Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:19-•cv-•1.2333 Document 1. Filed 1.1/1.3/19 Page 16 of 21 <br /> 128. The Board did not retain an expert to review Blue Sky's technical data on any aspect of its <br /> application and did not otherwise provide-any data to refute the technical reports and analysis <br /> provided by Blue Sky and its experts which were reviewed and confirmed by the Commission and <br /> its retained expert. <br /> 129. Despite the abundant evidence submitted by Blue Sky .and. its team of experts to <br /> substantiate a significant gap in wireless coverage and network capacity issues for two national <br /> wireless service providers and the lack of any feasible alternatives to remedy those coverage gaps <br /> and network capacity issues,on October 16,2019,the Board voted to deny Blue Sky's application <br /> for a special permit with two in favor and three opposed. See Exhibit 2 Decision. <br /> 130. The denial states that the proposed monopole would inflict the precise adverse impacts that <br /> provisions of the Mashpee Zoning Bylaws were prevented to enact but fails to cite any evidence of <br /> the same and ignores the data provided by Blue Sky altogether. <br /> 131. The denial states that the Proposed Site will inflict "dramatic and wholly unnecessary <br /> adverse impacts upon the aesthetics and character of neighboring homes" ostensibly ignoring the <br /> detailed findings of the Commission and Blue Sky's experts. <br /> 132. • The denial states that the Proposed Site will inflict "substantial and wholly unnecessary <br /> losses in the values of adjacent and nearby residential property values" ostensibly ignoring the <br /> detailed findings of the Commission and Blue Sky's experts. <br /> 133. The denial states that Blue Sky has "failed to demonstrate that less intrusive and more <br /> compliant alternatives are not available"blatantly ignoring the extensive alternative site analysis <br /> provided to the Board, blatantly ignoring the oral and written testimony of the radio frequency <br /> engineers on alternative technology, and blatantly ignoring the Commission's findings. <br /> 134. The denial states that"it is unreasonable for the applicant to reject and defeat less intrusive <br /> and more compliant alternatives due to the voluntary response to the RFP and execution of the lease <br /> with the Town of Mashpee." <br /> 16 <br />