Laserfiche WebLink
as a preferred design according to town bylaw and the Cape Cod Commission regulations. <br /> During Cape Cod Commission discussion,there was consideration of other design alternatives. <br /> If the monopine was.preferred by the Board,they would submit plans. The Chair noted that the <br /> Cape Cod Commission deferred the decision to the Planning Board and their website included <br /> the plans, so requested that the engineered plans be submitted to the Board for consideration and <br /> Ms. Thompson agreed. Ms. Thompson noted that there were additional design alternatives to <br /> include coloring in light blue or grey, adding that the project proponent was open to those <br /> alternatives. The coloring was difficult to see in the projected photos, but would be included in <br /> packets. <br /> Referencing the applicant's response to Mashpee's RFP in the Special Permit application, the <br /> Chair requested that a copy of the RFP also be submitted as part of the application. Ms. <br /> Thompson stated that she could not provide a copy of the RFP but that it could be acquired from <br /> the Board of Selectmen. The Chair asked Ms. Thompson to make arrangements to have it <br /> forwarded to the Planning Board but Ms. Thompson reiterated that it would need to come from <br /> the Selectmen and suggested that the planning Board could ask Town Counsel if there was a <br /> question about the RFP. The Chair noted that the RFP was referenced in application materials <br /> and requested that the applicant provide a copy of the RFP. Ms. Thompson stated that she could <br /> request a letter from Town Counsel confirming that there was a signed lease document as a result <br /> of an RFP,which was a public document that could be requested from the Board of Selectmen. <br /> Ms. Thompson stated that she would be discussing with her counsel and Town Counsel whether <br /> the applicant would provide the RFP to the Planning Board. The Chair stated that requests for <br /> Town Counsel typically went through the Town. <br /> The Chair referenced the Bylaw that did not properly identify the 1998 Town Meeting vote, <br /> noting its correction December 20, 2018. The correction defined the Wireless Overlay District <br /> shall include . . .all other land in the Town which is not located . . .within the R-3 or R-5 zone <br /> District. Ms. Thompson confirmed that the proposed site was located within the R-3 zone and <br /> not located within the Overlay District, which is why, as previously stated,the applicant sought a <br /> variance with the ZBA on February 12. The Chair stated that the application referenced the <br /> Wireless Overlay District in multiple places,particularly Section 5 regarding Satisfaction of the <br /> Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities. The Chair inquired whether the application <br /> would be updated and Ms. Thompson responded that she could but felt that she had provided <br /> sufficient testimony regarding the need for a variance for the height restriction, which has been <br /> properly obtained. Ms. Thompson will submit a letter in writing to update the application. <br /> The correction of the Zoning Bylaw was referenced in Ms. Thompson's December 2018 letter to <br /> the Planning Board, submitted for the public record, along with the ZBA Decision and Notice of <br /> Complaint filed against the decision and appealed to Superior Court. Additionally submitted was <br /> the Town Meeting Warrant and confirmation from the Town Clerk that Article 14 did not pass at <br /> Town Meeting. <br /> 9 <br />