Laserfiche WebLink
by the Bylaw. Mr. Cummings inquired whether the New Seabury site and driving range had <br /> been reviewed. Ms. Thompson confirmed they had, adding that Verizon initially had a lease <br /> with New Seabury, but the lease.was mutually terminated.by both parties before the.issuance of <br /> this RFP. Ms. Thompson indicated that, prior to release of the RFP, Verizon Wireless again <br /> approached New Seabury, but there was no interest, making it a not feasible alternative. <br /> Mr. Weeden referenced Verizon's coverage maps and inquired about the difference between <br /> Beta coverage and Gamma coverage, from the same tower. Mr. Vellante stated that the site on <br /> Industrial Drive featured three sectors which addressed different directions, north, southeast and <br /> southwest. The map showed the additional capacity burden of that site,which could be <br /> alleviated with the proposed cell tower. <br /> Referencing New Seabury/Rock Landing at a 60 foot elevation, Mr. Weeden inquired about <br /> analytical data that would show why the site was not chosen. Mr. Vellante understood that <br /> Verizon had a proposed facility at the location, but he believed that the feasibility was an issue of <br /> other elements such as landlord, lease ability, constructability or other issue. Mr. Weeden asked <br /> again for data about the site to better clarify the hardship. Ms. Thompson stated that she wanted <br /> to keep the hardship issue separate. Regarding feasible alternatives, Ms. Thompson stated that <br /> the area in New Seabury was initially considered because it was central to the gap. However, as <br /> previously mentioned, without a willing landlord, it was not a feasible site. Ms. Thompson <br /> stated there was no feasible site in New Seabury of suitable size, with suitable topography, with a <br /> willing landlord. Mr. Weeden asked for the vetting of the site and Ms. Thompson stated that an <br /> Alternative Site Analysis, Exhibit 11, was included in member packets. Ms. Thompson stated <br /> that 1 t 1 Rock Landing Road was located on the last page, adding that the Country Club location <br /> was not included in the report because it was not feasible, due to an unwilling landlord. Mr. <br /> Weeden inquired about the three commercial properties that were not feasible and Ms. <br /> Thompson responded that they were not feasible due to radio frequency,but that there was no <br /> additional information. Mr. Weeden stated that it would seem that, with a higher elevation,there <br /> would be better coverage area for carriers, and closer to Popponesset where coverage was <br /> needed, and located on commercial property. Ms. Thompson responded that it was unfortunate <br /> that it did not work out between Verizon Wireless and New Seabury and no viable alternatives <br /> were identified to close the gaps. <br /> Mr. Balzarini referenced Ms. Thompson's prior statement that the Federal government could step <br /> in regarding a Planning Board decision, but asked why the government then could not step in <br /> regarding the Rock Landing site. Ms. Thompson responded that the government expected due <br /> diligence showing there was a significant gap in coverage with no feasible proposals for what <br /> was being proposed. Ms. Thompson stated that the provided technical information showed the <br /> gap from two wireless service providers, which was reviewed by a wireless consultant. <br /> Referencing elevation and the monopole, Mr. Weeden inquired about images noting a height of <br /> 150 feet,but other details in the packet noted a 200 foot monopole. Ms. Thompson responded <br /> that the 150 foot monopole was approved by the Cape Cod Commission. Mr. Weeden inquired <br /> 7 <br />