10/16/2019 PLANNING BOARD Minutes

Home Browse Search

Article I Purpose and Validity Section 174-1 Purpose; Establishment of Districts: ...the height, area, location and use of building and structures and the use of land throughout the Town of Mashpee are hereby regulated as provided herein, and the town is hereby divided into districts hereinafter designated, defined and described...), Article VI—Land Use Regulations Section 174-24.C. 2 A special Permit may be issued only following the procedures specified by the General Laws and maybe approved only if it is determined that the proposed use or development is consistent with applicable state and town regulations, statutes, bylaws, and plans,...,will not have a significant impact on... neighboring properties. Article IX Section 174-45.3.A. Personal Wireless Service Facilities: Purpose and Intent: For the purpose of minimizing the visual and environmental impacts, as well as any potential deleterious impact on property values, of personal wireless service facilities, no personal wireless service facility shall be placed, constructed or modified within the town except in compliance with the requirements of this section, in conjunction with other regulations adopted by the Town... " Special Permit requirement for the construction and use of a personal wireless service facility cannot be granted unless and until the Board finds that the facility will not adversely affect the neighborhood. The Proposed Tower Will Inflict Dramatic and Wholly Unnecessary Adverse Impacts Upon the Aesthetics and Character ofNei h boring Homes. There is Substantial Evidence of the Actual Adverse Aesthetic Impact the Proposed Tower Would Inflict Upon the Residential Area. The people who own homes abutting and in close proximity to 101 Red Brook Road have concluded and testified that the proposed wireless service facility will have an unacceptable, adverse aesthetic impact on their homes, and have called for the Planning Board to deny the Blue Sky Tower special permit application. These include: Letter from Barry and Jewel Blake dated September 17, 2019 Letter from Jerilyn Collier Davis and Freda Bryon-Twyman dated May 29, 2018 Email from Joan Ford dated May 13, 2019 Email from Peter and Laraine Michaelson dated May 6, 2019 Letter Jane Scannell dated May 9, 2019 It is the finding of one or more Planning Board member upon reviewing the Photographic Simulations of the proposed wireless service facility, which resulted from a balloon test conducted on 41412018, that the property at 95-103 Degrass Road and 56 Blue Castle would be suffer significant and unacceptable adverse aesthetic impact, and that the proposed monopole would dominate the aesthetics of the homes. It is the finding that the project proponent failed to modify the plan to reduce the aesthetic impact on the abutting and neighboring property, such as moving the facility away from the abutting properties and/or camot(aging the monopole as a tree, i.e. a monopine. Mr. Phelan disagreed with the finding, stating that only two homes would be affected, as compared to many more at a location in New Seabury. Mr. Balzarini suggested that there would be less homes 8