Laserfiche WebLink
compared to the median value during the same time period. It was Mr. Correnti's opinion that <br /> buyers were paying for residences, rather than consideration of a cell tower. Mr. Balzarini <br /> referenced the pictures shown, suggesting that the cell tower likely would not be seen on <br /> property due to tree screening, and inquired about the distance of the proposed tower from view, <br /> to which Mr. Correnti responded that the site would be approximately 400 feet from the closest <br /> home. <br /> Mr. Balzarini inquired about the zoning of the cell tower in a residential area and Ms. Thompson <br /> responded that wireless facility service use was allowed in R-3, but the height required a <br /> variance from the ZBA. Mr. Balzarini inquired about the proximity to the wildlife sanctuary and <br /> Ms. Thomspon responded that NEPA reviews had been completed in coordination with Federal <br /> authorities and since being located within a boundary acquisition zone, could approach the owner <br /> to purchase the land,but it has been concluded by Cape Cod Commission professionals that it <br /> was permissible. Mr. Balzarini inquired whether the Cape Cod Commission's consideration was <br /> based on the site being located in the Wireless Overlay District and Ms. Thomspson responded <br /> that the decision was based on their analysis and noted that the use was allowed in R-3 Zoning <br /> by Special Permit from the Planning Board. <br /> Mr. Balzarini inquired about hardship and the need for the project proponent to review the entire <br /> town for additional potential sites, inquiring about other sites considered. Ms. Thompson <br /> responded that an extensive alternative site analysis had been completed by the project proponent <br /> and carriers, within a search area,to review significant coverage gaps. Ms. Thompson reported <br /> that many properties had been examined, and a table submitted with the application, with more <br /> than 40 sites identified and ruled out. Ms..Thompson stated that there was not one feasible <br /> alternative to the proposed site that the applicant or carriers could identify. Mr. Balzarini <br /> referenced the coverage maps described previously and inquired whether it would be more <br /> effective to locate the tower closer,to improve cell coverage toward the beach. Planning Board <br /> members asked that the public not clap. Ms. Thompson responded that the radio frequency data <br /> from the carriers determined the area requiring coverage. One site would not cover 100% of an <br /> area, all sites worked together to close the gaps, and it was possible that an area by the beach <br /> may not be covered. Ms. Thompson stated that it was not the target to provided 100% coverage. <br /> Mr. Balzarini suggested that people had expressed concern to him about not having coverage by <br /> the beach, sharing a story from a resident about needing coverage. Ms. Thompson stated that the <br /> carriers utilized scientific data to close the gaps and individual Board members or audience <br /> members referencing their coverage and carriers was not scientific data. Mr. Balzarini agreed <br /> that there was a gap in coverage. <br /> Mr. Cummings agreed that the cell tower should be located closer to the ocean. Mr. Cumming <br /> inquired about the number of back-up generators and Ms. Thompson responded that Verizon was <br /> the only carrier proposing a generator and that future carriers may wish to seek permitting <br /> separately to add a generator. Mr. Cummings expressed concern about multiple generators <br /> running at the same time for each carrier. Ms. Thompson reported that a sound study provided in <br /> packets indicated that four generators would be well below allowable noise levels, as determined <br /> 6 <br />