Laserfiche WebLink
about the diminishing of coverage as carriers were located below a certain elevation. Ms. <br /> Thompson responded that there would be space for other carriers at 126 feet and 96 feet,but <br /> there were no firm commitments from other carriers at this time,noting that an existing tower <br /> created a viable option to cover a percentage of a gap. Mr. Weeden suggested Mashpee could be <br /> approached for a second tower in the near future and Ms. Thompson responded that an approved <br /> tower provided a viable solution for a carrier, and more cost effective than building and <br /> permitting a second tower. Mr. Weeden stated that the TMobile report showed that coverage <br /> was greatly diminished as it lowered,not covering the target area in New Seabury. Ms. <br /> Thompson stated that carriers used different technologies and licenses that could impact <br /> coverage. Mr. Weeden inquired whether back-up generators were required for carriers and Ms. <br /> Thompson responded that it was not a Federal mandate. TMobile would be providing back-up <br /> batteries. <br /> Mr. Hansen inquired about the percentage of residents impacted by the coverage and the number <br /> of homes in the area. Mr. Vellante responded that, based on an analysis of 2010 census data, an <br /> additional 1,400 residents would receive coverage, and structures numbering 2,300, based on <br /> GIS data. Mr. Hansen inquired about the percentage of coverage for the area but Mr. Vellante <br /> did not have the information. Mr. Hansen suggested that the new green coverage area was <br /> predominantly undeveloped, except for the more dense area by the beach where there would not <br /> be coverage. Ms. Thompson stated that various cell sites worked together to close the gaps in <br /> coverage, adding that undeveloped areas still needed coverage due to potential emergencies. <br /> A recess was taken at 8:40 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 8:52 p.m. <br /> Chairman Waygan referenced Mashpee's Personal Wireless Service Facilities Bylaw and the <br /> Radiation RFR Standards in Section H that applications required FCC Guidelines to be met and a <br /> copy of a letter of approval from Mass Department Public Health 105 CMR 122.000 submitted. <br /> The Chair has seen the FCC Guidelines letter but inquired whether the approval from <br /> Massachusetts Department of Public Health was included with the application. Ms. Thompson <br /> responded that it was not included because CMR 122.000 was no longer a good regulation of the <br /> Commonwealth of Massachusetts and no longer required. Ms. Thompson further stated that the <br /> Massachusetts Board of Health website had a document stating that it was no longer required and <br /> would print a copy to send to Mr. Lehrer. The Chair requested a document stating that 105 CMR <br /> 122.000 is no longer in effect and Ms. Thompson agreed. <br /> The Chair stated that the Bylaw also allowed the Planning Board to require the applicant to fund <br /> the services of an RFN Engineer to review the documentation regarding the FCC Guidelines. <br /> Mr. Balzarini liked the idea. The Chair asked that Mr. Lehrer to look into the matter further. <br /> The Chair referenced page 10 of the revised photographic simulation packet. Mr. Lehrer stated <br /> that he was unable to print out the simulations for the Board,but would provide them as a hard <br /> copy at a future meeting. The Chair inquired whether plans had been submitted for the <br /> monopines. Ms. Thompson stated that the original plans submitted were designs for a monopole <br /> 8 <br />