The applicant for a special use permit that would have allowed a cellular tower on his property says he will immediately appeal a decision by city council tonight to deny the proposal.
“I am shocked the Roanoke Rapids City Council would vote to supersede federal law,” said David King, the applicant. “This is clearly in violation of the Federal Communications Commission Act of 1996 and will hinder rollout of high-speed wireless Internet in the historic district of the city.”
King said this evening it was evident that council made its decision based on comments made at an August public hearing that focused on the condition of part of his building, the former Roanoke No. 2 mill, and not the tower itself. “That was evident in the public hearing and the public statements by council members in the press.”
Asked what he would do following tonight’s denial of the special use permit, King said, “North Carolina general statute allows for special use permits to be appealed directly to superior court. We will file our appeal immediately.”
Council had initially nixed the proposal following the August public hearing, however it was determined that it did not formally dispose of the matter then.
City Attorney Gilbert Chichester took blame for the snafu, explaining council properly went through sections one and two of the worksheet that helps guide the city’s governing body on the matters it must consider in special use permit deliberations.
When it came to the third section of the worksheet, Councilman Greg Lawson cast a motion that was never seconded.
Tonight, council revisited the third section of the special use permit worksheet and Councilwoman Suetta Scarbrough took the leading role on seeing that section was properly voted on.
In the end council agreed the proposal, which would have allowed U.S. Cellular to put a tower at the back of King’s property, did not conform with the city comprehensive development plan or other plans and turned the matter down.
Steve Hill, who with his wife Connie both spoke at the August public hearing and again tonight during a public comment section of the meeting, said he was pleased with the decision. “I can’t say enough good things. They’ve been very supportive. I’m very pleased with the way this turned out.”
King had earlier stated his displeasure with the matter in an email to city Planning and Development Director Kelly Lasky. “I must admit that I am quite baffled by the council’s decision to continue this application,” he wrote after council pulled the matter from its agenda last month. “While I am aware that a few of the neighbors are concerned about Building ‘B,’ there was not one single piece of evidence presented at the August 14th hearing that would prohibit us from constructing this tower.”
He said in the email, “The Telecommunications Act of 1996 dictates that a local governing board can only deny a tower permit based on ‘substantial evidence’ presented during the application process or the public hearing.”
King wrote, “In reviewing the minutes of the public hearing conducted on August 14th, and approved by the RR City Council last night, not one single piece of evidence that the tower should be denied was presented by the City Council or the public at large. Overwhelmingly the comments were about Building ‘B’ and me as a person. None of these facts are relevant to the application on the table.
“Whether the Council likes this project or me individually is not germane to the application. Federal law requires ‘substantial evidence’ to be presented during the quasi-judicial proceeding that the proposed tower should not be built. This clearly was not done.”
Wrote King: “Litigation of this issue will not benefit any of the parties involved and will clearly be a total waste of the City of Roanoke Rapids’ time and money. I am hoping cooler heads will prevail.”
