My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/16/2019 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
>
10/16/2019 PLANNING BOARD Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/30/2021 9:47:22 AM
Creation date
10/7/2020 3:02:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
PLANNING BOARD
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/16/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
impacted at the real estate office at New Seabury. The Chair stated that they were in receipt of 5 letters <br /> and 2 views. Mr. Phelan stated that he had a 365 foot tower behind his home, and the value of his <br /> home had quadrupled and it was his opinion that the values would not be impacted. Mr. Callahan <br /> added that the project proponent indicated that they would be happy to camouflage the pole and Mr. <br /> Phelan agreed that it was on record. The Chair stated that no modification to the plan had been <br /> received and she had heard no commitment to the monopine, or response in writing to Mr. Balzarini's <br /> request about the monopine. The Chair had requested that Ms. Thompson address any comments from <br /> the September 4 minutes, but did not, and she also refused to allow there to be a continuance. Mr. <br /> Phelan stated that Ms. Thompson felt she had answered all of the questions. Mr. Callahan again stated <br /> that Ms. Thompson offered the option of camouflage. <br /> Chairman Waygan, Mr. Balzarini and Mr. Cummings agreed with the finding. <br /> Mr. Phelan and Mr. Callahan disagreed. <br /> Mr. Phelan and Chairman Waygan disagreed about findings versus opinions. <br /> The Chair turned to page 2 of her findings and read. <br /> THE PROPOSED TOWER WILL INFLICT SUBSTANTIAL AND WHOLLY <br /> UNNECESSAR Y L OSSES IN THE VAL UES OF ADJACENT AND NEARBY <br /> RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. <br /> The people who own homes abutting and in close proximity to 101 Red Brook Road have <br /> concluded and testified that the proposed wireless service facility will inflict wholly unnecessary <br /> losses in the values of their properties, and have called for the Planning Board to deny the Blue <br /> Sky Tower special permit application. These include: <br /> Letter from Barry and Jewel Blake dated September 17, 2019 <br /> Letter from Jerilyn Collier Davis and Freda Bryon-Twyman dated May 29, 2018 <br /> Letter from Michael and Teresa Ronhock dated December 24, 2018 <br /> Email from Wendy and Daniel Pennini dated May 12, 2019 <br /> Email from Donna and Steve Gallagher dated May 13, 2019 <br /> Email from Barbara Allen dated May S, 2019 <br /> Email from Jody Bergeron dated May 5, 2019 <br /> Email from Lisa Pasquali dated May S, 2019 <br /> Email from Peter and Laraine Michaelson dated May 6, 2019 <br /> Email from Alexander and Bella Slavin dated May 7, 2019 <br /> Email from Diane and Dennis Scannell dated May 15, 2019 <br /> Mr. Michael Ronhock also provided the following analysis entitled: <br /> Property Value and Property Tax Impact <br /> Blue Sky Towers Project Proposal at 101 Red Brook Road <br /> which concludes that all homes within 400 yards of the proposed wireless service facility would <br /> decline in assessed value in the range of 10% to 20%. <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.