Laserfiche WebLink
speak, Mr. Fudala responded that it was in reference to the parcel not being located in the Overlay <br /> District and since the property had been leased, required a change to the Zoning. .Additionally, <br /> reference had been made to other Districts in the Zoning that needed to be updated. Mr. Ronhock <br /> stated that he did not feel that the Planning Board could rule on the Article that directly impacted the <br /> ruling of the Cape Cod Commission that was currently in process. <br /> Linda Lubelczyk, 56 Tracy Lane, suggested that the Town made a mistake, leasing a property that <br /> could not be zoned as needed. Ms. Lubelczyk stated that, when attending the Cape Cod Commission <br /> meeting, it was clear that the proj ect would not solve the problem. The Chair reminded Ms. Lubelczyk <br /> that they could not share details from the meeting. <br /> Paul Warren, 97 Surf Drive, inquired whether there were other more suitable sites located within the <br /> existing overlay. The Chair stated that there were no other for the certain situation. Mr. Lehrer <br /> responded that the existing overlay included other parcels of land, commercial, municipal and private. <br /> Mr. Warren requested that the Planning Board not support the Article until the matter was fully <br /> considered by the Cape Cod Commission, <br /> The Chair acknowledged Mr. Lehrer, who stated that the published Zoning Bylaw included this parcel <br /> in the Wireless Overlay, an opinion confirmed by Town Counsel and the Cape Cod Commission. Mr. <br /> Fudala drafted the Article, which would not approve or disapprove a project, but better clarify <br /> ambiguity in the language. Mr. Lehrer stated that the Planning Board would remain the permitting <br /> authority for a wireless tower. <br /> Jim Felly, Popponesset, inquired whether a location at New Seabury would better address the needs. <br /> Lisa Murphy, 21 Nohono Road; opposed the Article and inquired if it was already zoned on the map, it <br /> made no sense to consider another Article. In addition, Ms. Murphy inquired why the hearing was not <br /> published in the Mashpee Enterprise. The Chair responded that Town Staff was responsible for <br /> advertising. Mr. Lehrer responded that the Article was executed on September 11, but the first public <br /> hearing notice required two weeks' notice and the Enterprise's deadlines did not allow for posting so it <br /> was instead published in the Cape Cod Times, as allowed. Ms. Murphy inquired about the necessary <br /> notice of deadline for the Mashpee Enterprise and Mr. Lehrer indicated that the information would be <br /> available in the Board of Selectmen's packet. Ms. Murphy referenced emails beginning September 21 <br /> about Article 14 and Mr. Lehrer further explained the State requirements to publish Public Hearings in <br /> a local paper, initially published September 19"'. Ms. Murphy expressed concern regarding the lack of <br /> transparency, further noting that she had cell service in New Seabury. Ms. Murphy suggested that, if <br /> there was a further need in that area, the tower should then be placed in New Seabury. <br /> The Chair stated that both Public Hearings would now need to be pushed back. <br /> MOTION: Mr.Balxarini made a motion to push both Ockway Highlands Public Hearings to <br /> 8:15 p.m. Mr. Kooharian seconded the motion. All voted unanimously. <br /> MOTION: Mr. Balzarini made a motion to push the 7:45 p.m. Town Meeting Warrant Public <br /> Hearing to 8:30 p.m. Mr. Kooharian seconded the motion. All voted unanimously. <br /> 4 <br />