traffic conditions in 

the vicinity. The proposed use will have virtually no impact on the provision of services 

and utilities; it will not require any water, sewer, or garbage collection services at all. 

The proposed facility will have virtually no impact on soil erosion or sedimentation. The 

proposed use meets or exceeds all setback requirements. The proposed tower will fully 

comply with all FCC rules and standards regarding maximum permissible exposure to 

radio frequency emissions and public safety. The proposed use will be constructed to 

meet or exceed all ANSI and FAA requirements. Finally, the proposed use will have 

virtually no adverse impact on the protection of public, community, or private water 

supplies, including possible adverse effects on surface waters or groundwater. Thus, 

the proposed development will maintain the public health and safety of the community 

and will not materially endanger the public safety. 

To the contrary, the proposed use will enhance public safety. Wireless 

telecommunications services provide an alternative method of communication, which 

has proven crucial in times where the traditional, land-line communications systems are 

either inaccessible (e.g., when one’s car breaks down while traveling) or are downed by 

extreme winds and weather. Monopole towers of the type proposed here have 

consistently provided the only means of communication with family and emergency 

personnel in times of flood, high winds and other extreme weather conditions. 

Monopole towers, similar to the one proposed here, have withstood hurricane-force 

winds consistently without failing. In addition, these support structures have enabled 

numerous local governments to enhance their own emergency communications 

systems via collocation of their transmitting equipment. Finally, all of the applicable 

regulations and requirements applicable to the proposed use have been met and 

exceeded to ensure that the proposed use will have no adverse effect whatsoever on 

the public health or safety. Thus, the proposed use will serve to enhance the public 

health and safety. The applicant will present testimony at the hearing from a radio 

frequency engineer regarding the same should such testimony be required. (See 

Exhibit 4 – RF Justification) 

B. That the proposed development or use will not substantially injure 

the value of adjoining property; and, 

American Tower Corporation is sensitive to the placement of towers and selected 

this Site in an effort to minimize the visual impact on the surrounding area. The Site is 

zoned Industrial Management (IM), the adjoining properties to the south and east are 

zoned Residential-8 Conditional Use, the property to the north is zoned Residential 

Multi-Family Conditional Use and the property to the west is zoned Agricultural District. 

The adjoining parcel to the north and west are undeveloped wooded properties and to 

the south and west are residential developments. The proposed tower has been

EXHIBIT A 

setback approximately 276’ from the nearest adjoining property; 

however, on the north side the tower is setback 140’ from the property line of I-540’s 

300 foot right-of-way which separates the Residential Multi-Family Conditional Use 

Zoned property and the subject property. The proposed tower will be situated on a 

large parcel of land—12.057 acres in size—and will be well screened with existing 

vegetation to minimize its visibility from neighboring parcels. The development of a 

wireless telecommunications facility on the Site will enhance wireless 

telecommunications service in this area of the Town of Morrisville for the benefit of the 

residences and business owners. Numerous studies have demonstrated that similar 

towers do not substantially injure the value of neighboring or nearby land. For all these 

reasons, American Tower Corporation submits that the proposed tower will maintain or 

enhance the value of adjoining property. (See Exhibit 12 - Property Impact Report) 

C. That the proposed development or use will be in harmony with the 

scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of the neighborhood in which it is 

located; and, 

The location and character of the proposed use will be in harmony with the scale, 

bulk, coverage, density and character of the area in which it is located. The proposed 

facility will not be lit, pursuant to current FCC regulations and guidelines, nor will it emit 

any substantial noise or glare. Because the proposed use is listed as a permitted 

special use in the zoning district in which the parcel at issue is located, the Morrisville 

Town Board of Commissioners have made the legislative determination that the 

proposed use is in harmony with other permitted uses in the area. Furthermore, the 

proposed facility will be visually buffered as required by the Ordinance. The site is 

adjacent to I-540 to the north, and the Progress Energy transmission lines to the west, 

so these existing uses render this site compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 

Therefore, the proposed development will be in harmony with the area in which it is 

located. Moreover, the proposed telecommunications facility will be in compliance with 

the general plan for the physical development of Town of Morrisville as embodied in the 

Ordinance and is consistent with other existing sites within the Town’s jurisdiction. (See 

Exhibit 4 RF Justification; Exhibit 8 – FAA Determination and Exhibit 9, State 

Historic Preservation Office approval) 

D. That the proposed development or use will generally conform with 

the Comprehensive plan and other official plans adopted by the Town; and, 

The development of a wireless telecommunications facility on the Site will be 

consistent with the Town of Morrisville goals, as reflected in the Town of Morrisville’s 

Land Use Plan and Greenway Plan of developing infrastructure that can facilitate 

growth, while maintaining the city’s character and environmental well-being. 

The property is zoned Industrial Management (IM) under the Zoning Ordinance, 

and wireless communications facilities are allowed in Industrial Management districts 

with a Special Use Permit. The site meets all ordinance technical requirements for 

wireless telecommunications facilities and is consistent with the Land Use Plan. The 

location and character of the proposed use will be in harmony with the area in which it is 

located because the Progress Energy transmission power lines are located to the west, 

an AT&T utility easement exists on the property, and I-540 is located to the north. The 

proposed facility will not be lit, pursuant to current FCC regulations and guidelines, nor 

will it emit any significant noise or glare. Therefore, the proposed development will be in

EXHIBIT A 

harmony with the area in which it is located. Moreover, the proposed 

telecommunications facility will be in compliance with the general plan for the physical 

development of Town of Morrisville as embodied in the Ordinance. 

E. That the proposed development or use is appropriately located with 

respect to transportation facilities, water and sewer supply, fire and police 

protection, and similar facilities; and, 

The proposed use will be located approximately 775’ off Weaver Forest Way and 

accessible to fire and police protection; however the proposed use will not require any 

water, sewer, or garbage collection services at all. The proposed use will have almost 

no impact on the Town of Morrisville utility or public service demands. The proposed 

use is not a service facility that is open to the public. It will generate no more than 2-4 

vehicle trips per month (for maintenance purposes). It is an unmanned facility, which 

should not create any need for emergency access; the proposed use only requires 

minimal power and telephone service; no water or sewer services are needed for the 

operation of the facility. Thus, the proposed location is an appropriate location for a 

wireless telecommunications facility of this type and will not adversely impact the 

existing infrastructure system of the Town of Morrisville. 

F. That the proposed use will not cause undue traffic congestion or 

create a traffic hazard. 

The proposed use will have virtually no impact on traffic conditions in the vicinity 

because the facility will not be manned and will require only minimal maintenance. It will 

generate no more than 2-4 vehicle trips per month for maintenance purposes typically 

by pick-up trucks or small utility vans. However, from time to time additional tenants 

(telecommunication providers) will add additional antenna arrays to the tower and radio 

frequency equipment or shelter(s) to the base of the tower. In these instances Best 

Management Practices (BMP) for minimizing construction activities will be utilized and 

minimal traffic impacts will occur along Weaver Forest Way due to these installations. 

One can expect ingress and egress of low-boy trailers for equipment delivery, cranes 

and equipment vehicles for typical construction installation activities with each new 

installation of equipment by the additional carriers. These construction activities may 

take 5-10 days. American Tower will make every effort to minimize these impacts to the 

neighborhood.

EXHIBIT B 

Zoning Ordinance Version 9.0 - Town of Morrisville, NC 

Last updated: July 23, 2009 

ARTICLE VII - SPECIAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS 

Proposed Tower at 2399 Weaver Forest Way in Morrisville, NC 

2.12 Telecommunication Towers: 

1) Communications towers and associated equipment, which are totally 

concealed within a building or structure so that they are architecturally 

indiscernible, shall not be considered towers for transmitting and receiving 

electronic signals. They are permitted in all zoning districts, but are subject to site 

plan approval by the Town Board. This provision is not applicable. 

2) Communications towers shall not interfere with normal radio and 

television reception in the vicinity. Commercial messages shall not be displayed 

on any tower. 

The proposed telecommunications tower and associated equipment will not 

interfere with normal radio and television reception in the vicinity of the proposed 

location. No commercial messages will be displayed at any time on the proposed 

tower. (See attached Exhibit 4 – RF Justification) 

3) Lighting shall not exceed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

minimum if the FAA requires lighting. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, 

the applicant shall be required to submit documentation from the FAA that the 

lighting is the minimum lighting required by the FAA. (See attached Exhibit 8 – 

FAA) 

4) Towers shall be constructed and maintained in conformance with all 

applicable building code requirements. This provision is acknowledged and 

accepted. (See attached Exhibit 10 Break Point Tower Letter). 

5) In order to protect the public from unnecessary exposure to 

electromagnetic radiation, the tower owner shall provide documentation 

indicating that the power output levels do not exceed federally approved levels or 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards, whichever provides the 

stricter requirement. (See attached Exhibit 5 –Emissions Certification) 

6) Towers exceeding two hundred (200) feet in height may not locate 

within the Town of Morrisville’s jurisdiction, and all towers must be a monopole 

design. The proposed tower is a monopole at a height of 195’ with a 4’ lightning 

rod. 

7) If the top of the tower is thirty (30) feet high or less, the normal setbacks 

of the zoning district for structures shall apply. This provision is not applicable.

EXHIBIT B 

8) Towers located on top of structures (with the exception of concealed 

towers) tower shall not be more than thirty (30) percent of the building height 

above the building, or seventy-five (75) feet above the building, whichever is less. 

The building or structure shall maintain the normal setbacks of the zoning district. 

This provision is not applicable. 

9) If the top of the tower is more than thirty (30) feet high and is adjacent 

to, or separated by only street right-of-way from property used or zoned for 

residential use, the setback of the tower and all accessory structures shall be one 

foot for every foot in the tower’s height, or the setback of the zoning district, 

whichever is greater. Notwithstanding the above, if the street right-of-way width 

measures three hundred (300) feet or greater along the entire frontage of the 

subject property, then the setback of the tower and all accessory structures shall 

be the setback of the zoning district or other required buffer, whichever is greater. 

The property is zoned IM so the setback is 50’ plus 1’ for every 1’ of tower height 

over 150’ or 49’ = 99’. The standard setback for the zoning district is 40’; so the 

minimum set back should be equal to or greater than 139’. The location of the 

propose monopole tower is setback 140’ from the right-of-way of I-540 to the 

north. 

10) If the top of the tower is more than thirty (30) feet high and is adjacent 

to, or separated by only street right-of-way from property used or zoned for nonresidential 

use, the setback of the tower and all accessory structures shall be at 

least fifty (50) feet and an additional one (1) foot for every foot of tower height 

over one hundred fifty (150) feet. Notwithstanding the above, if the street right-ofway 

width measures three hundred (300) feet or greater along the entire frontage 

of the subject property, then the setback of the tower and all accessory structures 

shall be the setback of the zoning district or other required buffer, whichever is 

greater. 

This provision is not applicable in this instance. 

11) To encourage the shared use of towers, 

a. Setbacks from adjacent nonresidential zone or land use may be 

reduced by twenty-five (25) percent for towers which will operate with two users 

immediately upon completion, however setbacks may not be reduced to less 

than fifty (50) feet, and setbacks from adjacent residentially zoned or used land 

may not be reduced. This provision is not applicable because only one 

telecommunication provider will be installing antennas on the proposed tower 

initially. 

b. Setbacks from adjacent nonresidential zone or land use may be 

reduced by fifty (50) percent for towers, which will operate with three or more 

users immediately upon completion. This provision is not applicable because 

only one telecommunication provider will be installing antennas on the proposed 

tower initially.

EXHIBIT B 

12) No outdoor storage yards shall be allowed on tower sites. No outdoor 

storage yards shall be permitted on this proposed tower site. (See Sheet C-1 – 

Site Plan Tower Elevation on Site Plan) 

13) The base of the tower, any guy wires, and associated structures, walls 

or fences shall be surrounded by the following landscaped buffer: 

a. Adjacent to residential zoning or use: Fifty (50) feet opaque screen, 

densely planted with six hundred fifty (650) plant credits (of which one 

hundred fifty (150) credits must be trees, and five hundred (500) 

credits must be evergreen shrubs) per one hundred-linear foot. 

Landscaping requirements will be met. See (Sheet C-8 on the attached 

Site Plan.) 

b. Adjacent to nonresidential zoning or use: Twenty (20) feet 

landscape screen, with two hundred thirty (230) plant credits (of which 

eighty-five (85) credits must be trees) per one hundred-linear foot. 

(Landscaping requirements will be met. See Sheet C-8 on the attached 

Site Plan.) 

14) The following information must be supplied with the site plan 

application for towers that are more than thirty (30) feet in height: 

a. Identification of the intended user(s) of the tower. The owner of the 

tower will be American Tower Corporation, and they will lease space 

on the tower and the ground to AT&T Wireless as the anchor tenant. 

b. Documentation provided by a registered engineer that the tower has 

sufficient structural integrity to accommodate at least two (2) users. 

The tower and foundation drawings sealed by a registered NC 

Professional Engineer will be provided to the Town of Morrisville upon 

receipt indication the structural capacity of the tower will accommodate 

at least three (3) additional users. (See attached Exhibit 11 – Tower 

Drawings) 

c. Documentation by the applicant that no suitable existing facilities 

within the coverage area are available to the applicant. (See attached 

Exhibit 11 – Tower Drawings.) 

d. A statement indicating the owner’s intent to allow shared use of the 

tower and indicating that at least one other user can be 

accommodated. (See attached Exhibit 2 - Collocation Certification by 

American Tower.) 

e. Evidence that property owners of residentially zoned or used 

property located within six hundred (600) feet of the base of the tower 

have been notified by the applicant of the proposal. (See attached 

Exhibit 3 - Wake County Tax Map with property outlined in red; which 

also identifies the owners of all properties within 600 feet of the tower 

site. Also, per instructions, The Town of Morrisville was provided with 

address labels and postage stamps for the Town to mail out the

EXHIBIT B 

notification letters to the adjoining landowners. See attached Exhibit 7 

– Notification Cover Letter to Rodney Wadkins, Senior Planner/ GIS 

and accompanying address labels.) 

15) To further encourage co-location, additional users and associated 

equipment that do not add to the tower height may be added without additional 

approval. However additional building code regulations may apply. Site plans 

must show the locations for at least two (2) equipment buildings, even if the 

tower is proposed for a single user. The proposed tower and lease compound 

will be designed to accommodate at least three (3) additional 

telecommunications providers. (See Sheet C-1 – Site Plan Tower Elevation on 

Site Plan and Exhibit 11 indicating the structural capacity of the tower) 

16) Towers, which are not used for a period of six (6) months or more, 

shall be removed by the owner within ninety (90) days. Towers that are not 

maintained by the owner shall be removed by the owner within ninety (90) days. 

To assure the removal of towers which do not meet the requirements for use or 

maintenance, a statement of financial responsibility, meeting the requirements of 

the Town Board, shall be submitted for each tower up to one hundred (100) feet, 

and a performance bond shall be posted for each tower over one hundred (100) 

feet. Removal costs shall be charged to the tower owner. This provision is 

acknowledged and accepted, and a performance bond will be submitted 

indicating financial responsibility which meets the requirements of the Town 

Board and shall be submitted to the Town before release of the Construction 

Drawings. 

17) When considering the special use petition, the Town Board may 

consider the aesthetic effects of the tower as well as mitigating factors 

concerning aesthetics, and may disapprove a tower on the grounds that such 

aesthetic effects are unacceptable. Factors relevant to aesthetic effects are the 

protection of the view in sensitive or particularly scenic areas and areas specially 

designated as unique natural features, scenic roadways and historic sites; the 

concentration of towers in the proposed area; and whether the height, design, 

placement or other characteristics of the proposed tower could be modified to 

have a less intrusive visual impact. When deemed appropriate, the Town Board 

may require that the tower be a “stealth” design (a tower constructed to appear 

as another object such as a tree, church bell tower, etc.) (See attached Exhibit 

6 – Photo Simulations) 

18) Special use permit for all towers shall expire unless documentation, 

including but not limited to a FCC license, is submitted each January to the town 

planner that the tower is utilized. This provision is acknowledged and accepted. 

19) New communication towers may not locate within four thousand 

(4,000) linear feet of an existing freestanding tower (not including those towers 

totally concealed within a building or structure, or those towers located on top of

EXHIBIT B 

structures) (See attached Exhibit 1A - Map of existing towers within 2 mile 

radius of the proposed site. 

20) New towers shall use breakpoint technology in the design of the facility. 

Breakpoint technology is the engineering design of a monopole wherein a 

specified point on the monopole is designed to have stresses concentrated so 

that the point is at least five (5) percent more susceptible to failure than any other 

point along the monopole so that in the event of a structural failure of the 

monopole, the failure will occur at the breakpoint rather than at the base plate, 

anchor bolts, or any other point on the monopole. The breakpoint levels shall be 

designed so that the tower will break into segments that are each no longer than 

the shortest distance the tower is set back from the property line. Certification by 

a registered professional engineer licensed by the State of North Carolina of the 

breakpoint design and the design’s fall radius must be provided together with the 

other information required herein from an applicant. (See attached Exhibit 10 

Break Point Tower Letter). 

(Amended 06/23/09, Ord #2009-057)

Antenna Reg 

Lat: 35° 51' 33.3'' N 

Long: 78° 50' 58.9'' W 

Radius: 2 miles 

100-200 ft. (13) 

200-300 ft. (2) 

Total: (15) 

EXHIBIT 1A

EXHIBIT 1A 

List of Existing Telecommunications Towers within 2 Mile Radius of proposed 

Tower located at 2399 Weaver Forest Way in Morrisville, NC 

Tower Owner Site Name & Number FCC # Distance from 

proposed Site 

Crown Castle Int’l Wilkerson Construction 813646 1054419 1.12 miles 

American Tower Co. Kopper Rd. 306350 1056942 1.13 miles 

Crown Castle Int’l Nortel 815527 1003636 1.15 miles 

Crown Castle Int’l Nelson 870589 1030359 1.41 miles 

Crown Castle Int’l Development Dr. 881315 1063926 1.56 miles 

American Tower Co. Pitcairn S. 306362 1063435 - ATC 

1.62 miles 

1065734 - ALLTEL/VzW 

Crown Castle Int’l Airport 814011 1006912 1.67 miles

EXHIBIT 2 

2399 Weaver Forest Way, Morrisville NC 27560

WAKE COUNTY TAX MAP 

BUFFER MAP SHOWING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FT 

OF PROPOSED TOWER SITE 

1” = 436’

EXHIBIT 4 

Proposed Telecommunications Tower at 2399 Weaver Forest Way 

Nenad Stanisavljevic 

RF Design Engineer 

1130 Situs Court, Suite 100 

Raleigh, NC 27606 

DATE: April 27, 2010 

SUBJECT: RF Justification for AT&T Mobility Site 368-467 “Clegg” 

AT&T Mobility has been requested to provide justification for our proposed site 368-467 “Clegg”. 

AT&T Mobility is currently in the process of improving in-building coverage and expanding network 

capacity in RTP Morrisville, NC area along Western Wake Parkway. Existing structures have been utilized 

whenever possible. No structures existed that could be utilized for proposed site 368-467 “Clegg”. Figure 

1 shows area in question. In Figure 1 green circles indicate the locations of all existing sites and blue 

circle indicates location of the proposed site. 

Figure 1: 

Map of AT&T Mobility Existing and Proposed Sites

Currently AT&T Mobility does not have adequate capacity and in-building coverage in RTP 

commercial areas along Western Wake Parkway. Refer to the Figure 2, which shows coverage without the 

proposed site 368-467 “Clegg”. 

Figure 2: Map of AT&T Mobility’ Coverage Without 368-002 “Clegg” 

With the addition of proposed site 368-467 “Clegg”, AT&T Mobility will provide adequate 

capacity and improved in-building coverage. Refer to the Figure 3 which shows coverage with the 

proposed site 368-467 “Clegg”.

Figure 3: Map of AT&T Mobility’ Coverage With 368-002 “Clegg” 

If there are any further questions, my contact details are: 



AT&T Mobility 

Raleigh Market 

Tel: 919 802 3225 

e-mail: nenad.stanisavljevic@att.com



1130 Situs Court, Suite 100 

Raleigh, NC 27606 

DATE: February 24, 2010 

SUBJECT: FCC Compliance Assessment for Proposed AT&T Mobility Site 368-467D “Clegg” 

AT&T Mobility has been requested to evaluate the radio frequency emissions of our proposed site 

368-467D “Clegg”. In addition, AT&T Mobility has been requested to address other RF related topics 

such as transmitter operation and maximum permissible output power levels. The remainder of this report 

will address all RF related items requested by Town of Morrisville zoning/planning for proposed site 368- 

467D “Clegg”. 

Transmitter Operation 

AT&T Mobility owns the B Band PCS license in Wake County. The transmitters being used on 

the proposed site are authorized to operate in the 1950-1965 Megahertz (MHz) frequency range. The 

Nokia UltraSite base station transmitters AT&T Mobility utilizes have a maximum output level of 30 

Watts. AT&T Mobility utilizes the GSM digital technology. As a result our transmitters utilize Gaussian 

Minimum Shift Keying (GMSK) modulation. A precision filter limits unwanted and spurious emissions to 

levels below the FCC specification. The signals being transmitted will not interfere with the operation of 

commercial radio, cellular radio, television, telephone or other FCC approved communication equipment. 

Maximum Permissible Output Power 

The maximum permissible output power per channel is 1640 Watts of effective radiated power 

(ERP) from the antennas. The proposed site 368-467D “Clegg” is only transmitting 376 Watts ERP. 

RF Exposure (NIER levels) 

The FCC states in 47 CFR 1.1310 that the maximum permissible exposure (MPE) level from nonionizing 

electromagnetic radiation (NIER) to the general population at cellular and PCS frequencies is 1.0 

milliwatt per centimeter squared (mW/cm²). MPE is a measure of the RF power density at or below which 

there are no potential harmful effects from the exposure. 

Power density calculations are based on guidelines given by the ANSI Standard C95.1-1992 and 

are based on a worst case scenario. For analysis purposes, worst case conditions were chosen for all output 

power levels. The site is being deployed initially with nine transmitters. For analysis purposes, twelve 

transmitters were used. A summary of the results of the power density calculations for site 368-467D 

“Clegg” is listed below in Table 1. More detail on the calculations can be found in the enclosed 

attachment. 

Distance From Tower (Feet) Power Density (mW/cm²) %FCC Standard 

1 0.00331 0.3309 

25 0.00326 0.3256 

50 0.00311 0.3109 

75 0.00289 0.289 

100 0.00263 0.2631 

Table 1: Power Density Summary for Site 368-467D “Clegg” 

As shown in Table 1, the maximum power density will not exceed 0.00331 mW/cm² at ground 

level. Moreover, the average energy expected near ground level is less than 1% of the MPE level. This 

level does not exceed the MPE limit set by the Federal Communications Commission or the American 

National Standards Institute.

Based upon the ANSI/FCC standard and the predicted levels of electromagnetic energy emitted by 

the site 368-467D “Clegg” installation will be of no safety concern to the general public. 

If there are any further questions regarding the information provided I can be reached at (919)802-3225. 



AT&T Mobility 

Raleigh Market 

Tel: 919 802 3225 

e-mail: nenad.stanisavljevic@att.com

PHOTO RENDERING PROVIDED BY TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS, INC. 

SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 

WEAVER FOREST WAY, MORRISVILLE, NC 27560 

VIEW FROM: 

LOCATION 1 (SEE MAP BELOW)


SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 

LOCATION 10 (SEE MAP BELOW)


SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 

LOCATION 10 (SEE MAP BELOW)


SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 



SITE NAME: 

CLEGG 

SITE ADDRESS: 


VIEW FROM: 


ACACIA CREDIT FUND 10-A LLC 

201 E WASHINGTON ST STE 1760 

PHOENIX, AZ 85004-2233 

ALBERT VINCENT & HYE SUK 

MAKLEY 

2037 JADEWOOD DR 

MORRISVILLE, NC 27560-6688 

AMIT & MANUPRIYA VIJAY PATEL 



ASIF & FARAH H RASHID 

1000 GOBLET LN 


BEULAH WEAVER MCCLAIN HEIRS 

C/O MICHAEL ANTHONY HOLLAND 

708 WALNUT WOODS DR 


CORA HOLLAND HEIRS 

1113 CHURCH ST 


DALE N &TRINA M BURKETT 

1012 ELLENBURG CT 


DANIEL E & ROSEMARY HOLT 



EJAZ AHMED & SHARNAZ SHEIKH 

SYED 



EMILY ELIZABETH & HERON 

CLAYTON JOHNSON 

1009 LONGWILLOW CT 


ENA LOUISE & MERLIN JR BASS 

106 12 PRINCETON ST 

JAMAICA, NY 11435-5116 

GEORGE & SHANNON TRANTAS 



GURPREET MARWAHA, MANPREET 

KAUR SINGH 



HARISH &SANDHYA H BIKMAL 

2016 WEAVER FOREST WAY 


JEFFREY LELAND & LORI ANN 

PETERS 



JYOTI K & KIRTIKUMAR MEHTA 



K HOVNANIAN HOMES OF NC INC 

3500 REGENCY PKWY STE 240 

CARY, NC 27518-8519 

KAMAL & RITU S KUNDRA SUKHIJA 



KATHRINE R EVERETT HEIRS 

PO BOX 3001 

DURHAM, NC 27715-3001 

KCR INVESTORS LLC 

PO BOX 3557 

CARY, NC 27519-3557 

LADOS LLC 

116 TURQUOISE CREEK DR 

CARY, NC 27513-5616 

LEI & MING CHEN CAO 

2017 JADEWOOD DR 


MAHANANDEESHWAR & HIMABINDU 

GATTU 

6806 ADDISON AVE 

SUGAR LAND, TX 77479-5672 

MONICA & PAUL BEST 



NADEEM & NAIMA KHAN 



NITA D & DINESHKUMAR S PATEL 



PARITOSH & KAUSHIKI BISWAS 



POOJA BHATIA, AJAYKUMAR & 

USHA BHATIA 



PRASANT K ADHIKARI & SAHANA 

DAS 

1001 LONGWILLOW CT 


QUAMA CHIMONE & TIMOTHY 

LAJUAN PARRIS 


MORRISVILLE, NC 27560-6683

RICARDO M III & MICHELLETA P 

RAZON 



RICHARD & QIONG SMEMOE 



RITU & SANJAY TRIPATHY BHATIA 



SALOME J & JEET PARIKH 



SANJAY & VANDNA CHAUDHARY 



SANJEEV & JAISHRI SAXENA 



SATEESH KUMAR 

BOMMASAMUDRAM, NAGAJYOTHI 

NARLA 



SIVASHANKAR VISWANATHAN, 

NANDITHA SUBRAMANI 



SRILATHA & SATYANARAYANA 

KOLLA 



SRINIVAS GOVINDAVAJJULA, 

LAKSHMI N R CHEEMALAPATI 



SRINIVAS PARVATHANENI, USHA 

KIRAN AREMANDA 



SUNIL & MUTIARA RUSLY MEHTA 



SUNIL K NIGAM & MANJU KHARE- 

NIGAM 

2020 WEAVER FOREST WAY 


THANH BINH & ANH MAI NGUYEN 



VACILIOUS A & JUANITA M 

CHIOTAKIS 

600 N 35TH ST # U806 

MOREHEAD CITY, NC 28557-3114 

VANDAN GANDHI 



VENKATA CHANDRA & NARMADA 

VELURU 



VENKATRAMAN BAGAYATKAR, 

PURVA KRISHNAN 



VISHWANATHA A CARDOZA, 

VINITHA J PATIL 

1001 ELLENBURG CT 

MORRISVILLE, NC 27560-6667

Federal Aviation Administration 

Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 

2601 Meacham Blvd. 

Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 

Aeronautical Study No. 

2010-ASO-998-OE 

Issued Date: 04/07/2010 

FAA / FCC Department 

American Tower GA 

1898 Leland Drive 

Marietta, GA 30067 

** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** 

The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., 

Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: 

Structure: Antenna Tower 272997 CLEGG 

Location: MORRISVILLE, NC 

Latitude: 35-51-33.28N NAD 83 

Longitude: 78-50-58.91W 

Heights: 

199 feet above ground level (AGL) 

576 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) 

This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a 

hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: 

Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking 

and/or lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in 

accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2. 

This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates , heights, 

frequency(ies) and power . Any changes in coordinates , heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will 

void this determination. Any future construction or alteration , including increase to heights, power, or the 

addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. 

This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be 

used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as 

indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the 

FAA. 

This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace 

by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or 

regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. 

This aeronautical study included evaluation of a structure that exists at this time. Action will be taken to ensure 

aeronautical charts are updated to reflect the most current coordinates, elevation and height as indicated in the 

case description. 

Page 1 of 3

A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because the 

structure is subject to their licensing authority. 

If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (404) 305-7084. On any future correspondence 

concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2010-ASO-998-OE. 

Signature Control No: 686266-124546894 ( DNE ) 

Richard Biscomb 

Specialist 

Attachment(s) 

Frequency Data 

cc: FCC 

cc: NACO w/map 


Frequency Data for ASN 2010-ASO-998-OE 

LOW 

FREQUENCY 

HIGH 

FREQUENCY 

FREQUENCY 

UNIT 

ERP 

ERP 

UNIT 

806 824 MHz 500 W 

824 849 MHz 500 W 

851 866 MHz 500 W 

869 894 MHz 500 W 

896 901 MHz 500 W 

901 902 MHz 7 W 

930 931 MHz 3500 W 

931 932 MHz 3500 W 

932 932.5 MHz 17 dBW 

935 940 MHz 1000 W 

940 941 MHz 3500 W 


1930 1990 MHz 1640 W 


2345 2360 MHz 2000 W 


EXHIBIT 10









CONSULTING REPORT 

FORM OF REPORT: SUMMARY REPORT 

PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS: 

PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS/ 

CELL TOWER INSTALLATION 

12.54+/- ACRE HEIRS OF KATHRINE R. EVERETTE PROPERTY 

WEAVER FOREST WAY 

WAKE COUNTY, NC 

For: 

Ms. Jill House 

Project Manager 


400 Regency Forest Drive 

Cary, North Carolina 27518 

Report Prepared by 

CRAIG D. SMITH, MAI 

Craig Smith Appraisal, Inc. 

51 Kilmayne Drive, Suite 240 

Cary, North Carolina 

Phone: 919-467-1981

June 3, 2010 

Ms. Jill House 

Project Manager at ATC 




RE: 

Property Impact Analysis, Proposed Telecommunications/Cell Tower Installation, 

12.54+/- Acre Heirs of Kathrine R. Everett Property, Weaver Forest Way, Morrisville, 

Wake County, North Carolina 

Dear Ms. House: 

At your request I have provided consultation services relative to a 12.54+/- acre land tract located in the 

Town of Morrisville in western Wake County. For purposes of this analysis the property is designated as 

having an address of 2399 Weaver Forest Road (Wake County PIN # 0746-47-8679). Wake County 

records indicate that the subject property is currently owned by the Heirs of Kathrine R. Everett. 

This consulting assignment involves the development of an opinion of the potential value impact of a 

proposed new cell tower installation on the 12.54+/- acre subject land tract on neighboring and nearby 

properties. The cell tower itself will be a 195 foot tall steel monopole design (no guy wires). The report is 

intended to be used by the client (American Tower Corporation) as part of the “Property Impact Analysis” 

required as part of the process for seeking approval for installation of the proposed cell tower on the subject 

land tract. 

In order to complete this analysis it was necessary to locate residential developments located in the vicinity 

of a telecommunications/cell tower. Once cell towers located adjacent to residential developments were 

identified it was necessary to then study recent and/or historical home sale transactions within these 

developments to see if there were any value impacts on those building sites/lots located closest to the cell 

tower location. 

The analyst was able to identify two existing cell tower installations with neighboring residential 

developments which provided recent sales data that could be analyzed in a meaningful fashion. These towers 

are located in similar steadily developing sections of Wake County as is the proposed cell tower installation 

that is the subject of this analysis. Analysis of these two developments indicated no discernable value impacts 

attributable to the nearby towers. 

It is therefore concluded that installation of a new telecommunications/cell tower on the subject property will 

not have an adverse value impact on nearby or surrounding properties. The only type of existing development 

adjacent to the 12.54+/- acre subject tract is residential in nature, with these uses located no closer than 300 

feet from the proposed location of the cell tower. Further, the ultimate best use of the undeveloped portions 

of the tract (portion not utilized for the tower site and associated required setbacks) is future non-residential 

development, with no value impacts concluded on these future potential uses of the property.

Special Considerations/Assumptions 

This report is intended to address the visual and/or proximity impacts on nearby and neighboring properties 

of the proposed telecommunications tower installation on the 12.54+/- acre subject land tract. The analyst 

is unaware of any other impacts that can or should be addressed as it relates to installations of this type. The 

analyst has not addressed any non-visual/non-proximity impacts including any that may not yet be apparent 

or that are currently unknown. 

The description of the tower site and the tower specifications are based on information provided by Excell 

Communications on behalf of American Tower Corporation, the reported future owner of the cell tower 

proposed to be constructed on the described land lease site. This information is assumed to be accurate and 

in conformance with Wake County requirements for telecommunication tower installations. 

This consulting analysis is presented in a Summary Report format and is considered to be made in conformity 

with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The conclusions presented herein are subject 

to the certifications, underlying assumptions and limiting and contingent conditions as outlined in this report. 

Respectfully, 

_________________________ 

Craig D. Smith, MAI 

NC State Certified General Appraiser 

License No. A-2658

CERTIFICATION 

The undersigned does hereby certify that, to the best of my/our knowledge and belief except as otherwise 

noted in this report: 

1. The statements of fact contained in this report upon which the analyses, opinions, and conclusions expressed herein 

are based, are true and correct. 

2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, 

and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 

3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personnel 

interest with respect to the parties involved. 

4. I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or the parties involved with this 

assignment. My engagement in this assignment is not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 

5. My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in the value that favors 

the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a 

subsequent event. 

6. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the 

Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice 

7. No one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report. 

8. I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. 

9. As of the effective date of this report I have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the 

Appraisal Institute. 

10. I have not provided a previous service regarding the subject property within the three years prior to this assignment. 

___________________________________ 


June 3, 2010 

__________________ 

Date

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Transmittal Letter 

Certificate of Appraisal 

Table of Contents 

SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT ...................................................... . 1 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY ................................................ 2 

DATE OF THE ANALYSIS ........................................................... 5 

PURPOSE AND USE OF THE REPORT................................................. 5 

DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE.................................................... 5 

PROPERTY RIGHTS ANALYZED ..................................................... 6 

ZONING .......................................................................... 6 

ASSESSMENT AND TAXES ......................................................... 6 

HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ......................................... 7 

NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION.................................................... 11 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ................................................. 14 

STUDY OF TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION..................................................... 33 

ADDENDA 

Exhibit A - 

Exhibit B - 

Education/Qualifications 

Photographs of Subject Property

SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT 

This consulting report will be presented in a Summary Report format. As such, it may not include a full 

discussion of the data, reasoning and analysis that were used in the appraisal process to develop the 

appraiser’s opinion of value/value impacts. Any supporting documentation not presented in this report is 

retained in the appraiser's files. The level of presentation is actually closer to that of a self contained report 

as it relates to the data presentation and analysis. 

The information contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client (American Tower Corporation) 

and for the intended use stated in this report. The appraiser is not responsible for unauthorized use of this 

report. 

This consulting assignment involves the development of an opinion of the potential value impact of a 

proposed new cell tower installation on neighboring and nearby properties. This analysis was completed 

only after inspecting the subject property, collecting and analyzing pertinent data and reporting the findings 

in this report. The following is a summary of the activities involved: 

- The subject property was inspected and the surrounding neighborhood was reviewed. 

- Public records and MLS data sheets were researched to compile and confirm the market sales data 

necessary to complete the assignment. 

- The comparable sales data was inspected and photographs taken where applicable. 

- The data was analyzed and conclusions were drawn based upon the appropriate valuation 

techniques. 

This data search yielded what the appraiser considered to be adequate information to complete an analysis 

of the proposed cell tower installation on the subject property as it relates to property value impacts. 

Following the collection of appropriate data, the subject property was described, the specific purpose of the 

analysis was defined and the development of relevant market indicators was concluded. The effective date 

of this analysis is as of May 21, 2010 the date of the most recent inspection. The process for completing this 

analysis as it relates to the subject property will be further discussed in a later section of this report. 

Craig D. Smith, MAI 1

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY 

The subject of this analysis is comprised of a cell tower lease site (and associated ingress/egress easement) 

to be located on a 12.54+/- acre tract of land located in the Town of Morrisville in western Wake County 

accessed from Weaver Forest Way. For purposes of this analysis the property is designated as having an 

address of 2399 Weaver Forest Road, Morrisville, NC, 27560. This land tract is designated on Wake County 

tax maps as PIN # 0746-47-8679. Wake County records indicate that the subject property is currently 

owned by the Heirs of Kathrine R. Everett. 

The 12.54+/- acre subject land tract results from several out-conveyances from a larger tract that was situated 

in the southwest quadrant of what is now identified of NC Highway 540 and Church Street. A portion of this 

larger tract was also acquired for the highway project. A specific recorded survey map was not available for 

the property. Wake County tax records indicate that the tract contains approximately 12.54+/- gross acres. 

The actual size of the tract is not important to this analysis. The tract will be identified throughout this report 

as containing approximately 12.54+/- acres. 

A copy of an area map as well as a Wake County tax map indicating the general location of the subject 

property can be found on the following pages of this report. This map is followed by a copy of the previously 

referenced “Site Survey” map of the tract. Photographs of the subject property/site can be found as Exhibit 

“B” in the Addenda of this report. 


Street Atlas USA® 2008 

Data use subject to license. 

© 2007 DeLorme. Street Atlas USA® 2008. 

www.delorme.com 

MN (8.8°W) 

TN 

Craig D. Smith, MAI 3 

Scale 1 : 100,000 

0 ½ 1 1½ 2 

mi 

km 

0 1 2 3 4 

1" = 1.58 mi Data Zoom 11-0

of 1 

http://imaps.co.wake.nc.us/imaps/printmap.asp?pin=0746478679&pine... 

6/4/2010 4:30 PM 

Map created on 6/4/2010 4:18:33 PM. 

Copyright 2008. City of Raleigh, Wake County. 

Parcel Number: 0746478679 

REID: 0021275 

OWNER1: 

EVERETT, KATHRINE 

R HEIRS 

ADDR1: PO BOX 3001 

ADDR2: 

DURHAM NC 

27715-3001 

ADDR3: 

DEED BOOK: -E- 

DEED PAGE: - 

DEED DATE: 1/1/1992 

DEED ACRES: 12.54 

BLDG VAL: 0 

LAND VAL: 866700 

TOTAL VALUE: 866700 

BILLING CLASS: INDIVIDUAL 

DESCRIPTION: NC RAILROAD LD 

MAP NAME: 074601 

PIN NUM: 0746478679 

PIN EXT: 000 

CITY: 

MOR 

TOWNSHIP: CEDAR FORK 

YEAR BUILT: 0 

SALEPRICE: 0 

SALEDATE: 

TYPE USE: 

DESIGN STYLE: 

UNITS: 0 

LAND CLASS: VACANT 

OLD PARCEL 

NUMBER: 

371-- 

ADDRESS 

ST NUM: 0 

ST MISC: 

DIR PREFIX: 

ST NAME: 

CHURCH 

ST TYPE: 

ST 

DIR SUFFIX: 


DATE OF THE ANALYSIS 

The effective date of this analysis is as of May 21, 2010 which coincides with the most recent date of 

inspection. On the inspection date the analyst visited the general neighborhood and toured the road system 

in the immediate vicinity of the subject land tract. The property in the vicinity of the proposed cell tower 

site as well as along the Weaver Forest Way frontage were viewed. The analyst has also relied upon maps 

generated by the Wake County tax office and GIS department as well as maps generated by various 

engineers/surveyors associated with the cell tower project in order to identify and describe the property and 

the proposed cell tower site. 

PURPOSE AND USE OF THE REPORT 

The purpose of this consultation/analysis is to address any potential value impacts of the proposed 

telecommunications/cell tower on neighboring and nearby properties. The report is intended to be used by 

the client (Excell Communications) as part of the “Property Impact” study required as part of the process for 

seeking approval for installation of the proposed cell tower on the subject land tract. The education and 

qualifications of the analyst are outlined as Exhibit “B”. 

The analyst (Craig Smith) has been appraising real estate in the Triangle area for 20+ years. A significant 

portion of this work has been focused on residential land and subdivision properties. The analyst has 

addressed existing cell towers as part of a subject property analysis, and in recent years has completed 

several specific “Property Impact” studies for various cell tower installations. For these reasons the 

competency provision of USPAP is considered to be met. 

DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE 

Any reference to Market Value in this report is defined as “the most probable price which a property should 

bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each 

acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in 

this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer 

under conditions whereby: 

a. buyer and seller are typically motivated; 

b. both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers to be 

his own best interest; 

c. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 

d. payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements 

comparable thereto; and 

e. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or 

creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.” 


PROPERTY RIGHTS ANALYZED 

The subject property is currently owned by the Estate of Kathrine R. Everett, who will be the lessor (aka 

Kathrine R. Everett Trust) in the pending lease on the property for the proposed cell tower site. As it relates 

to any reference in this report to Market Value, the property rights analyzed will assume a Fee Simple Estate. 

A Fee Simple Estate is defined as “absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject 

only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and 

escheat.” 

ZONING 

The subject land tract is zoned Morrisville Industrial Management. This district is established as a district 

in which a variety of nonresidential uses are permitted including manufacturing, distribution, wholesale 

operations, warehouses, research facilities, offices and limited retail. The intent is to create a district subject 

to market needs and land compatibility. Flex space, business parks, nonresidential planned developments 

are considered important elements of this district. Consistent with the uses are development standards for 

impact of development, community needs and appearance, traffic control and environmental concerns. 

Permitted uses within this district include manufacturing, production, assembly, fabrication, printing, 

distribution warehouses, building contractor yards, wholesaling operations, research and development, 

institutional facilities, professional offices, “flex” space, hotels/motels, sports facilities and business parks. 

Special uses include railroads, sanitary landfills and certain retail uses. Telecommunication towers also 

require a Special Use Permit by the Town Board. 

There are no minimum lot areas established within this district although additional performance standards 

also apply for more intense uses. The standards relate to utilities, minimum adjacent road access, 

landscaping, screening, etc. Off street parking requirements vary based upon the ultimate use of the property. 

ASSESSMENT AND TAXES 

The subject property is designated on Wake County Tax Records as PIN # 0746-47-8679. The tract has a 

listed size of 12.54+/- acres with an assessed land value of $866,700 (approximately $69,100 per acre).The 

property is located within the Town of Morrisville municipal limits and is therefore subject to Wake County 

and Town of Morrisville taxes. The 2009 Wake County tax rate was $.534 per $100 of assessed value with 

the Morrisville tax rate at $.3665 per $100 of assessed value. Therefore, a total tax rate of $.9005 per $100 

of assessed value was applicable for the 2009 tax year. A review of on-line tax records for the Wake County 

tax department indicates that 2009 taxes for the subject property have been paid in full. 


HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY 

The subject land tract of 12.54+/- acres appears to have been owned by the Everett family for a number of 

years. Portions of the property appear to have been sold in previous years for the adjacent NC Highway 540 

corridor (north boundary of the property) as well as the Providence Place subdivision to the south and east 

of the tract. The 12.54+/- acre remainder tract appears to be vacant, and is listed as vacant on Wake County 

tax records. 

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 

Any specific assumptions and limiting conditions applicable to this analysis can be found within the text of 

the report. The general assumptions and limiting conditions for a typical appraisal report which involves a 

specific valuation are outlined on the following pages of this report. 


ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 

This appraisal is based upon the following assumptions and underlying limiting and 

contingent conditions unless otherwise stated within the body of this report: 

1. The information and data supplied to the appraiser by others, and which have been 

considered in the valuation, are from sources believed to be reliable. 

2. The appraiser renders no opinion of legal nature, such as ownership of the property or 

condition of title. The appraiser assumes the title to the property to be marketable; that the 

property is unencumbered fee; and that the property does not exist in violation of any 

applicable codes, ordinances, statues or any other governmental regulations, unless 

otherwise stated within this report. All existing liens and encumbrances have been 

disregarded and the property is appraised as though free and clear and under responsible 

ownership and competent management. 

3. I have made no land survey of the property. If a survey was provided, the appraiser 

assumes no responsibility for the correctness of such a survey. 

4. Disclosure of the contents of this appraisal report is governed by the Uniform Standards 

of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) as outlined by the Appraisal Foundation. 

5. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, or a copy thereof, shall be used for 

any purpose by any but the client without the previous written consent of the appraiser an/or 

the client; nor shall it be conveyed by any including the client to the public through 

advertising, public relations, news, sales or media, without the written consent and approval 

of the author, particularly as a firm with which he is connected, or any reference to any 

professional society or institute or any initialed designations conferred upon the appraiser as 

stated in his qualification attached hereto. 

6. Testimony or attendance in court by reason of this appraisal, with reference to the 

property in question, shall not be required unless arrangements have previously been made. 

7. The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements (if 

applicable) may be applied only under the existing program of utilization. The separate 

valuation for land and/or building must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal 

and are invalid if so used. All valuations in the report are applicable only under the stated 

program of Highest and Best Use and are not necessarily applicable under other programs 

of use. The valuation of a component part of the property is applicable only as a part of the 

whole property. 


ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS Page 2 

8. The final conclusion of value expressed in this appraisal is the appraiser's opinion which 

is based upon careful investigation and analysis of all known facts and conditions which are 

believed to influence or affect the market value (as defined elsewhere in this report) of the 

property under appraisal. The market price of the property may differ from its market value 

depending upon the motivation and the knowledge of the buyer and/or seller. The market 

value of the subject property expressed herein is the appraiser's opinion of the probable 

price at which it would sell in the open market free of abnormal conditions. 

9. The appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, 

subsoil, or structures which would render it more or less valuable. The appraiser assumes no 

responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering which might be required to discover 

such facts. 

10. On all appraisals subject to satisfactory completion, repairs or alterations, the appraisal 

report and value conclusions are contingent upon completion of the improvements in a 

workmanlike manner and subsequent re-inspection of the premises. 

11. Sub-surface rights (mineral, oil, water, timber, etc.) were not considered in this report, 

unless otherwise noted. 

12. Before any loan or commitments are made predicated on value conclusions reported in 

this appraisal, the mortgagee should verify facts and valuation conclusions contained in this 

report with the appraiser(s). 

13. This report is intended to meet the guidelines of USPAP and is performed and 

completed to those standards using the appraiser's best judgement and experience. Should 

any user of this appraisal find that it does not meet the specific guidelines or a specific 

stated appraisal criteria for any reason, the user agrees to contact only the appraiser, in 

writing and explain the reason(s) for it not being acceptable. 

14. I have not made a specific compliance survey and analysis of the property (if 

improved) to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the various detailed 

requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey of the property together 

with a detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA could reveal that the property is not 

in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the Act. If so, this fact could have a 

negative effect upon the value of the property. Since I have no direct evidence relating to 

this issue, I did not consider possible non-compliance with the requirements of ADA in 

estimating the value of the property. 


ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS Page 3 

15. If operating statements were furnished to the analyst they were accepted at face value 

by the appraiser even if furnished by the owner, operator, manager, accountant, broker, 

attorney, or any other party. The user of this report should make their own investigation as 

to the reliability of the data furnished to the appraiser and included or referenced within the 

report. An audited financial report prepared by a CPA should provide the most valid data 

acceptable. 

16. If the subject property or any of the comparable sales contain wetlands, 

environmentally sensitive areas, endangered species, etc, the appraiser has taken them into 

consideration if they were readily recognizable and interpretable by the appraiser. The 

definitions of these areas are subject to verifying definitions and interpretation from time to 

time and the appraiser is not qualified or even able to keep current as to the various 

definitions and interpretations used by the multitude of agencies regulating these areas. 

17. The appraiser certifies that the appraisal conforms to the Uniform Standards of 

Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) adopted by the appraisal Standards Board of the 

Appraisal Foundation, except that the departure Provisions of the USPAP may not apply. 

18. The appraiser certifies that the compensation for this appraisal is not contingent upon 

the reporting of predetermined value or direction value that favors the cause of the client, 

the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result of the occurrence of a 

subsequent event. 

19. The appraiser certifies that the appraisal assignment was not based on a requested 

minimum valuation, a specific valuation or the approval of a loan. 

20. This appraisal is considered to have been prepared in accordance with the standards 

and reporting requirements of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, including, but not 

limited to 12 CFR Part 529, Non-discrimination in Federally Assisted programs, and 12 

CUT 531.8, Guidelines relating to non-discrimination in lending. 

21. Subject to all other stated specific qualifications and assumptions contained within the 

body of this appraisal report. 

Craig D. Smith, MAI 10

NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION 

The general subject neighborhood could be described as the northern portion of the Town of Morrisville. 

The zoning jurisdiction for the immediate area is primarily handled by the Town of Morrisville except for 

that land area located within the boundaries of the Research Triangle Park. The general subject neighborhood 

has been developing steadily and is considered to be in a growth stage. The focus of this growth has been 

mainly single-family residential development, with emerging commercial and office development to meet 

the needs of the expanding population base. 

The area has convenient linkages with major local thoroughfares, namely Airport Boulevard, McCrimmon 

Parkway, NC Highway 54 (Chapel Hill Road), Page Road (Durham County), Hopson Road (Durham 

County) and Davis Drive. NC Highway 54 and Davis Drive are north/south routes providing convenient 

access to the southern portions of the Research Triangle Park. The area is linked to I-40 at major 

interchanges at Page Road and Airport Boulevard. Major employment centers in the Research Triangle Park 

are located along the west and northwest boundaries of the neighborhood. 

Davis Drive is currently in the process of being widened by the Town of Cary from its intersection with Park 

Village Drive northward to Morrisville-Carpenter Road. The current roadway is mainly 2 lanes in width but 

will be widened to between 4 and 6 lanes (including additional turn lanes at major intersections) for this 

approximate 4 mile segment. The Town of Cary portion of this project is in the construction phase and 

should be done by early 2006. NCDOT will continue this project from Morrisville-Carpenter Road 

northward through the Research Triangle Park to the new I-540 interchange beginning in 2006. 

A significant road project that has impacted the subject neighborhood is the extension of I-540 

southwestward from I-40 to NC Highway 54. This segment of the highway was completed in 2007. This 

highway has full service interchanges at with NC Highway 54 (Chapel Hill Road) near its current intersection 

with Lichtin Boulevard (proximate to the subject property). This highway also has a full service interchange 

at Davis Drive within the Research Triangle Park near Kit Creek Drive. 

The southern (Wake County) portion of the Research Triangle Park is located in the immediate vicinity of 

the subject neighborhood along the east and west sides of Davis Drive. This development extends well into 

southeastern Durham County. The park covers about 6,900 acres and has over 45,000 persons employed 

in over 100 research and development oriented firms. Development within the boundaries of the Park 

surpasses 20,000,000 square feet. 

Development of office, “flex” and warehouse space has been significant within the numerous business parks 

located along the I-40 corridor including several which are located in the Town of Morrisville. Business park 

development (primarily office and “flex” development) currently in place within or in close proximity to the 

neighborhood includes Southport (Aviation Parkway), Perimeter Park (East and West, Airport Boulevard), 

Gateway Centre (Aviation Parkway), Imperial Center (NC Highway 54) and Keystone Office and 

Technology Park (Davis Drive). Development activity within these business parks ranges from high quality 

office space to office/distribution space (“flex” space) and warehouse facilities. 


There is a new 85+ acre retail development planned at the northern end of the Town of Morrisville in the 

northeast quadrant of the intersection of I-540 and NC Highway 54. This development is also known as 

Shiloh Glenn and is anchored by a Wal Mart and Sam’s Club. As many as 20 outparcels are available for 

shop space, restaurants, banks and service businesses. At build-out there will be over 600,000 square feet 

of office, service business and retail space in this project. 

Kits Creek is a new residential development located at the northern end of the Town of Morrisville in the 

northwest quadrant of the intersection of I-540 and NC Highway 54. This project contains 150+/- acres 

approved primarily for low to medium density residential development. At completion this development will 

contain over 600 attached and detached homes priced from $200,000 to over $500,000. The primary builder 

within this development is Experience One Homes. 

The Providence Place residential development is situated in the southwest quadrant of this same intersection 

on approximately 180+/- acres. This project is being developed/built-out by K. Hovnanian Homes and will 

feature 500+/- detached and attached homes at completion. This development is in the mid stages of 

development and features homes priced from $200,000 to $500,000+. 

There are several major residential developments in the central and western portion of Morrisville adjacent 

to Davis Drive and Town Hall Drive. Breckenridge is a total 240 acre master planned project approved for 

over 1,100 residential units (attached and detached) which has been developed by Pulte Homes. A majority 

of this development has been completed and includes townhomes, cluster homes and detached homes mainly 

priced between $125,000 and $250,000. 

Twin Lakes is a new 300 acre development located along the east side of Davis Drive north of Morrisville- 

Carpenter Road. This property has been approved for over 1,000 residential units (attached and detached, 

KB Homes in primary builder) as well as 40 acres of non-residential development. Retail and office space 

along Davis Drive could total as much as 360,000 square feet. A 60 unit condominium building is also 

allowed (or a 150 room assisted living center). This property is technically located within the Town of Cary 

jurisdiction. 

Town Hall Commons is located approximately 1 mile east of Davis Drive at the McCrimmon Parkway. There 

are currently numerous sub-sections within the residential portions of this development featuring townhomes 

and detached units priced between $150,000 and $300,000.Additional recent subdivision developments in 

the immediate area include Addison Park, Carpenter Park, Wexford, Savannah, Ridgemont and Downing 

Glen. 

There are several multi-family developments located in the immediate subject market area. Recent townhome 

communities in the immediate area include The Groves (Morrisville-Carpenter Road), Hamlet in the Park 

(Church Street), Downing Village (Town Hall Drive), Keystone Crossing (Church Street) and Church Street 

Townes. Recent condominium developments include Carpenter Park (Morrisville-Carpenter Road) and 

Creekside at Preston (Morrisville-Carpenter Road). 


Conclusion 

This is one of the more convenient neighborhoods in all of the Triangle area relative to the Research Triangle 

Park and other area employment centers. There are virtually no deteriorated or run down developments in 

this area as a majority of the construction has occurred within the past 3 to 10 years. The general 

maintenance and upkeep of the residential properties in the area is very good. The subject neighborhood is 

generally populated by middle to upper income residents holding white collar or highly technical jobs with 

major employers in the nearby Research Triangle Park and the remainder of the metropolitan area. 

In summary, the neighborhood can best be described as changing from rural and agricultural to suburban 

and in transition to one of a more concentrated residential nature. The area has convenient linkages and is 

within a reasonable driving time of most major employment centers in the metropolitan area. There has been 

significant recent residential subdivision development in the area which is continuing to create the demand 

for additional services including professional offices, shopping centers, schools, churches, etc. Steady 

development is expected to continue in upcoming years relative to both residential and non-residential uses. 


DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY 

Subject Land Tract 

The proposed cell tower site is located on a 12.54+/- acre tract of land located in western Wake County in 

the Town of Morrisville adjacent to Weaver Forest Way approximately 100 yards west of Church Street. 

This property is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection underpass of NC Highway 54 with the 

new NC Highway 540 corridor (6 to 8 lanes with grass median). There is a full service highway interchange 

at this location. This land tract is designated on Wake County tax maps as PIN # 0746-47-8679. Wake 

County records indicate that the subject property is currently owned by the Heirs of Kathrine R. Everett. 

The north boundary of the subject tract is formed by NC-540. Property directly on the other side of this 

major highway is zoned for multi-family residential use. Property further to the north and to the west and 

north of NC-540 is located within the Kitts Creek development (mixed residential uses). Property located 

to the east and south of the subject tract has been developed with detached single-family building sites in the 

Providence Place development. The west boundary of the property adjoins a vacant 17+/- acre tract suitable 

for future mixed residential uses. 

The 12.54+/- acre land subject tract has frontage of 650+/- feet on Weaver Forest Way. The tract has another 

1,150+/- feet of frontage along the south margin of NC-540, however, this is a controlled access facility with 

no direct access. The tract has a slightly irregular shape. A majority of the tract is moderately to heavily 

wooded. The exception is an open area associated with a Progress Energy transmission line located within 

a 100+/- foot wide easement crossing the western portion of the tract in a general north/south direction. An 

AT&T telephone line easement borders the east side of the transmission line easement. 

The topography of the tract is categorized as gently to moderately rolling with no designated flood zones. 

There is, however, a significant natural draw along a creek which flows toward the southwest corner of the 

tract. In addition to the topographical difficulties in this location there is a 50 foot stream buffer requirement 

on each side of the creek. The combination of the creek, stream buffers, 100 foot highway set-back buffer 

and the transmission line easement will make it very difficult to develop the western/northwestern 1/3 of the 

tract with any typical residential or non-residential improvements. 

Cell Tower Lease Parcel 

A 6,400+/- square foot portion of the subject tract located just over 750 feet (westerly) from Weaver Forest 

Way has been leased by the Heirs of Kathrine R. Everett (aka Kathrine R. Everett Trust) to American Tower 

Corporation who will be the owner and manager of the cell tower facility to be constructed on the property. 

This portion of the 12.54+- acre tract has topography that is categorized as gently rolling, with no significant 

issues. The 100+/- foot Progress Energy transmission line easement is located just to the west of this lease 

area, with the NC-540 highway corridor right-of-way situated approximately 110+/- feet to the north (site 

is located outside of the typically required 100 foot highway buffer area). There are no designated stream 

buffers across this portion of the land tract. 

The cell tower will be placed at the approximate center of a 80 foot X 80 foot lease parcel (.15+/- acres). 

The cell tower itself will be located nearly 800 feet from Weaver Forest Way at its closest point, and 

approximately 150+/- feet from the NC-540 right-of-way margin. The tower will also be situated over 280+/- 

feet from the rear lot line of the closest lot in the neighboring Providence Place subdivision, and well over 

300 feet from the home located on this lot. 


The telecommunications tower will be 195 feet in height above base elevation (372+/- foot base elevation 

above mean sea level). It will be steel monopole design, and will be able to accommodate equipment for as 

many as 4 cell providers. This is a self support tower, therefore, no guy wires are required. The equipment 

shelter(s) will be placed at the base of the pole and within the lease area (228+/- SF). The entire 6,400+/- 

square foot lease site will be encircled by a chain link fence with 3 strands of barbed wire. 

This lease also includes a 30 foot access and utility line easement to and from Weaver Forest Way across 

the 12.54+/- acre tract to and from the tower site. This access easement will be cleared and graded for a 

distance of over 800 feet into the main tract to the eastern edge of the lease parcel (20+/- foot gravel road 

anticipated). The Town of Morrisville will require the installation of two wet retention ponds, one along the 

access road near Weaver Forest Way and one just to the east of the tower site. 

Best Use of Subject Land Tract 

The subject 12.54+/- acre land tract is zoned for non-residential usage (Morrisville IM zoning). The western 

portions of the property are negatively impacted by a creek, required stream buffers, 100 foot highway setback 

buffer and a 100+/- foot transmission line easement. These issues will make it very difficult to develop 

the western/northwestern 1/3 of the tract with any typical residential or non-residential improvements. It is 

likely that a large portion of the tract in this area (and situated between the closest lots in Providence Place) 

will remain wooded in upcoming years. 

The remaining 8+/- acres of the tract has ample frontage on Weaver Forest Way and a direct linkage back 

to Church Street to allow for non-residential development consistent with the current zoning of the tract. 

Possible uses for this property might include institutional (day care, schools, churches) and office 

developments. Higher intensity retail, hotel and “flex” developments are unlikely due to the neighboring 

residential development and lack of direct visibility from Church Street. Placement of a telecommunications 

tower on the western portion of the tract would not be an issue for virtually any non-residential development 

that might occur on the remainder of the tract. 











Copies of a topographical map and an aerial ortho-photographic map for the subject property as taken from 

Wake County GIS records can be found on the following pages of this report. These maps are accompanied 

by various exhibits relating to the installation of a new telecommunications tower on the impacted portions 

of the 12.54+/- acre tract including a plat map of the lease site/easement areas and a site plan/tower elevation 

map. Photographs of the subject property can be found in Exhibit “B” in the Addenda of this report. 
















STUDY OF CELL/TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER IMPACTS 

In order to address the potential impacts of the proposed telecommunications tower installation on nearby 

and neighboring properties it was necessary to conduct a study of existing similar style telecommunication 

towers in the general area. The purpose of this study is to isolate and/or identify any possible value impacts 

of an existing cell tower site on property in the vicinity of the facility. 

The first step in this process was to identify existing cell tower installations within Wake County that might 

lend themselves to a study of this type. This was accomplished utilizing the TowerMLS.com and 

AntennaSearch.com websites which provides the geographic location of various telecommunication towers 

in the region. Once a tower location was identified it was cross-referenced with the Wake County GIS 

website in an effort to isolate those tower facilities which were located adjacent to or proximate to existing 

or developing residential projects. 

Once cell towers located adjacent to residential developments were identified it was necessary to then study 

recent and/or historical home sale transactions within these development to see if there were any value 

impacts on those building sites/lots located closest to the cell tower location. A comparison of home sales 

on the lots which were in the sight line and/or proximate to the cell tower with those that were not should 

indicate if there was any detrimental value impact from the proximity and/or visual orientation of the tower 

itself. Adjustments to the sale properties must be applied as warranted in order to make proper comparisons. 

The primary unit of comparison examined is price per square foot of living area. 


Sales Data Presentation 

The analyst was able to identify two existing cell tower installations with active neighboring residential 

developments which provided recent sales data that could be analyzed in a meaningful fashion. These towers 

are located in similar developing sections of Wake County as is the proposed cell tower installation that is 

the subject of this analysis. 

Heritage Pines Subdivision 

The Heritage Pines subdivision is the first development studied. This subdivision is located in western Cary 

adjacent to Carpenter-Upchurch Road. This development features mainly one and two story attached and 

detached residential homes at sales prices of between $200,000 and $325,000. 

The first step in the analysis of this development is to identify the sales of property situated adjacent or 

proximate to an existing tower installation. In Heritage Pines there is a townhome section of the 

development located proximate to the cell tower installation. These homes are located at the northwest 

corner of the subdivision near the boundary of the development. There is an existing telecommunications 

tower installation located immediately to the north at a distance of 300 to 350+/- feet from two recent resale 

homes. This is an approximate 155+/- foot tall self support tower (no guy wires) accessed by a gravel road 

linking back to Carpenter-Upchurch Road (not back into the development). The tower is located on a 2.36+/- 

acre parcel (REID# 0020421) that is not part of Heritage Pines. The top 1/3 to 2/3 of the tower above the tree 

line is visible from the front yard of these resale properties. 

These two resales in Heritage Pines that are proximate to the tower are summarized in the following table: 

Address: 301 Sawgrass Hill Court, Cary 205 Sawgrass Hill Court, Cary 

Sale Date: August 7, 2009 April 30, 2010 

Year Built: 2002/Resale 2002/Resale 

Sale Price: $235,000 

(Net $5,000 in seller Concsn.) 

$213,100 

(Net $400 in seller Concsn.) 

Square Footage: 1,890 SF 1,702 SF 

Price Per SF: $124.34 $125.21 

Lot Size: .12+/- .12+/- 

Parking: 2 Car Garage, Paved 2 Car Garage, Paved 

Construction: 

Cell Tower 

Location: 

Townhome, 1 story, 

deck, pond view 

300+/- feet North, 

Visible from Front and Side Yard 

Townhome, 1 story, patio, 

greenspace at rear 

350+/- feet Northwest, 

Visible from Front and Side Yard 


The next step in the analysis is to identify the sales of property situated away from the identified existing 

tower installation. In Heritage Pines there were two townhome units located at the interior of the 

development well over 900 feet from the cell tower installation. These two resales in Heritage Pines are 

summarized in the following table: 

Address: 101 Uplands Creek Drive, Cary 105 Uplands Creek Drive, Cary 

Sale Date: November 10, 2009 May 5, 2010 

Year Built: 2003/Resale 2003/Resale 

Sale Price: $228,100 

(Net $400 in seller Concsn.) 

$227,000 

(Net $3,000 in seller Concsn.) 

Square Footage: 1,910 SF** 1,867 SF** 

Price Per SF: $119.42 $121.58 

Lot Size: .11+/- .11+/- 

Parking: 2 Car Garage, Paved 2 Car Garage, Paved 

Construction: Townhome, 1 story, patio Townhome, 1 story, patio 

Cell Tower Location: 900+/- feet Northwest 900+/- feet Northwest 

** Based on MLS data, tax records indicate these units are of roughly equal size at 1,878+/- SF 

In order to isolate any potential impact of the proximity and/or visibility of the telecommunications tower 

on the selected properties it was necessary to make adjustments between properties for any notable 

differences in physical characteristics. Once these adjustments are applied, a comparison of the adjusted 

value range (per square foot) between the properties should indicate if there was a value/price differential 

that could be specifically attributable to the cell tower proximity and/or visibility. 

A review of recently compiled data for homes in western Cary indicates that average prices have been 

roughly stable for the period covered by the 4 sales (8/09 through 5/10). Therefore a specific market 

conditions adjustment has not been applied. A review of MLS data on each of the outlined sales appears to 

indicate that all units have similar general exterior and interior features (on average, including frame 

construction, end units, 2 car garages, hardwood floors, upgraded counter-tops, etc.). The date of 

construction/condition of the properties is not an issue as all were built in 2002/03 and are in good condition. 

All four sales fall within a 200+/- square foot size differential, with only Sale 2 requiring a minor downward 

adjustment for its smaller size relative to the other 3 sales (smaller units tend to sell at a slightly higher price 

per SF, all other factors being equal). The only other adjustments required pertain to minor physical features 

and/or view/lot features for any of the outlined properties. 


The four sale properties have been compiled with applicable adjustments as follows: 

Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Sale 4 

Address: 

301 Sawgrass Hill 

Court, Cary 

205 Sawgrass Hill 

Court, Cary 

101 Uplands 

Creek Drive, Cary 

105 Uplands 

Creek Drive, Cary 

Sale Date: August 7, 2009 April 30, 2010 Nov. 10, 2009 May 5, 2010 

Year Built: 2002/Resale 2002/Resale 2003/Resale 2003/Resale 

Price Per SF: $124.34 $125.21 $119.42 $121.58 

Construction: Townhome, 1 

story, 

deck, pond view 

Townhome, 1 

story, patio, 

greenspace at rear 


story, patio 


story, patio 

Sale Price: $235,000 $213,100 $228,100 $227,000 

Adjustments: 

Lot Location: 

Pond View 

-$5,000 

Greenspace 

-$2,500 

Access Road 

+$2,500 

None 

$0 

Size of Unit: 

None 

$0 

Smaller 

-$2,500 

None 

$0 

None 

$0 

Features: 

Deck 

-$2,000 

None 

$0 

None 

$0 

None 

$0 

Adjusted Gross 

Sales Price: 

$228,000 $208,100 $230,600 $227,000 

Square Footage: 1,890 SF 1,702 SF 1,910 SF 1,867 SF 

Adjusted Sales 

Price Per SF: 

$120.63 $122.27 $120.73 $121.58 

Tower Position Proximate Proximate Not Proximate Not Proximate 

The four home sales within the Heritage Pines subdivision indicated adjusted per square foot prices/values 

ranging from $120.63 to $122.27 per square foot. The range was $120.63 to $122.27 per square foot for the 

two homes that were proximate to the cell tower installation, and $120.73 to $121.58 per square foot for the 

two properties that were over 900 feet from the tower site, and did not have a direct view of the tower out 

the front or back of the home (the tower could be seen in the distance from subdivision streets). 

In summary, analysis of these four properties in the Heritage Pines subdivision provided no evidence of any 

detrimental impact from the nearby cell tower on the properties which were closest, both of which had a 

direct view of the tower. 

Photographs taken within Heritage Pines of the telecommunications tower can be found on the following 

page of this report. These photographs are followed by a map of the Heritage Pines subdivision with 

the sale properties noted by number and the telecommunications tower denoted by a red dot. 



Interior view within Heritage Pines 




Cobble Ridge Subdivision 

The Cobble Ridge subdivision was also reviewed. This subdivision is located in central Holly Springs 

adjacent to Holly Springs Road. This development features mainly one and one-half and two story detached 

residential homes at sales prices of between $260,000 and $400,000. There is a cell tower installation in the 

western portion of this development that is actually bordered by several lots in the development. There was 

not enough recent resale activity in the development to attempt this analysis using 2009 and 2010 transfers. 

However, historical MLS data was available for the original sales within the subdivision (between 2003 and 

2007) such that a comparison of properties with and without tower influence/proximity could be made. 

In Cobble Ridge there were three detached homes located adjacent to the cell tower installation that sold 

between May, 2004 and August, 2005. There is an existing telecommunications tower installation located 

along the rear lot line of these lots and within 100+/- feet of these homes. This is an approximate 190+/- foot 

tall monopole self support tower (no guy wires) accessed by a gravel road linking back to Cobblepoint Way 

(interior road within the development). The tower is located on a .39+/- acre parcel (REID# 0256592). The 

top 1/2 to 2/3 of the tower is visible from the front and rear yards of these three properties. 

These three sales in Cobble Ridge adjacent to the cell tower are summarized in the following table: 

Address: 320 Cobblepoint Way 400 Landbridge Lane 404 Landbridge Lane 

Sale Date: October, 2004 August, 2005 May, 2004 

Year Built: 2004/New Home Sale 2005/New Home Sale 2004/New Home Sale 

Sale Price: $305,000 $262,500 $297,900 

(Net of $2,000 

seller concession) 

Square Footage: 2,600 SF 2,223 SF 2,498 SF 

Price Per SF: $117.31 $118.08 $119.25 

Lot Size: .38+/- 

(Irregular shape) 

.25+/- .26+/- 

Parking: 2 Car Garage, Paved 2 Car Garage, Paved 2 Car Garage, Paved 

Construction: 

2 story, hardwoods, 

screen porch, deck, 

3 BR-2.5 B 

1.5 story, hardwoods, 


3 BR-2.5 B 



3 BR-2.5 B 

Cell Tower Location: 

75+/- feet southeast, 

Visible from Front and 

Side Yard 

75+/- feet north, 


Rear Yard 

100+/- feet northeast, 


Side Yard 


The next step in the analysis is to identify sales of property situated away from the identified existing tower 

installation. In Cobble Ridge there several homes located at the interior of the development that have very 

limited (or a significantly diminished) view of the existing tower installation. Several of these sales in Cobble 

Ridge are summarized in the following table: 

Address: 201 Cobblepoint Way 108 Cobblepoint Way 204 Wyecreek Circle 

Sale Date: September, 2005 July, 2005 May, 2004 

Year Built: 2004/New Home Sale 2005/New Home Sale 2004/New Home Sale 

Sale Price: $320,000 $277,500 



$294,900 



Square Footage: 2,682 SF 2,519 SF 2,417 SF 

Price Per SF: $119.31 $110.16 $122.01 

Lot Size: .23+/- .24+/- .25+/- 

Parking: 2 Car Garage, Paved 2 Car Garage, Paved 2 Car Garage, Paved 

Construction: 



3 BR-2.5 B 


deck (no screen porch), 

3 BR-2.5 B 


screen porch, patio, 

unfinished storage, 

3 BR-3.5 B 

Cell Tower Location: 

250+/- feet northeast, 

Visible from Side Yard 


Top of tower visible 

in distance 


Top of tower visible 

in distance 

In order to isolate any potential impact of the proximity and/or visibility of the telecommunications tower 

on the selected properties it was necessary to make adjustments between properties for any notable 

differences in physical characteristics. Once these adjustments are applied, a comparison of the adjusted 

value range (per square foot) between the properties should indicate if there was a value/price differential 

that could be specifically attributable to the cell tower proximity and/or visibility. 

During the 2004/05 time frame there was a general annual home appreciation rate in the Holly Springs area 

of between 2% and 3% per year. All of the sales will be adjusted to a mid to late 2005 sales date similar to 

Sales 2, 4 and 5. A market conditions adjustment of +$7,500 was applied to Sales 3 and 6, while an 

adjustment of +$5,000 was applied to Sale 1. 

A review of MLS data on each of the outlined sales appears to indicate that all units have similar general 

exterior and interior features (on average, including 1.5 or 2 story frame construction, 2 car garage, hardwood 

floors, upgraded cabinets/counter-tops, etc.). The date of construction/condition of the properties is not an 

issue as all are new homes. 


Sales 1, 3, 4 and 5 all fall within a 200+/- square foot size differential (2,498 SF to 2,682 SF). Therefore, 

no adjustments were applied to these four sales. Sales 2 and 6 required minor downward adjustments for 

their smaller size in order to equate to the 4 sales not adjusted (smaller units tend to sell at a slightly higher 

price per SF, all other factors being equal). The only other adjustments required pertain to minor home 

features for any of the outlined properties (screen porches, storage areas, extra baths, etc.). 

The six sale properties have been compiled with applicable adjustments as follows: 

Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Sale 4 Sale 5 Sale 6 

Address: 320 

Cobblepoint 

Way 

400 

Landbridge 

Lane 

404 

Landbridge 

Lane 

201 

Cobblepoint 

Way 

108 

Cobblepoint 

Way 

204 

Wyecreek 

Circle 

Sale Date: Oct., 2004 August, 2005 May, 2004 Sept., 2005 July, 2005 May, 2004 

Year Built: 2004 2005 2004 2004 2005 2004 

Square Footage: 2,600 SF 2,223 SF 2,498 SF 2,682 SF 2,519 SF 2,417 SF 

Price Per SF: $117.31 $118.08 $119.25 $119.31 $110.16 $122.01 

Construction: 

2 story, 

hardwoods, 

screen porch, 

deck, 

3 BR-2.5 B 

1.5 story, 

hardwoods, 

screen porch, 

deck, 

3 BR-2.5 B 

1.5 story, 

hardwoods, 

screen porch, 

deck, 

3 BR-2.5 B 

1.5 story, 

hardwoods, 

screen porch, 

deck, 

3 BR-2.5 B 

1.5 story, 

hardwoods, 

deck (no 

screen porch), 

3 BR-2.5 B 

1.5 story, 

hardwoods, 

screen porch, 

patio, 

unfin. storage, 

3 BR-3.5 B 

Sales Price: $305,000 $262,500 $297,900 $320,000 $277,500 $294,900 

Adjustments: 

Market 

Conditions: 

+$5000 $0 +$7,500 $0 $0 +$7,500 

Size of Home: 

None 

$0 

Smaller 

-$5,000 

None 

$0 

None 

$0 

None 

$0 

Smaller 

-$2,500 

Features: 

None 

$0 

None 

$0 

None 

$0 

None 

$0 

No Screen 

Porch 

+$12,000 

Unfin. Storage 

+ Extra Full 

Bath 

-$5,000 

Adjusted Gross 

Sales Price: 

$310,000 $257,500 $305,400 $320,000 $289,500 $294,900 

Square Footage: 2,600 SF 2,223 SF 2,498 SF 2,682 SF 2,519 SF 2,417 SF 

Adjusted Sales 

Price Per SF: 

$119.23 $115.83 $122.26 $119.31 $114.92 $122.01 

Tower Position Adjacent Lot Adjacent Lot Adjacent Lot 250+/- Feet 550+/- Feet 450+/- Feet 


The six home sales within the Cobble Ridge subdivision indicated adjusted per square foot prices/values 

ranging from $114.92 to $122.26 per square foot. The range was $115.83 to $122.26 per square foot (avg. 

of $119.10/SF) for the three homes that were adjacent to the cell tower installation, and $114.92 to $122.01 

per square foot (avg. of $118.75/SF) for the three properties that were removed from the immediate vicinity 

of the tower site. These homes did not have a direct adjacent view of the tower out the front or back of the 

home, although the tower could be seen from the side yard of Sale 4, and in the distance from subdivision 

streets for Sales 5 and 6. 

Using this set of data, which represents a majority of sales during the time frame covered that were within 

a similar size range (2,200+/- to 2,700+/- SF), there was not a discernable value/price impact that could be 

identified based on proximity to the cell tower installation. In this case, the proximate homes actually 

adjoined a lot located within the subdivision upon which the tower was located. If there was a proximity 

impact to be noted it would have been expected to materialize for properties that were this close to the 

installation. However, this set of data adjusted out nearly the same for the 3 homes that fell within each of 

the two categories that were reviewed. 

It should be noted that the outlined data set involved new construction where the new homes/features may 

have been attractive enough to overcome the proximate cell tower installation. Further, the base of the tower 

installation is well screened relative to a majority of the adjacent lots. It is not known that if upon resale of 

the homes (ie. Sales 1, 2 and 3) whether the fact that the tower is actually adjacent will create an impact, it 

is only noted that an impact was not evident as it relates to the original construction sales prices (the data set 

provided earlier for Heritage Pines involves resale properties proximate to, but not adjacent to a cell tower). 

In summary, analysis of these six properties in the Cobble Ridge subdivision provided no evidence of any 

detrimental impact from the cell tower on the properties which were adjacent, all of which had a direct view 

of the tower. 

Photographs taken within Cobble Ridge of the telecommunications tower can be found on the following page 

of this report. These photographs are followed by a map of the Heritage Pines subdivision with the sale 

properties noted by number and the telecommunications tower denoted by a red dot. 



Interior view within Cobble Ridge 




SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 

This consulting assignment involved the development of an opinion of the potential value impact of a 

proposed new cell tower installation on the 12.54+/- acre subject land tract on neighboring and nearby 

properties. In order to complete this analysis it was necessary to locate residential developments located 

in the vicinity of a telecommunications/cell tower. Once cell towers located adjacent to residential 

developments were identified it was necessary to then study recent and/or historical home sale transactions 

within these development to see if there were any value impacts on those building sites/lots located closest 

to the cell tower location. 

A comparison of home sales on the lots which were in the sight line and/or proximate to the cell tower with 

those that were not should indicate if there was any detrimental value impact from the proximity and/or 

visual orientation of the tower itself. Adjustments to the sale properties were applied as warranted in order 

to make proper comparisons. The unit of comparison was price per square foot of living area. 

Existing or developing residential subdivision developments are concluded to offer the best basis for 

comparison due to the similarity of homes within a given development which lends itself to more meaningful 

analysis and isolation of potential impacts if in fact they exist. The analyst was able to identify two existing 

cell tower installations with neighboring residential developments which provided recent sales data that could 

be analyzed in a meaningful fashion. These towers are located in similar steadily developing sections of 

Wake County as is the proposed cell tower installation that is the subject of this analysis. 

Analysis of the collected residential sales data indicated no discernable value impacts associated with 

proximity and/or visibility of an existing tower facility. This is not that surprising of a result as 

telecommunication and cell tower installations are becoming more prevalent throughout the region. These 

towers are typically set back a reasonable distance from adjoining property lines, and the base equipment 

buildings are typically screened, fenced and or landscaped so as to provide adequate buffering at ground 

level. 

It is apparent from my analysis that the Wake County region has grown in recent years, and to a degree that 

cell tower installations are fairly common and accepted in the community, and in many cases are considered 

beneficial due to the added cell phone coverage that they provide to the area. It is therefore concluded that 

installation of a new telecommunications/cell tower on the subject property will not have an adverse value 

impact on nearby or surrounding properties. 

The only type of development adjacent to the 12.54+/- acre subject tract is residential in nature, with these 

uses located no closer than 300 feet from the proposed location of the cell tower. Further, the ultimate best 

use of the undeveloped portions of the tract (portion not utilized for the tower site and associated required 

setbacks) is future non-residential development, with no value impacts concluded on these future potential 

uses of the property. 












This consulting analysis is presented in a Summary Report format and is considered to be made in conformity 

with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The conclusions presented herein are subject 

to the certifications, underlying assumptions and limiting and contingent conditions as outlined in this report. 

Respectfully, 

________________________ 


NC State Certified General Appraiser 

License No. A-2658 


EXHIBIT A 

EDUCATION/QUALIFICATIONS

APPRAISER QUALIFICATIONS 

CRAIG D. SMITH, MAI 

NC State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser 

License No. A2658 

Craig Smith Appraisal, Inc. 

51 Kilmayne Drive, Suite 240 


Phone: 919-467-1981 

COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY EDUCATION HOURS DATE 

Bachelor of Science, North Carolina State University 5/83 

Masters of Business Administration, University of South Carolina 5/86 

Graduate course work in Real Estate Finance, Real Estate Appraisal 

and Capital Budgeting 

RECENT PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION 

The Appraisal Institute 

Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice 

- Business Practices and Ethics 7 9/09 

- National USPAP Update Course 7 5/09 

Using Spreadsheet Programs in Real Estate Appraisals 7 2/10 

Appraisal Curriculum Overview 15 2/10 

Appraisal Review 7 5/09 

Subdivision Valuation 7 7/08 

Office Building Valuation: A Contemporary Perspective 7 1/08 

CERTIFICATIONS/LICENSES (All Current through January, 2010) 

North Carolina State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (No. A2658) 12/91 

Appraisal Institute - MAI Designation (Member No. 10488) 8/94 

North Carolina Real Estate Brokers License (No. 122990) 1 0 / 8 9 

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 

Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta - Savings & Loan Examiner 6/86 - 7/87 

Morgan & Company, Inc. - Commercial Property Appraiser 7/87 - 10/89 

Shaw/Boykin & Associates, Inc. - Commercial Property Appraiser 10/89 - 4/96 

Morgan & Company, Inc. - Commercial Department Manager 4/96 - 1/97 

Birch Appraisal Group - Commercial Department Manager 1/97 - 12/97 

Craig Smith Appraisal, Inc. - Owner/Consultant-Appraiser 

1/98 - Present

EXHIBIT B 

PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY

Western portion of subject tract including 

Progress Energy Transmission Line Easement 

Western portion of subject tract including 

Progress Energy Transmission Line Easement 

View of subject tract looking west along NC-540

View of subject tract looking east along NC-540 

View of homes in Providence Place subdivision 

which back up to the subject property

EXHIBIT 14 

Stormwater Impact Analysis 

Revised 06-03-2010 

CLEGG 



Wake County 

Prepared for: 

AMERICAN TOWER CORPORTATION 


Cary, North Carolina 27518

Revised 06/03/10 


Site Description........................................................................................................................... 1 

Site Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 1 

Off Site Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 1 

Stormwater Management Plan Statement .................................................................................... 2 

Figure 1 – Aerial Map ................................................................................................................. 3 

Figure 2 – Wake County Soils Map ............................................................................................. 4 

Wake County Soils Map (Book Copy) ........................................................................................ 5 

Figure 3 – Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Wake County NC ........................................... 6 

Figure 4 – Values for Runoff (C) for Rational Formula ............................................................... 7 

Figure 5 – Intensity-Duration-Frequency Table ........................................................................... 8 

Figure 6 – Wake County Hydrologic Soil Groups Table (Table 2-1) ........................................... 9 

Figure 7 – Wake County Curve Number Tables (Tables 2-2, 2-4) ............................................. 10 

Figure 8 – Drainage Area Map .................................................................................................. 11 

Appendix A – Runoff Calculations – NRCS (CN) Method ............................................................ 

Appendix B – Time of Concentration Calculations – TR55 Method .............................................. 

Appendix C – Culvert Calculations ............................................................................................... 

Appendix D – Wet Detention Pond ‘1’ Calculations ...................................................................... 

Appendix E – Wet Detention Pond ‘2’ Calculations ......................................................................


Site Description: 

The site is located on Weaver Forest Way in Morrisville, NC approximately 0.07 of a mile east 

from the intersection of Weaver Forest Way and Church Street. The parent parcel is a 12.54 acre 

tract just off Weaver Road and is currently unoccupied and covered primarily by woodlands. A 

3,600 ft 2 telecommunications compound is proposed to be located within a 10,000 ft 2 lease area 

on the western portion of the tract, approximately 900’ off the road. The compound will be 

gravel filled and accessed by a 20’ gravel access road. The proposed development results in an 

increase of 0.513 acres of pervious cover in the form of the compound area and gravel access 

road area. The initial development will result in an increase of 0.007 acres of impervious cover 

in the form of structural footings and building pads with a planned expansion to total 0.024 acres 

of impervious cover within the compound to accommodate future carriers. As can be seen on the 

Aerial Map (see Figure 1) the existing tree line will be disturbed. According to the Soil Survey 

of Wake County, provided by the Wake County Soil and Water Conservation District, the group 

of near surface soils present on site is Mantachie (Me), Creedmore Sandy Loam (CrB2), and 

White Store Sandy Loam (WsB2, WsC2, WsE) (see Figure 2 – Durham County Soils Map). 

Additionally the proposed site does not fall within any defined floodplain areas and is located 

within Zone X on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Durham County, North Carolina 

(see Figure 3). 

Site Analysis: 

Post-development runoff control is a central requirement of the Town of Morrisville Design & 

Construction Ordinance. The Town of Morrisville requires that the NRCS runoff method (Curve 

Number Method) is required to determine runoff in a delineated watershed. The site was 

delineated into two separate watersheds, divided by a perennial stream. Flow paths were 

determined and times of concentrations for each watershed were determined. A predevelopment 

curve number was determined for both drainage areas by analysis of different 

surface covers (see Figure 8) and soil types (see Figure 2) present on site. This curve number was 

used to determine the amount of stormwater runoff for a given storm event. A post-development 

curve number and subsequent runoff values were calculated and compared to the predevelopment 

amounts. 

Off Site Analysis: 

Off site drainage flows to a tributary of Kitt Creek, located in the Upper Neuse Watershed 

(Hydraulic Unit Code: 0302020) within the Cape Fear Basin according to the topographical 

maps and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The size of 

the total drainage area is 8.39 acres and will be unaffected by the addition of the 

telecommunications compound as the addition of the site does not alter any drainage features. 

This can be seen on the Drainage Area Map with a topographical overlay (see Figure 6). 

Drainage flow exits offsite in a southwesterly direction and exits the site roughly 270’ away from 

the proposed disturbance. This flow path provides opportunity for the water to wash through 

brush and densely wooded area to provide treatment prior to entering the receiving waters. The 

compound will disturb approximately 0.637 acres and will provide off site protection in the form


of perimeter silt fence throughout construction and until the site is permanently stabilized with 

gravel. 

Stormwater Management Plan Statement: 

As can be seen in Appendix A, there is an increase from pre-development to post-development 

stormwater runoff. The Town of Morrisville Design and Construction Ordinance requires that 

post-development runoff not exceed the pre-development runoff level for any storm event up to 

the 10-yr event. Furthermore, it is specified in the Ordinance that 1-yr/24-hr volume levels must 

be detained and attenuated for a time period no less than 24 hours and no greater than 48 hours. 

Therefore, Tower Engineering Professionals has designed two wet detention ponds to meet the 

requirements set forth by the Town of Morrisville. The proposed wet detention ponds were 

designed per the North Carolina Department of Natural & Environmental Resources and lower 

the post-development runoff levels below those determined for pre-development. Both wet 

ponds have been designed to store the difference in 1-yr/24-hr storm event runoff volume 

between pre-development and post-development. Furthermore, this 1-yr/24-hr runoff volume is 

stored and attenuated for a period of no less than 24 hours.

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 4

North Carolina 35.8592 N 78.8497 W 347 feet 

from "Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States" NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 2, Version 3 

G.M. Bonnin, D. Martin, B. Lin, T. Parzybok, M.Yekta, and D. Riley 

NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, 2004 

Extracted: Thu Feb 4 2010 

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

FIGURE 7


Appendix A

Table 1B 

Flow Summary Table for Drainage Area DA-1 

Runoff Calculations 

Composite Curve Number (CCN) - Pre-Development 

Existing Soils 

Me 

Me 

Me 

WsB2 

WsB2 

WsB2 

WsC2 

WsC2 

WsC2 

WsE 

WsE 

WsE 

HSG Area (AC) Land Cover CN CN x Area 

C 0.00 Impervious 98 0 

C 0.00 Open 74 0 

C 0.00 Woods 70 0 

D 0.16 Impervious 98 16 

D 0.70 Open 80 56 

D 0.66 Woods 77 51 


D 0.82 Open 80 65 

D 0.56 Woods 77 43 


D 0.10 Open 80 8 

D 0.82 Woods 77 64 

Total Area = 4.17 

CN i x A 

CCN = i 

CCN = 81 

A i 

Composite Curve Number (CCN) - Post-Development (Undetained Flow) 



Me 

Me 

Me 

WsB2 

WsB2 

WsB2 

WsC2 

WsC2 

WsC2 

WsE 

WsE 

WsE 


C 0.00 Open 74 0 

C 0.00 Woods 70 0 


D 0.08 Open 80 6 

D 0.13 Woods 77 10 


D 0.81 Open 80 65 

D 0.26 Woods 77 20 


D 0.10 Open 80 8 

D 0.67 Woods 77 52 


CN i x A 

CCN = 

i 

CCN = 83 

A i 

Composite Curve Number (CCN) - Post-Development (Detained Flow) 



Me 

Me 

Me 

WsB2 

WsB2 

WsB2 

WsC2 

WsC2 

WsC2 

WsE 

WsE 

WsE 


C 0.00 Open 74 0 

C 0.00 Woods 70 0 


D 0.60 Open 80 48 

D 0.42 Woods 77 33 


D 0.001 Open 80 0 

D 0.19 Woods 77 15 


D 0.00 Open 80 0 

D 0.01 Woods 77 1 


CN i x A 

CCN = i 

CCN = 82 

A i 

Clegg 

Weaver Road 

Morrisville, NC 27560

Table 1B 



Composite Curve Number (CCN) - Pre-Development 


Me 

Me 

Me 

WsB2 

WsB2 

WsB2 

WsC2 

WsC2 

WsC2 

WsE 

WsE 

WsE 



C 0.13 Open 74 9 

C 0.41 Woods 70 28 


D 0.77 Open 80 62 

D 1.14 Woods 77 88 


D 0.00 Open 80 0 

D 0.00 Woods 77 0 


D 0.44 Open 80 35 

D 1.82 Woods 77 140 


CN i x A 

CCN = i 

CCN = 76 

A i 

Composite Curve Number (CCN) - Post-Development (Undetained Flow) 



Me 

Me 

Me 

WsB2 

WsB2 

WsB2 

WsC2 

WsC2 

WsC2 

WsE 

WsE 

WsE 

C 0.01 Impervious 98 1 

C 0.12 Open 74 9 

C 0.41 Woods 70 28 


D 0.67 Open 80 54 

D 0.49 Woods 77 38 


D 0.00 Open 80 0 

D 0.00 Woods 77 0 


D 0.42 Open 80 33 

D 1.57 Woods 77 121 


CN i x A 

CCN = i 

CCN = 77 

A i 

Composite Curve Number (CCN) - Post-Development (Detained Flow) 



Me 

Me 

Me 

WsB2 

WsB2 

WsB2 

WsC2 

WsC2 

WsC2 

WsE 

WsE 

WsE 


C 0.00 Open 74 0 

C 0.00 Woods 70 0 


D 0.18 Open 80 14 

D 0.31 Woods 77 24 


D 0.00 Open 80 0 

D 0.00 Woods 77 0 

D 0.01 Impervious 98 1 

D 0.12 Open 80 10 

D 0.00 Woods 77 0 


CN i x A 

CCN = i 

CCN = 83 

A i 

Clegg 

Weaver Road 

Morrisville, NC 27560


Appendix B

Table 1B 



Time of Concentration - Tc (TR-55/SCS 3-Parameter Method) 

T c = T sheet + T shallow + T channel 

T sheet = 

0.42 x (n x L) 0.8 

P 2 x s 0.4 

T shallow = 

L 

V 

T channel = 

L 

V mannings eqn 

Pre-Development 

T sheet = 10.97 minutes 

L = 100 feet P 2 = 3.46 inches 

n = 0.24 s = 0.04 feet/feet 

T shallow = 

0.49 

minutes 

Unpaved Section(s): 

L = 116 feet s = 0.06 feet/feet 

V = 3.96 ft/sec 

V = 16.1345 x (s) 0.5 = 3.96 ft/sec (unpaved) 

T shallow = 0.49 

Paved Section(s): 


V = 0.00 ft/sec 



T channel = 1.57 minutes 

L = 283 feet b = 1.00 feet 

n = 0.07 m = 2.00 feet 

s = 0.04 feet/feet y = 1.00 feet 

r = 0.55 feet 

Manning's Equation 

(b + my 2 ) 

r = 

(b + 2y1 + m 2 ) 

= 0.55 feet 

T c = 13.03 minutes 

V = 

1.49 x r 0.67 x s 0.5 = 3.00 ft/sec 

n 

Post-Development - (Undetained Flow) 

T sheet = 11.67 minutes 

T shallow = 1.36 minutes 


n = 0.24 s = 0.03 feet/feet 



V = 3.46 ft/sec 

V = 16.1345 x (s) 0.5 = 3.46 ft/sec (unpaved)




V = 0.00 ft/sec 




L = 283 feet b = 1.00 feet 

n = 0.07 m = 2.00 feet 


r = 0.55 feet 


(b + my 2 ) 

r = 

(b + 2y1 + m 2 ) 

= 0.55 

feet 


V = 

1.49 x r 0.67 x s 0.5 = 3.00 ft/sec 

n 

Post-Development (Detained Flow) 




n = 0.24 s = 0.03 feet/feet 



V = 2.97 ft/sec 





V = 0.00 ft/sec 




L = 0 feet b = 1.00 feet 

n = 0.07 m = 2.00 feet 


r = 0.55 feet 


(b + my 2 ) 

r = 

(b + 2y1 + m 2 ) 

= 0.55 feet 


V = 

1.49 x r 0.67 x s 0.5 = 0.00 ft/sec 

n

Table 1B 



Time of Concentration - Tc (TR-55/SCS 3-Parameter Method) 

T c = T sheet + T shallow + T channel 

T sheet = 

0.42 x (n x L) 0.8 T shallow = 

L 

T channel = 

P 2 x s 0.4 

V 

L 

V mannings eqn 

Pre-Development 




n = 0.24 s = 0.08 feet/feet 


L = 192 feet s = 0.10 feet/feet 

V = 5.08 ft/sec 





V = 0.00 ft/sec 




L = 825 feet b = 1.00 feet 

n = 0.07 m = 2.00 feet 


r = 0.55 feet 


(b + my 2 ) 

r = 

(b + 2y1 + m 2 ) 

= 0.55 feet 


V = 

1.49 x r 0.67 x s 0.5 = 2.58 ft/sec 

n 

Pre-Development (Undetained Flow) 




n = 0.24 s = 0.08 feet/feet 



V = 5.08 ft/sec 

V = 16.1345 x (s) 0.5 = 5.08 ft/sec (unpaved)




V = 0.00 ft/sec 




L = 825 feet b = 1.00 feet 

n = 0.07 m = 2.00 feet 


r = 0.55 feet 


(b + my 2 ) 

r = 

(b + 2y1 + m 2 ) 

= 0.55 feet 


V = 

1.49 x r 0.67 x s 0.5 = 2.58 ft/sec 

n 

Post-Development (Detained Flow) 




n = 0.24 s = 0.08 feet/feet 



V = 5.00 ft/sec 





V = 0.00 ft/sec 




L = 0 feet b = 1.00 feet 

n = 0.07 m = 2.00 feet 


r = 0.55 feet 


(b + my 2 ) 

r = 

(b + 2y1 + m 2 ) 

= 0.55 feet 


V = 

1.49 x r 0.67 x s 0.5 = 0.00 ft/sec 

n


Appendix C

Culvert Design Calculations - Culvert 1 

Rational Composite "C" = 0.48 Pipe Diameter Manning's Conversion 

10-yr Intensity = 4.70 in/hr (in) 

(n = 0.012) 

25-yr Intensity = 5.22 in/hr 12 

38.24 

Drainage Area = 1.47 acres 15 

18 

70.09 

113.8 

Discharge for 10-yr flood = 3.32 cfs 21 

171.5 

Discharge for 25-yr flood = 3.69 cfs 24 

30 

245.1 

444.3 

Channel Invert Elevations: 

inlet = 363.31 feet 

outlet = 361.29 feet 

Culvert Length = 50 feet 

Culvert Slope = 0.04 feet/feet 

Pipe Type = RCP 

Q pipe = 

Pipe diameter per 10-yr flood = 

Pipe diameter per 25-yr flood = 

Design Pipe Diameter = 

14.02 cfs 

3 inches 

3 inches 

15 inches OK






38.24 


18 

70.09 

113.8 


171.5 


30 

245.1 

444.3 







Q pipe = 




19.19 cfs 

1 inches 

2 inches 

15 inches OK






38.24 


18 

70.09 

113.8 


171.5 


30 

245.1 

444.3 







Q pipe = 




10.16 cfs 

1 inches 

1 inches 

15 inches OK


Appendix D

Clegg_Design Routing_Post_DA1 

Type II 24-hr 1yr Rainfall=2.85" 

Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net 

Printed 6/3/2010 

HydroCAD® 9.10 Sampler s/n S03608 © 2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 

Page 1 

This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and 

educational use only. For actual design or modeling applications you must use a full version of HydroCAD 

which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete printed 

documentation, technical support, training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual 

design work. 

Summary for Pond 1P: Wet Pond 1 

Inflow Area = 1.470 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.26" for 1yr event 

Inflow = 2.42 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.155 af 

Outflow = 0.16 cfs @ 13.42 hrs, Volume= 0.131 af, Atten= 93%, Lag= 80.9 min 

Primary = 0.16 cfs @ 13.42 hrs, Volume= 0.131 af 

Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af 

Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-60.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs 

Peak Elev= 367.51' @ 13.42 hrs Surf.Area= 0.073 ac Storage= 0.087 af 

Plug-Flow detention time= 454.8 min calculated for 0.131 af (85% of inflow) 

Center-of-Mass det. time= 385.2 min ( 1,231.8 - 846.5 ) 

Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description 

#1 366.00' 0.218 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 

Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store 

(feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 

366.00 0.041 0.000 0.000 

367.00 0.063 0.052 0.052 

368.00 0.083 0.073 0.125 

369.00 0.103 0.093 0.218 

Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices 

#1 Primary 364.50' 18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 

#2 Device 1 366.50' 2.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 

#3 Device 1 367.50' 36.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads 

#4 Secondary 369.00' 5.0' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) 

Primary OutFlow Max=0.14 cfs @ 13.42 hrs HW=367.51' (Free Discharge) 

1=Orifice/Grate (Passes 0.14 cfs of 12.80 cfs potential flow) 

2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.10 cfs @ 4.64 fps) 

3=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 0.04 cfs @ 0.35 fps) 

Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=366.00' (Free Discharge) 

4=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs)






Page 2 





design work. 

Pond 1P: Wet Pond 1 

Hydrograph 

2 

2.42 cfs 

Inflow Area=1.470 ac 

Peak Elev=367.51' 

Storage=0.087 af 

Inflow 

Outflow 

Primary 

Secondary 

Flow (cfs) 

1 

0.16 cfs 

0.16 cfs 

0.00 cfs 

0 

0 2 

4 

6 

8 

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 

Time (hours)






Page 3 





design work. 















366.00 0.041 0.000 0.000 

367.00 0.063 0.052 0.052 

368.00 0.083 0.073 0.125 

369.00 0.103 0.093 0.218 








2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.11 cfs @ 4.87 fps) 









Page 4 





design work. 


Hydrograph 

3 

3.37 cfs 




Inflow 

Outflow 

Primary 

Secondary 

Flow (cfs) 

2 

1.21 cfs 

1.21 cfs 

1 

0.00 cfs 

0 

0 2 

4 

6 

8 

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 

Time (hours)


Type II 24-hr 10yr Rainfall=5.12" 




Page 5 





design work. 


Inflow Area = 1.470 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.19" for 10yr event 

Inflow = 6.10 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.390 af 





Peak Elev= 367.82' @ 12.12 hrs Surf.Area= 0.079 ac Storage= 0.110 af 







366.00 0.041 0.000 0.000 

367.00 0.063 0.052 0.052 

368.00 0.083 0.073 0.125 

369.00 0.103 0.093 0.218 

















Page 6 





design work. 


Hydrograph 

6 

5 

6.10 cfs 

5.69 cfs 

5.69 cfs 



Storage=0.110 af 

Inflow 

Outflow 

Primary 

Secondary 

Flow (cfs) 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0.00 cfs 

0 

0 2 

4 

6 

8 

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 

Time (hours)






Page 7 





design work. 


Inflow Area = 1.470 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.10" for 25yr event 


Outflow = 7.47 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.478 af, Atten= 4%, Lag= 2.2 min 

Primary = 7.47 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.478 af 



Peak Elev= 367.88' @ 12.10 hrs Surf.Area= 0.081 ac Storage= 0.116 af 


Center-of-Mass det. time= 156.5 min ( 969.3 - 812.9 ) 





366.00 0.041 0.000 0.000 

367.00 0.063 0.052 0.052 

368.00 0.083 0.073 0.125 

369.00 0.103 0.093 0.218 






Primary OutFlow Max=7.43 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=367.88' (Free Discharge) 











Page 8 





design work. 


Hydrograph 

8 

7 

7.79 cfs 

7.47 cfs 

7.47 cfs 




Inflow 

Outflow 

Primary 

Secondary 

6 

Flow (cfs) 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0.00 cfs 

0 

0 2 

4 

6 

8 

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 

Time (hours)


Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=7.74" 




Page 9 





design work. 


Inflow Area = 1.470 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.61" for 100yr event 

Inflow = 10.53 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.688 af 

Outflow = 10.17 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.664 af, Atten= 3%, Lag= 2.0 min 

Primary = 10.17 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.664 af 





Center-of-Mass det. time= 120.1 min ( 924.1 - 804.0 ) 





366.00 0.041 0.000 0.000 

367.00 0.063 0.052 0.052 

368.00 0.083 0.073 0.125 

369.00 0.103 0.093 0.218 






Primary OutFlow Max=10.06 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=367.97' (Free Discharge) 

1=Orifice/Grate (Passes 10.06 cfs of 14.03 cfs potential flow) 










Page 10 





design work. 


Hydrograph 

11 

10 

9 







Inflow 

Outflow 

Primary 

Secondary 

8 

Flow (cfs) 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0.00 cfs 

0 

0 2 

4 

6 

8 

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 

Time (hours)


Appendix E






Page 1 





design work. 















367.00 0.055 0.000 0.000 

368.00 0.099 0.077 0.077 

369.00 0.129 0.114 0.191 

370.00 0.157 0.143 0.334 









3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 








Page 2 





design work. 


Hydrograph 

1.70 cfs 




Inflow 

Outflow 

Primary 

Secondary 

Flow (cfs) 

1 

0.00 cfs 

0 

0 2 

4 

6 

8 

0.03 cfs 

0.03 cfs 

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 

Time (hours)






Page 3 





design work. 








Peak Elev= 368.09' @ 17.81 hrs Surf.Area= 0.102 ac Storage= 0.086 af 







367.00 0.055 0.000 0.000 

368.00 0.099 0.077 0.077 

369.00 0.129 0.114 0.191 

370.00 0.157 0.143 0.334 









3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 








Page 4 





design work. 


Hydrograph 

2 

2.33 cfs 




Inflow 

Outflow 

Primary 

Secondary 

Flow (cfs) 

1 

0.00 cfs 

0 

0 2 

4 

6 

8 

0.04 cfs 

0.04 cfs 

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 

Time (hours)






Page 5 





design work. 


Inflow Area = 0.800 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.28" for 10yr event 













367.00 0.055 0.000 0.000 

368.00 0.099 0.077 0.077 

369.00 0.129 0.114 0.191 

370.00 0.157 0.143 0.334 

















Page 6 





design work. 


Hydrograph 

4 

4.13 cfs 




Inflow 

Outflow 

Primary 

Secondary 

3 

Flow (cfs) 

2 

1 

0.26 cfs 

0.26 cfs 

0.00 cfs 

0 

0 2 

4 

6 

8 

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 

Time (hours)






Page 7 





design work. 










Center-of-Mass det. time= 601.6 min ( 1,406.4 - 804.8 ) 





367.00 0.055 0.000 0.000 

368.00 0.099 0.077 0.077 

369.00 0.129 0.114 0.191 

370.00 0.157 0.143 0.334 

















Page 8 





design work. 


Hydrograph 

5 

5.23 cfs 




Inflow 

Outflow 

Primary 

Secondary 

4 

Flow (cfs) 

3 

2 

1.24 cfs 

1.24 cfs 

1 

0.00 cfs 

0 

0 2 

4 

6 

8 

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 

Time (hours)






Page 9 





design work. 


Inflow Area = 0.800 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.73" for 100yr event 

Inflow = 7.01 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.382 af 

Outflow = 4.15 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.344 af, Atten= 41%, Lag= 6.3 min 

Primary = 4.15 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.344 af 



Peak Elev= 368.84' @ 12.10 hrs Surf.Area= 0.124 ac Storage= 0.171 af 







367.00 0.055 0.000 0.000 

368.00 0.099 0.077 0.077 

369.00 0.129 0.114 0.191 

370.00 0.157 0.143 0.334 






Primary OutFlow Max=4.14 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=368.84' (Free Discharge) 











Page 10 





design work. 


Hydrograph 

7 

6 

7.01 cfs 




Inflow 

Outflow 

Primary 

Secondary 

5 

4.15 cfs 

4.15 cfs 

Flow (cfs) 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0.00 cfs 

0 

0 2 

4 

6 

8 

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 

Time (hours)

Town of Morrisville Planning Department 

Site Plan Requirements and Check List 

260 Town Hall Drive, Suite B 


Contact Phone Numbers: 

Planning: (919) 463-6194 

Engineering: (919) 463-6176 

Fire: (919) 463-6122 

Parks, Recreation & Cultural Resources: (919) 463-7113 

Public Works: (919) 463-7083 

Project Name: 

Project Location: 

Contact Name: 

Contact Phone Number: 

Contact Email Address: 

Project Number: 

Lead Staff Reviewer: 

Office Use Only 


I. Pre-Application Requirements: ........................................................................................... 3 

II. Application Requirements: ................................................................................................. 3 

III. Each 36” x 24” Sheet Must Contain the Following Items: ................................................. 3 

IV. Cover Sheet Information: .................................................................................................... 3 

V. Existing Survey: .................................................................................................................. 4 

VI. Site Plan: ............................................................................................................................. 4 

VII. Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure Plan: ........................................................................ 5 

VIII. Grading and Drainage Plan: ................................................................................................ 6 

IX. Utility Plan: ......................................................................................................................... 7 

X. Roadway Plan: .................................................................................................................... 9 

XI. Sanitary Sewer Catchment Area Plan: ................................................................................ 9 

XII. Soil Erosion Control Plan: .................................................................................................. 9 

XIII. Landscape Plan: ................................................................................................................ 10 

XIV. Lighting Plan:.................................................................................................................... 11 

XV. Building Elevations Sheet: ................................................................................................ 11 

XVI. Stormwater Report: ........................................................................................................... 11 

XVII. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA):......................................................................................... 11 

1 

This checklist serves as a guideline only. Please refer to Town Ordinances and Plans for specific standards. 

Meeting with Town staff prior to submittal does not guarantee the application meets minimum standards. 

Check list subject to change without notice. Please refer to www.townofmorrisville.org for the current version. 

Site plans that are determined incomplete by staff will not be accepted for review. 

Updated 8/25/08

XVIII. Flexible Design Option: .................................................................................................... 11 

2 





Updated 8/25/08

For each item, check “√” if provided or write “n/a” in the Applicant (App.) column 

App. 

Staff 

I. PRE-APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: 

A. Stormwater and conceptual site plan meeting with Planning, Engineering, and Parks, 

Recreation & Cultural Resources (Required -- at least 6 weeks prior to submittal) 

B. Transportation scoping meeting (Required -- at least 6 weeks prior to submittal) 

C. Final Memorandum of Understanding for Traffic Impact Analysis (Required -- at least 4 

weeks prior to submittal) 

D. Pre-submittal site plan meeting with Planning, Engineering, Public Works and Parks, 

Recreation & Cultural Resources (Recommended -- at least 3 weeks prior to submittal) 

E. Vetting meeting with Planning and Engineering. Site Plan and Building Elevation check 

lists must be completed and brought to meeting. Incomplete applications will not be 

accepted for review. (Required – at least 2 days prior to submittal) 

II. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: 

A. Site plan application 

B. Application fee 

C. Planning Department fee schedule 

D. Check list 

E. Plan sets stapled, collated, and folded 

F. A PDF of each sheet on CD 

G. Material board no larger than 18” x 24”. This board shall also demonstrate the primary and 

accent colors. 

H. Elevation and bench marks referenced to National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) 

I. Traffic Impact Analysis 

J. Copy of notification letter sent to Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority. 

III. EACH 36” X 24” SHEET MUST CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: 

A. Name, address, telephone number, and fax number of Engineer, Architect, or Landscape 

Architect licensed in the State of North Carolina responsible for the plans 

B. Date of drawing preparation and all revision dates 

C. Sheet number and title 

D. North arrow (Except detail and elevation sheets) 

E. The scale of the drawings listed in feet per inch in both graphic and numeric scale. 

Engineering scale between 1” = 50’ and 1” = 200’ is recommended. (Except detail & 

elevation sheets) 

F. Seal and signature of Registered Design Professional registered in the State of North 

Carolina 

G. Name of the proposed development in title block 

H. Project number in lower right hand corner (number assigned once project submitted) 

IV. COVER SHEET INFORMATION: 

A. Name of proposed development and “Site Plan” 

B. Vicinity map at 1” = 400’ with project boundary clearly marked. There must be sufficient 

detail and legibility to locate the project in reference to nearby roads. 

C. The dates, resolution or ordinance number(s), and details of any previously approved 

rezoning, design, or sign guidelines for the project site 

D. All general notes 

E. Sheet Index 

3 





Updated 8/25/08

F. Additional requirements for certain permitted uses per Part C, Article VI 

V. EXISTING SURVEY: 

A. Property lines clearly presented showing all bearings and distances, with an accuracy of 

closure in accordance with the Standards of Practice in NC GS 4730 from a current survey. 

Sufficient data must be included to reproduce on the ground every straight or curved 

boundary line, lot line, right-of-way line, and easement. Survey must be signed and sealed 

by a North Carolina Licensed Professional Land Surveyor. 

B. Names of adjoining property owners and subdivisions 

C. Adjoining zoning districts – boundaries and names 

D. Jurisdictional boundaries 

E. Adjoining current land uses 

F. Right(s)-of-way or easement(s) e.g. street, railroad, and utility 

G. Street name, right-of-way width, public or private, and state road number 

H. Water, sewer, natural gas, and other utility lines 

I. Existing structures (buildings, fencing, etc.) 

J. Topographic contours (cite source) 

K. Surface waters 

L. FEMA 100-year floodplain and floodway boundaries including FIRM number 

M. Outline of generally forested areas (note any significant stands of trees) 

N. Wetlands 

O. Rock outcroppings 

P. Cemeteries 

Q. Streets and driveways within 500’ of the project site 

R. Other significant existing features 

VI. SITE PLAN: 

A. Property lines and distances per the Existing Survey Sheet 

B. Names of adjoining property owners and subdivisions 

C. Adjoining Zoning districts – boundaries and names 

D. Adjoining current land uses 

E. Jurisdictional boundaries 

F. A table containing the following: 

1. Current property owner 

2. Developer 

3. Acreage of parcel (with and without thoroughfare right-of-way dedication) 

4. Wake County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 

5. Setbacks (front, side, rear, cornerside, minimum building separation, and maximum 

building height) 

6. Lot width at road frontage 

7. Zoning (current and proposed) including any overlay districts (e.g. noise) 

8. Current use(s) 

9. Proposed use(s) (see Table of Permitted Uses in Zoning Ordinance) 

10. Proposed building square footage 

11. Number of parking spaces required and proposed as well as the supporting calculation 

12. Type of parking lot configuration required (Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3) (see Zoning 

Ordinance) 

13. Impervious surface percentage including a breakdown for sidewalks, building(s), 

parking, drive aisles, and other non-pervious materials 

14. Net Density (Mixed Use; Dwelling, townhouse; Dwelling, condominium; and 

Dwelling apartment only) Net density is defined as the number of dwelling units on a 

parcel or tract of land divided by the net acreage of the tract or parcel. Net acreage is 

4 





Updated 8/25/08

defined as the total area of a tract or parcel of land minus right-of-way for collectors, 

thoroughfares, freeway, and expressways, slopes greater than twenty (20) percent, 

areas located in a FEMA designated 100-year floodplain, lakes or other water bodies, 

and wetlands under the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

15. Occupancy Classification 

G. Location and dimensions of the building(s) (Building footprint) 

H. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed driveways and curb cuts on site to be 

developed and on adjacent properties within 500’ of the project site 

I. Location, material, and width of existing and proposed sidewalk(s), greenway(s), and 

crosswalk(s) on the site to be developed and on adjacent properties. Sidewalk(s) shall be 

provided between street(s), parking area(s) and building(s). Crosswalk(s) shall be 

constructed of a contrasting material such as pavers or stamped concrete. Sidewalks must 

also provide direct access to the building entrance. 

J. Location and width of existing and proposed public/private greenway(s) and access 

easement(s) 

K. Road names as well as confirmation of approval from Wake County 

L. Location and width of existing and proposed rights-of-way and road widths, including road 

names and State Road (SR) number 

M. Location and width of existing and proposed median(s) (Measured from back of curb) 

N. Location, width, and type of each landscape perimeter buffer 

O. Location and width of each streetyard 

P. Location and width of minimum building setback envelope(s) 

Q. Location and dimensions of proposed dumpster, recycling container, and/or trash 

compactor(s) 

R. Location and dimensions of proposed hotboxes, HVAC units, and other on ground/free 

standing mechanical equipment 

S. Location, width, and type of each stream buffer encroaching within the site measured from 

the top of the stream bank 

T. Number of parking spaces per row (max. 20) 

U. Width and depth of parking bays, including handicap spaces 

V. Width of drive aisle(s) 

W. Pedestrian walkway or landscaped divider every three parking aisles 

X. Location of loading area with dimensions 

Y. Turning radius at entrances and traffic islands 

Z. Location and width of fire lane 

AA. Length of fire access roadway(s) with any required turnarounds 

BB. The following note: “The developer shall install street blades in accordance with the 

Subdivision Ordinance prior to the issuance of any building permit.” 

CC. Direct access to a public road with a right-of-way width of ninety (90) feet (Commercial 

buildings containing more than 50,000 square feet of gross floor area only) 

VII. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN: 

A. Property lines distinctly and accurately represented 

B. Location, length, and width of bicycle parking 

C. Detail of bicycle rack(s) 

D. Location, width, and material of sidewalk(s), greenway(s), and crosswalk(s) 

E. Detail(s) of crosswalk(s), pedestrian havens, and pedestrian push button signals 

F. Pedestrian, bicycle, and greenway infrastructure on adjacent parcels within 500’ of the 

project site 

5 





Updated 8/25/08

VIII. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: 

A. Runoff Calculations shall be provided in a report format for all proposed storm drainage 

structures including, but not limited to culverts, storm drain systems, inlets, ditches, open 

channels, BMPs, outlet protection, etc. The report shall be sealed and signed by a 

registered North Carolina Professional Engineer. 

1. Pre- and Post-Development Drainage Area Maps 

2. The site area and the corresponding watershed area for the proposed improvements 

must be delineated on the mapping. 

3. USGS site location map (identify site) 

4. FIRM map (identify site) 

5. Wake County Soil Survey map (identify site) 

6. Stormwater Impact Report (10% rule) 

7. Runoff coefficient calculations 

i. Rational Formula (up to 10 acres) 

ii. SCS Method 

8. Stormwater Quality/Quantity Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

9. An overall drainage and grading plan shall be provided showing existing and proposed 

contours. 1% minimum slope impervious areas, 2% minimum slope pervious areas. 

Stormwater Quality/Quantity BMPs must be designed. 

B. Stormwater Layout Design 

1. Storm drain systems and culverts shall be sized with a minimum of the 10-year 

intensity with the pipe flowing full. The hydraulic grade line (HGL) must be 

contained within the pipe for the 10-year storm event. The HGL shall not exceed the 

top of structures or gutter elevations for the 25-year intensity storm event. 

2. Minimum pipe diameter shall be 15 inches, minimum slope of 1% 

3. Pipe Material 

i. Reinforced concrete pipe 

4. Gutter spread calculations 

5. Storm drain outfalls shall be piped and released to the natural drainage ditch or stream. 

It may be necessary to cross intervening property and obtain private drainage 

easements to ensure discharge into natural watercourse 

6. Public stormwater easements for all pipes collecting water from public right-of-ways 

C. Stormwater Quality/Quantity Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

1. Stormwater Quality BMPs shall be designed in accordance with the Stormwater Best 

Management Practices Manual, NC, Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources. (Must control and treat the difference between the pre-development and 

post-development conditions for the 1-year 24-hour storm. Must be designed to 

achieve 85% average annual removal of total suspended solids. Must be designed to 

meet Neuse River Basin Performance Standards) 

2. Stormwater detention ponds sizing (1, 2, 10, 25, 50, and/or 100-year storm event) will 

be determined from stormwater impact report 

3. 100-year storm event cannot overtop any dam embankment. Emergency spillway 

must be provided 

D. Grading/Drainage plans 

1. Plan-Drainage structure ID, rim/grate, inlet and outlet inverts, pipe diameter, material 

and slope 

2. Stormwater Table-pipe diameter, material, grade, inlet and outlet inverts, structure 

type, drainage area and flow into the pipe structure 

3. One (1) foot contour lines 

6 





Updated 8/25/08

4. Spot elevations along accessible routes, ramps, parking stalls, building entrances, 

corners, curb/pavement corners and grade changes, high points, tie-in points, swales, 

etc 

5. Show all existing and proposed utilities (screened). Provide blow-up of utility 

conflicts 

6. Show all existing and proposed easements 

E. BMP Operation and Maintenance manual 

1. Engineers estimate for BMP 

2. Maintenance surety (bond, letter of credit, escrow) 

3. Executed agreement 

IX. UTILITY PLAN: 

A. Property lines distinctly and accurately represented. 

B. Provide fire flow for building or project. 

C. General – This information may be incorporated from other sheets within the plan 

submittal set. 

1. Add following note to each Utility Plan sheet: “All Town of Cary utility construction 

shall be performed in accordance with Town of Cary Standard Specifications and 

Details in effect at time of utility permitting.” 

2. Phased projects have unique requirements, including individual permit requirements. 

See subsequent section: Phased Plan Submittals 

3. Ensure that proposed water and sewer lines conform to the respective Water and 

Sewer System Master Plans, and Land Use Plan 

4. Provide an overall utility plan on a single sheet with a key to subsequent individual 

utility sheets. 

5. Show and label all retaining walls on the utility sheets. Include the extent of all 

structural elements including footings, tie-backs, geofabric, etc. The utilities and the 

entire easement will need to be free of these structural elements. 

6. Include any proposed requests for oversized line(s) and label as such. 

7. Identify the utility easements on the landscape plan to ensure there are no conflicts. 

D. Wastewater System 

1. Indicate projected sewer flow (gpd)(adf) for development submitted, and verify 

consistency with Town’s Master Plan. List the total linear footage of proposed 

sanitary sewer line. Include this information in the site data table. 

2. Provide sewer plan and profile (include pipe material, line size, length, slope, 

stationing, utility separations, ground elevation, and manhole inverts in, inverts out 

and top elevations, diameters). 

3. Show existing and proposed easements for all sewer lines, indicate status of easement 

acquisition across any off-site properties. Verify easement width for proposed depth. 

4. Show sewer line services and cleanouts (first cleanout required at the edge of the 

public easement or r/w) to each lot. Show service perpendicular to the main. 

5. If a pump station is being considered it is suggested you discuss this in advance with 

T.O.C. Utility Engineering staff. Specific information submittal needs are available 

on the Town’s website and by contacting staff. 

6. Note and label each individual lot that cannot be served by gravity sewer. 

7. Please clearly note on the plans any private sewer. This will require a private 

extension permit from the state. Additional information can be obtained on the State 

DWQ website: 

8. Extend sewer to all upstream areas within the gravity sewer basin. Include 

accompanying easement. 

9. Size manholes in accordance with the specifications and label all manholes that are 

greater than 4’ in diameter. 

7 





Updated 8/25/08

10. Extend sewer to all upstream areas within the gravity sewer basin. Include 

accompanying easement. 

E. Water System 

1. Provide information on pipe material, pipe size, utility separations, minimum cover, 

valves, blowoffs, backflow preventer, sprinkler vault, post indicator valves, and fire 

department connection 

2. List total linear footage of proposed public water line in a site data table 

3. Ensure that air release valves are proposed at water line high points on 8” lines and 

larger 

4. Show each water service and ensure water meter locations are outside of paved areas 

5. Show existing public waterlines and appurtenances, show easements for all proposed 

water lines, indicate status of easement acquisition across any off-site properties 

6. Show existing and proposed hydrants. All parts of the building must be within 300 

feet of a hydrant. 

7. Provide fire loop with size. 

F. Pre-treatment items 

1. The locations of grease interceptors need to be shown on the utility plans. Location of 

the multi-user interceptor may also be considered during site review. Grease traps and 

interceptors are not typically sized in the Utility Plan review stage of project 

development. However, grease interceptor location, size, design and details of 

construction shall be approved by the Town of Cary Public Works and Utilities Dept 

Pretreatment Section before issuance of a building permit by the Town of Morrisville. 

This is accomplished during the building design and permitting phase of the project. 

More information is available at http://www.townofcary.org/grease/. 

2. Facilities having qualifying trash compactors (grocery stores, cafeterias, apartment 

complexes, high rise facilities with food service, and other sites where compactors 

may be proposed) need to have these devices located in a manner suitable for covering 

and berming, with a drain to sanitary sewer, via small grease trap. Further information 

is available at http://www.townofcary.org/grease/plumbdesign.pdf 

3. For plans including a swimming pool(s): These pools most likely include filter 

backwash. Please contact the Town of Cary, Utility Pretreatment Unit. 

4. Contacts for the Town of Cary, Utility Pretreatment Unit are Donald Smith at 

donald.smith@townofcary.org or telephone 319-4564, or Leon Holt at 

leon.holt@townofcary.org or telephone 462-3871. 

G. Phased project submittals 

1. This plan set contains parcels/phases. Several additional items are required as follows. 

a. Submit a separate utility sheet(s) for each individual phase. Sewer in each 

individual phase must connect to either existing Town of Cary sanitary sewer or 

a phase in the same development scheduled to be completed/accepted prior to 

this phase. 

b. Where the sewer connection to existing Town of Cary collection system is 

conditioned upon the completion of any earlier phase(s), include a call-out note 

on the phased utility sheets stating that the sewer can not be accepted until 

downstream sewer is connected to existing Town of Cary collection system that 

has been accepted. Do the same for any sewer that is dependant on non-existing 

sewer located in projects outside of this project which is under review. 

c. Each phase must include the water main, including all valves, fire hydrants and 

related infrastructure, such that the phase is independent of the main to be 

constructed in subsequent phases. Include waterline blow-off assemblies and 

upstream sanitary sewer manholes that are provided with sanitary sewer 

8 





Updated 8/25/08

protection (std. detail 07000.17) at all phasing lines. 

d. Include a written sequence phasing plan. 

e. All easements for utilities servicing the respective phase must be recorded with 

the first subdivision plat. 

2. All off-site easements must be platted prior to issuance of water and sewer extension 

permits for property not owned by the owner of this project 

3. For each sewer and water main connection to be made to planned/existing mains that 

are, or to be, built outside the scope of this project, list which infrastructure actually 

exists at this time and which is planned infrastructure. Include the project numbers. 

4. After all project reviews are completed and construction approval is authorized, 

submittal of water and sewer extension permit applications for each individual phase 

of the project is required 

H. Reclaimed Water 

1. Design of the reclaimed water system should follow the standards in place. 

2. Provide information on pipe sizing and material. 

3. Make builder/developer aware that a Reclaimed Water permit from DWQ must be 

completed and approved before any construction can take place. (Rick Jordan PWUT, 

919-460-4939, rick.jordan@townofcary.org). 

4. Ensure that air release valves are proposed on lines 6 inches and above. 

5. Blow-off devices must be routed into the sanitary sewer, reclaimed water blow-off’s 

can not vent to the atmosphere. Blow-off’s must be located at all dead ends, and cul de 

sac’s. On transmission mains, blow-off’s need to be installed periodically for flushing 

purposes in low demand months 

6. Reclaimed water lines must either be purple (pantone 522-c), or wrapped in a 

polyethylene wrap. Tracer wire will be placed in the trench with the pipe for tracking 

purposes. 

7. All valves lids, meter box lids and appurtenances, shall be clearly marked “Reclaimed 

Water”. Reclaimed water meter boxes shall read “Reclaimed Water Do Not Drink”. 

They must also be purple (Pantone 522-c). 

8. Before any reclaimed water lines are accepted, they must be pressure tested and a bactt 

sample pulled. The sample is ensuring that there is no fecal bacteria present in the 

main. 

X. ROADWAY PLAN: 

A. Plan/Profile sheet 

1. Sufficient field survey beyond property line for sight distance and/or transition to 

existing roadway 

2. Proposed roadway design criteria 

3. Layout adequately dimensioned, raduis 

4. Existing and proposed utilities 

B. Drainage and Utility plan 

1. Existing and proposed utilities 

2. Existing and proposed contours 

3. Spot elevations at tie-in points, ramps, crosswalks, gutterlines, swales, etc 

C. Pavement marking and signage plan in accordance with MUTCD and/or NCDOT standards 

D. Cross section 

E. Pavement design 

XI. SANITARY SEWER CATCHMENT AREA PLAN: 

A. Contact Engineering for Details 

XII. SOIL EROSION CONTROL PLAN: 

A. See Wake County Environmental Services for requirements 

9 





Updated 8/25/08

4. Supporting calculation 

Z. The following note: All landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity 

AA. Landscaping from recommended trees and shrubs list 

BB. Specify additional landscape requirements for loading areas 

XIV. LIGHTING PLAN: 

A. Pole details, including height, color, and manufacturer 

B. Fixture details, including color, graphic, shape, wattage, IESNA cutoff classification, 

lumen rating, and manufacturer. This includes both pole and fixtures affixed to building. 

C. Footcandle grid (Not required on public streets) 

D. Summary table that shows minimum, average and maximum FC values as well as the 

average to minimum uniformity ratio (Not required on public streets) 

E. Maintenance factor (Not required on public streets) 

F. Streetight pole locations (This does include thoroughfares adjacent to the project) 

G. The following note: The developer is required to have a signed reimbursement agreement if 

the proposed street lighting is decorative. 

XV. BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHEET: 

A. See Architectural Check List 

XVI. STORMWATER REPORT THAT INCLUDES: 

A. Pre- and Post-Development Drainage Area Maps 

B. The site area and the corresponding watershed area for the proposed improvements shall be 

delineated on the mapping 

C. FIRM map 

D. Wake County Soil Survey map 

E. Stormwater Impact Report (10% rule) 

F. Runoff coefficient calculations 

1. Rational Formula 

2. SCS Method 

G. Stormwater Quality/Quantity Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

H. The site area and the corresponding watershed area for the proposed improvements shall be 

delineated on the mapping 

XVII. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA): 

A. See Article VIII Section 5 “Content of a Traffic Impact Study” of the Zoning Ordinance 

B. Three hard copies (double-sided) and one digital copy of the Traffic Impact Study 

XVIII. FLEXIBLE DESIGN OPTION: 

A. Meet with Planning staff 

B. Confirmation from Planning staff that FDO application is complete 

11 





Updated 8/25/08

EXHIBIT 16 

July 21, 2010 

ACACIA CREDIT FUND 10 A LLC 

201 E WASHINGTON ST STE 1760 

PHOENIX AZ 85004-2233 

SUBJECT: 

PROPOSED 199’ MONOPOLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER 

2399 WEAVER FOREST WAY, MORRISVILLE, NC 

Dear Neighbors: 

American Tower Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ATC) has filed a Special Use Permit 

application with the Town of Morrisville’s Planning Department to construct a 199’ monopole 

tower to support telecommunications antennae for wireless communications services in your 

area. This structure will provide collocation space for several wireless service providers’ 

antennae so that they can improve wireless service in this area of Morrisville and western Wake 

County. 

The facility, as proposed, will be located on a wooded, 12.54 acre tract of land, owned by 

Katherine R. Everett Heirs, Tax Parcel I.D. Number (PIN) 0746478679. ATC’s 80’ X 80’ leased 

parcel will be located west of the intersection of Weaver Forest Road and Church Street as 

shown on the enclosed map. ATC believes this is an excellent site because of its location in 

this heavily wooded part of the land and its ability to provide extensive coverage to this area of 

Morrisville. 

In an effort to answer any questions you may have regarding this proposed Antenna Support 

Structure enclosed are answers to the most commonly asked questions about projects of this 

nature. 

In the next few weeks, you will receive a Notice of a Public Hearing from the Town of Morrisville 

indicating the date, time and location of the Planning Board Meeting, and the subsequent Town 

Council meeting regarding this Special Use Permit. We invite you to attend these meetings. 

Should you have any questions regarding our project, please feel free to contact me at (919) 

771-1961 or by email at scottsmith@excellcommunications.com 

Sincerely, 

Scott B. Smith 

Scott B. Smith 

Director of Services, Carolinas Region 

Excell Communications, Inc. on behalf of American Tower Corporation 

Enclosures 

CC: Rodney Watkins, Town of Morrisville Planning Dept. 

223 US Highway 70 East, S-120, Garner, North Carolina 27529 --- 919-771-1961 (o); 919-771-1962 (fax)

EXHIBIT 16

EXHIBIT 16 

WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES: 

ANSWERS TO THE MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 

1. Is the proposed facility a relatively large or small one? 

The proposed support facility is a relatively small 199-foot monopole. In contrast, many 

telecommunication towers are 250 to 300 feet and television towers rise to heights well 

over 1,000 feet. 

2. Will the proposed facility generate more traffic in the area? 

No. The proposed facility will be unmanned. It will consist of equipment at the base of 

the tower, and will be surrounded by a locked fence. The only traffic generated by the 

facility will consist of monthly visits by providers’ service vans for inspection and 

maintenance of the facility. 

3. How strong is the proposed facility? 

American Tower Corporation, Inc. (“ATC”) locates its antennas on many 

telecommunications facilities across the country with the same design style and 

construction as this proposed facility and thousands of facilities such as this one are 

located in the State of North Carolina. Similar towers withstood a direct hit by hurricane 

force winds from Hurricane Fran in 1996 and even more recently by Hurricane Isabel. 

None were damaged to any significant degree, and each remained standing under those 

extreme conditions. In fact, similar support structures in south Florida sustained winds of 

approximately 200 mph from Hurricane Andrew without structural failure, and, in many 

places there, they were the only structures left standing. This is especially important in 

light of the fact that, during such severe weather, traditional “land-line” communications 

systems typically fail. Because these extreme circumstances also give rise to the need for 

emergency services, citizens in areas without wireless services may be unable to access 

those services precisely when they need them most. Thus, the citizens in the Weaver 

Forest Way area of Morrisville will directly benefit from the availability of wireless 

telecommunications services. 

4. What will happen if the proposed structure becomes obsolete? 

The owner of the tower will dismantle and remove the tower and all of the structures at 

the site. ATC will cover the costs of taking the tower down and restoring the land to the 

same condition as it is in today, including all necessary landscaping. 

5. Will the proposed facility be lit? 

No. There will be no lights on the tower. A motion detector lamp will be placed within 

the fenced compound at roughly the seven-foot height. This lamp will provide just 

enough light for maintenance on the equipment pad if technicians need to visit the site at 

night.

EXHIBIT 16 

6. Was the proposed site the only location considered for development? 

When ATC begins the process of locating a facility, they first attempt to identify existing 

structures that may support antennae. There were no existing structures that meet ATC's 

structural specifications and the wireless service providers’ coverage needs, potential 

sites for a new tower are evaluated by a team of engineers, zoning specialists, and 

technical experts. These experts select the best site from among the identified options. 

Their selection is based upon a number of factors, including the size of the tract of land, 

accessibility, the density of development in the area, topography, and proximity to 

prospective users. Based upon all of these considerations, the proposed site was the very 

best location for this tower. 

7. Why are towers required for these systems? 

Because wireless services, by definition, are not connected to existing "land-line" wire 

systems, the services’ voice and data signals travel through the air—just as radio signals 

do—to receiving and transmitting antennae. Because these transmissions can be blocked 

by existing structures and land elevations (and even vegetation), the antennae must be 

elevated so they may receive, transmit, and “hand-off” their voice and data signals across 

the designated geographic territory. Where antennae cannot reach a particular area, these 

signals cannot be received from the area and services cannot be delivered to the area. For 

example, when a wireless telephone service subscriber travels from an area where 

coverage exists to one where coverage does not exist, the subscriber’s phone call is 

disconnected, or “dropped.” Thus, strategically located towers are essential for the 

delivery of wireless digital services. 

8. Can wireless service providers locate their antennae on existing structures? 

Yes. Whenever possible, wireless services providers locate their antennae on existing 

structures. Providers have every incentive to locate their antennae on existing structures. 

Constructing a new facility to support a provider’s antennae is an expensive and time 

consuming undertaking. By contrast, locating the same antennae on existing structures is 

a relatively quick and cost-effective means to the same end. Thus, ATC and other 

wireless service providers build new towers only when they have determined that no 

structure exists with characteristics that would both support their antennae and meet their 

coverage needs. 

9. Once this tower is built, will there be other towers built in the same area? 

For the reasons explained above, other carriers with coverage needs in the area will 

“collocate” their antennas on this tower rather than building another tower near it. This 

way, as few support structures as possible will need to be constructed. Toward that end, 

ATC develops every site in a manner that optimizes the ability of other service providers 

to collocate on the site. This approach is consistent with the goals of communities and 

industry to simultaneously minimize the number of towers and maximize the number of 

wireless services provided in the area of coverage. 

10. How will this wireless service support facility benefit the community? 

Antennas to provide wireless communications services are like any other infrastructure. 

In addition to the emergency response enhancements discussed above, this support 

facility will immediately provide you with high-quality, uninterrupted wireless services, 

including wireless service plans that are currently unavailable in your area. Multiple 

wireless service providers will be able to locate their antennae on this structure. In 

addition, as technology advances, new telephone, internet, video, and other wireless 

services being developed may be available to you in your home from these facilities.

EXHIBIT 17

EXHIBIT 17

EXHIBIT 17

EXHIBIT 17

EXHIBIT 17

EXHIBIT 19

EXHIBIT 19

R-6 CU 

R-6 CU 

^ Proposed 

RMF CU 

NC 540 WB 

NC 540 EB 

CHURCH ST 

EXHIBIT 20 

AD 

IM 

Tower Location 

GOBLET LN 

CHAPEL HILL RD 

LONGWILLOW CT 

AD 

ELLENBURG CT 

JADEWOOD DR 

4 

MAYO FOREST LN 

JEWEL STONE LN 

R-8 CU 

EVANWOOD LN 

August 2010 

WEAVER FOREST WAY 

MASON FARM RD 

AT&T CLEGG Telecommunications Tower Site 

Special Use Permit (SUP 10-01) 

GRACE POINT RD

2010-064 - (SUP 10-01) - Town of Morrisville

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?