Laserfiche WebLink
Denise Peterson, resident of Popponesset, confirmed that she also had no cell service during the <br /> microburst, expressing concern if she had needed access to emergency responders, particularly as trees <br /> were down and children were outside playing. Ms. Peterson added that, with no electricity, her <br /> landline also did not work. Ms. Peterson asked Planning Board members to vote for the cell tower for <br /> safety reasons. <br /> Leland Muldowney, Water Way, stated his support for the cell tower, noting that he was a <br /> telecommuter who was not able to work from his home without cell service. In addition, Mr. <br /> Muldowney pointed out that home values could be diminished by not having adequate cell service. <br /> Scott Benstein, Paddock Circle, expressed concerns about cell service and safety when his parents <br /> visit, in case there was a need for access for medical reasons and stated his support for the cell tower. <br /> Bill Peterson, resident of Popponesset, described the tree loss and potential danger as a result of the <br /> micro burst and expressed concern about children playing outside afterwards, and the potential need <br /> for access to communication in case of an emergency. Mr. Peterson felt as though they were being <br /> treated like second class citizens adding that, for three days, they had no access to communication as a <br /> result of the microburst and limited road access. Mr. Peterson stated that, as a former law enforcement <br /> officer, adequate access was not being provided for the area of Popponesset <br /> Marlene Perkins, Bowsprit Point, expressed concern regarding safety and lack of cell service at the <br /> beach. Ms. Perkins stated that no cell service available at the beach impacted the entire community <br /> and emphasized that she was in favor of the cell tower. <br /> Laraine Michaelson, Degrass Road, stated that those who opposed the cell tower did not do so because <br /> they felt that Popponesset was undeserving of cell service but because they were concerned about the <br /> location of the cell tower. Ms. Michaelson inquired whether there had been consideration of placing <br /> the facility at the New Seabury Highwood water tower at 111 Rock Landing Road, to allow greater <br /> access to cell service. Ms. Michaelson referenced other lawsuits against cell towers due to health and <br /> safety issues. Ms. Michaelson further pointed out that property values referenced in the report reflected <br /> details from 2015, when concerns regarding cell tower were not available. Ms. Michaelson stated that, <br /> as an abutter to the cell tower, she was not opposed to cell service for New Seabury but that she was <br /> opposed to the proposed location for this cell tower. <br /> Dana Roberts, Degrass Road, confirmed that the water tower at 111 Rock Landing Road was owned by <br /> the Mashpee Water District, and featured 60.5 acres, which could serve as a site for the cell tower. In <br /> addition, the site provided a 40-50 foot elevation above the hill of concern, and could address the areas <br /> of concern in New Seabury and Popponesset that were lacking coverage. It was Mr. Robert's opinion <br /> that, based on the maps of service provided, 25% of New Seabury still would not receive cell service <br /> with the cell tower. Mr. Roberts also noted that the maps were mislabeled showing New Seabury <br /> located at Degrass Road. Mr. Roberts also inquired about the hiring of an independent RF engineer <br /> and the Chair responded that she would ask the Board if they wished to do so. Mr. Roberts also noted <br /> that the project proponent responded specifically to the Town's RFP for a cell tower at the Fire Station, <br /> suggesting that it was unlikely they considered other sites, but that the priority should be providing <br /> service to residents of New Seabury. <br /> 7 <br />