Laserfiche WebLink
f <br /> necessary. In reference to Mr. Lehrer's quoting of 174-45-3 in the third paragraph, Mr. Ronhock <br /> pointed out that the firstparagraph ro osed minimizing the visual and environmental impact to <br /> p proposed g <br /> the property value. Mr. Ronhock stated that the site was not chosen except by convenience <br /> rather than by engineer. Mr. Ronhock discussed potential impacts such as to the parking lot with <br /> heavy equipment and referenced research of available properties, exhibit 14, with a list of <br /> properties that were discounted as not viable alternatives. Mr. Ronhock stated that 90% of the <br /> properties were located to the north of the proposed site, further away from coverage area and <br /> only 3 properties south. Notes indicated only that sites were outside of the search area,but it was <br /> located within the coverage area and Mr. Ronhock suggested that there were additional parcels <br /> that could be considered as a site, such as Rock Landing Road. Mr. Ronhock also expressed <br /> concern about the photos of simulations not shown at tonight's meeting, with question about the <br /> scale of the balloon test and also questioned in the report. Mr. Ronhock also suggested that there <br /> were discrepancies regarding the size of the parcel and input from townspeople regarding the <br /> best location of the cell tower. Referencing the coverage maps, Mr. Ronhock inquired about <br /> changes and revisions to coverage areas and the differences between the technologies of the two <br /> carriers and the differences in coverage. Mr. Ronhock stated that much of Monomoscoy Island <br /> would continue to have no coverage while the Wildlife Refuge would have coverage. Mr. <br /> Ronhock expressed concern about the potential need for a second tower and questioned the <br /> reason why the tower would be located on the edge of the coverage area. Mr. Ronhock provided <br /> documentation to the Planning Board. Mr. Ronhock also referenced an allowable 15% extension <br /> of the tower or 20 more feet, which would impact the drop zone. The Chair suggested that Mr. <br /> Ronhock could submit additional information in writing. Mr. Lehrer pointed out that some of <br /> the documents provided were duplicates and already submitted to the public record, but the Chair <br /> responded that she would allow it. <br /> Jen MacDonald, DeGrasse Road, stated that she would be in view of the cell tower,which she <br /> never anticipated when she purchased the house 25 years ago. Ms. MacDonald stated that there <br /> were laws in place and the cell tower was being proposed in an area outside of the approved <br /> Wireless Overlay District. Ms. MacDonald asked that the Planning Board respect the vote of the <br /> people who did not want cell towers placed outside of the Wireless Overlay District and <br /> requested hard evidence that alternative sites were fully considered. <br /> Claudia Fernado stated that, as a customer of Verizon, she had never had an issue with coverage, <br /> stating that it was not right for the cell tower to be placed in a residential area and the people <br /> should be considered, not the money. <br /> Linda LeBelznik, Tracey Lane, stated that she understood the need but questioned why the cell <br /> tower would need to be located at the proposed site. Ms. LeBelznik stated that the people of the <br /> Town had spoken and indicated that they did not want the cell tower in the residential area. <br /> Referencing the report that the New Seabury landlord was unwilling, Ms. LeBelznik suggested <br /> that New Seabury and Popponesset residents should get together to discuss their needs for the <br /> cell service. Ms. LeBelznik referenced a home within site of the proposed tower where a toddler <br /> I <br /> 13 <br />