10/02/2019 PLANNING BOARD Minutes

Home Browse Search

and how they were working and inquired whether the Chair had been in receipt of such research. The Chair had not and Mr. Lehrer responded that research had not been done, but he would add it to his agenda, further noting that it was not relevant to the current application. Ms. Ronhock completed research on her own, reporting that Provincetown used the system. Ms. Ronhock spoke with the Dennis Town Planner, Daniel Fortier who confirmed that they were using the system, with 12 systems approved by their Planning Board. Dennis liked the systems in order to provide necessary cell coverage but also because they had restrictive zoning bylaws that did not allow for cell tower heights above 30 feet in residential areas. Ms. Ronhock further stated that Mr. Fortier indicated the systems worked best in beach areas and asked if he would be willing to speak with Mr. Lehrer, but he responded that he had already discussed the systems with him. Ms. Ronhock also researched systems in Wellesley, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket and provided research for the Board's consideration. Ms. Ronhock noted that David Maxim's initial Isotrope report to New Seabury indicated that DAS was a viable system. Ms. Ronhock reported that New Seabury already had a system designed. It was Ms. Ronhock's opinion that the DAS was a superior system that would not create coverage gaps. Mr. Lehrer responded that he regularly spoke with his colleagues, but that he never spoke with Mr. Fortier regarding cell towers or DAS systems, adding that his last conversation with Mr. Fortier was seeping a reference for 950 Falmouth Road for affordable housing. Mr. Lehrer stated that he would not withhold information from the Board or the public. Ms. Ronhock submitted her documentation to Mr. Lehrer for distribution to Board members and the project proponent. The Chair recognized the project proponent to address any comments. Ms. Thompson stated that there was not one site that would cover-every gap, but that it was up to the carriers to identify the gaps in coverage and the best solutions to address those gaps. Ms. Thompson stated that this location was the only solution. Regarding the RFP, only one,site had been put forward and Ms. Thompson would have no idea whether or not the Town had considered additional sites. Ms. Thompson stated that the independent site analyses completed by the applicant and service providers was separate from the RFP. Ms. Thompson noted that the RFP provided an attractive option because the Town was a willing landlord, creating the only solution to address a significant gap. Ms. Thompson referenced the NEPA report in regard to the oceans and wildlife which indicated that there would be no adverse impacts to the ocean or wildlife, historic properties or endangered species. Ms. Thompson also encouraged review of the analyses provided by the RF engineers stating that DAS would not be feasible technologies for the location, adding that anecdotal evidence did not have any bearing on the application being considered since testimony had been received that the tower-was needed in the proposed location. Regarding the Peninsula Club, Ms. Thompson stated that there could have been a report indicating that an alternative system could work by the water, but there were not two federally licensed service providers stating that it would close the gap. Ms. Thompson asked that the Board carefully review her memorandum identifying the federal parameters of the law, adding that the applicant had conclusively shown there was a coverage gap and capacity problem, and that they had two carriers that could bring services to the area and there was no alternative technologies to address the issues. Ms. Thompson asked that the Board close the public hearing and vote on the matter, or continue the deliberations to another-night. Ms. Thompson stated that they would not agree to another continuance because they had presented their case and answered all questions posed. 7