04/17/2019 PLANNING BOARD Minutes

Home Browse Search

and a baby lived, expressing concern about potential health issues. The Chair noted that the Planning Board could not make a decision based on health issues. Dianne Scannel, DeGrasse Road, located behind the site with small children,read a letter expressing her concerns about the project and the potential noise, vibration and flying debris. Although health concerns could not be considered, Ms. Scannel expressed concern about potential violation of radiation rules, indicating that the project should be placed closer to the area where it would serve the intended people or in a conservation area rather than in a residential area. It was Ms. Scannel's opinion that the Town Meeting process should not be ignored and it was the responsibility of the Planning Board to support the process. Ms. Scannel presented a letter to the Planning Board with 215 signatures, opposing the location of the tower in a residential area on Red Brick Road. Elana Doyle, Sunset Strip, identified the home as the owner's primary asset and expressed concern about what the neighbors were experiencing with a threat to the value of their primary asset. Ms. Doyle referenced the unwilling landlords in New Seabury and pointed out that residents tonight were indicating that they were also unwilling landlords. Peter Michaelson,Degrasse Road and neighbor to the Mashpee Fire Department, stated that the property line referenced in the fall zone was not based on a certified plot line. Mr. Michaelson's land was developable and would be required to develop a property line with an engineer if he were to develop his parcel. Mr. Rowley responded that the Assessor's map and map of the area appeared to be consistent. The carved out property appeared to be well within the limit as seen on the plan and was not a certified plot plan provided it was well within the limits and did not appear to be an issue. The Chair inquired about any additional public comment, and there was none. The Chair invited the project proponent to respond to additional comments but given the volume, Ms. Thompson preferred to address the comments in writing. Mr. Rowley reviewed the design standards for the shelter and confirmed that although it was not a requirement, one of the three options must be selected and included underground facilities, enclosed within a shelter or visibly screened with appropriate vegetation. The Chair referenced letters received regarding the project. 5/29/18 Jerilyn Collier Davis and Freda Byron-Twyman Letter in opposition 12/24/18 Michael &Teresa Ronhock Letter in opposition 1/2/19 Michael &Teresa Ronhock Packet in opposition 4/1/19 Philip McCahill Email in support 4/1/19 Emily Hughes Letter in support 4/2/19 Judy Kahalas Letter in support 14