Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Thompson referenced a site in New Seabury where Verizon previously held a lease, but the lease <br /> had been terminated by New Seabury, and New Seabury was not interested in pursuing a new <br /> agreement when Verizon again approached them. Ms. Thompson recently reached out again to New <br /> Seabury management, who initially expressed interest in the proposal, but the identified site was listed <br /> as an Agreement for Judgement under the Cape Cod Commission and New Seabury, and fell under <br /> conservation and/or recreation restrictions. Ms. Thompson provided details in Exhibit 50. <br /> Ms. Thompson referenced the DRI decision from the Cape Cod Commission, who approved the cell <br /> tower in October 2015. Ms. Thompson read portions of their decision. Once the project proponent <br /> learned that the proposed site did not lie within the Wireless Overlay District, they sought relief and <br /> were granted a variance from Mashpee's Zoning Board of Appeals to build the 150 foot cell tower. <br /> Ms. Thompson cited the Telecommunications Act of 1996, suggesting that the Board had to consider <br /> the TCA due to the existing significant gap of coverage in Mashpee. Additionally,Ms. Thompson <br /> stated that there was case law that would support the interpretation, with further information available <br /> in Exhibit 60. Ms. Thompson stated that, this was the only feasible proposal, not only as a matter of <br /> convenience but for critical emergency life-saving operations, specifically for the area of South <br /> Mashpee. <br /> Keith Vallente, a radio frequency engineer representing Verizon, referenced a report and maps to <br /> visually identify the needs of Verizon, located in Exhibit 9. Mr. Vallente discussed three existing <br /> towers, 140 feet in Falmouth, 70 feet in East Falmouth and Mashpee South Industrial Drive at 142 feet. <br /> Although the cell towers provided some coverage to the area, the topography and distance made it <br /> unable to support reliable communications, creating a coverage gap in the southern portion of <br /> Mashpee. The cell tower site at Red Brook Road would increase coverage for 1,400 additional <br /> residents over an area of 2.2 miles and create a more robust network in the area. Mr. Vallente noted <br /> that Verizon was greatly challenged by providing sufficient coverage with increased usage of multiple <br /> wireless devices. Mr. Vallente also described the way in which coverage areas on the fringe of cell <br /> towers offered erratic service, creating more of a burden to the distant cell tower. A cell tower in <br /> closer range would provide better coverage. <br /> Mr. Cumming and Mr. Balzarini referenced the maps and inquired further about the existing towers <br /> and continued gaps in coverage despite the addition of the new cell tower. Mr. Cummings inquired <br /> about using lower posts closer to areas where more coverage was needed. Mr. Vallante, referenced the <br /> map and stated that coverage would be degraded in some areas where it would be less reliable due to a <br /> high spot, but would still exist. Mr. Balzarini inquired about coverage for other providers with their. <br /> location lower on the tower and Ms. Thompson responded that T-Mobile would present their coverage, <br /> but that no other provider had yet been contracted. <br /> Mr. Callahan inquired whether the area under the service threshold would allow phone calls. Mr. <br /> Vallante responded that there were a number of factors to determine coverage level, and could depend <br /> upon number of users at one time, network loading and what users were doing at a particular time. Ms. <br /> Thompson added that there was no perfect site to serve every deficient spot, particularly with a large <br /> gap. Ms. Thompson added that there was a mandate by the Federal government to cover every area, as <br /> they can, with reasonable speed, until a secondary future plan could be developed. <br /> 4 <br />