02/13/2019 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA Decision

Home Browse Search

MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION FOR A VARIANCE Blue Sky Towers II, LLC 101 Red Brook Road (Map 104 Parcel 2) Mashpee, MA 02649 V-2019-10 Attorney Paul Revere,from Centeiville,MA represented two residents who oppose the cell tower. He handed the Board his written comments, and recited the M.G.L. Ch. 40A Sec. 10 bylaw stating that there was no evidence of a hardship for this proposal. He said that he never heard a word from the applicants regarding the hardship relating to soil,shape or topography or anything of the site that says it's different than the rest of the zoning district. The impact is on the people of New Seabury's homes,they're the ones getting this service,and they ought to have the impact,not his clients. This is about coverage,not about the property. There were several abutters that spoke in opposition of the cell tower; • Michael Ronhock • Teresa Ronhock • Brian Hyde • Sharon, on Scituate Road • Carl Lubekzyk • Linda Lubekzyk • Dan Kupperman • Sharon Muller Attorney Thompson concluded under the Massachusetts Zoning Act, G.L. c. 40A §10 certainly would submit that topography makes it challenging to necessitate the height as one of the many reasons. In addition with the configuration of a cell site, it has to be particularly located at a height in a particular area, and based upon the topography in this area it necessitates 150 ft. in order to accomplish the goal of filling that coverage gap. Therefore, the unusual topography at this site is a hardship and meets the burden of proof for a variance from the Bylaw requirements with respect to height. The issue here is a topographical hardship due to the valleys and hills which require the necessary height in order that the tower can be usable, thus effective. The Board reviewed the detailed presentations from both the Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile Representatives, and determined that due to the shape and topography of the south Mashpee area, the height of a 150 ft. cell tower would provide the coverage necessary to fulfill the service gap. The Board also based their determination from the Board of Health comments that were read into the record as stated; "The plans have been reviewed along with Dr. Haes report on the RF signal strength and exposure probabilities. The FCC, CDC and American Cancer Society website reports on cell towers have been reviewed. The above information indicates that the cell towers offer very little chance of exposure to ground level occupants. 5