Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:19-cv-12333 Document 1 Filed 11/13/19 Page 18 of 21 <br /> 144. The Board's denial fails to cite any evidence to support the assertion that Blue Sky failed <br /> to demonstrate that less intrusive and more compliant alternatives are not available and in fact,the <br /> Board blatantly ignores the un-refuted evidence examining and ruling out alternatives. <br /> 145. Blue Sky provided the Board with a detailed alternative site analysis and answered all <br /> questions from the public concerning specific sites. <br /> 146, The Board falsely states that Blue Sky rejected alternatives due to the fact that this site is a <br /> result of an RFP when Blue Sky never maintained such reasoning. <br /> 147. The Board's denial misconstrues the Mashpee Zoning Bylaws by stating that the proposed <br /> personal wireless communications facility is not allowed when it is in fact permitted by special <br /> permit. <br /> 148. Blue Sky provided an overwhelming quantity of un-refuted evidence presented by a team <br /> of experts and reviewed and approved by the Commission's staff,members and expert. <br /> 149. Faced with a plethora of empirical evidence on the existence of the Coverage Gap and <br /> capacity needs,the absence of feasible alternatives, and the lack of impact on property values,the <br /> three no-voting members of the Board simply ignored it. <br /> 150. Under the.substantial evidence test, while not required to credit an applicant's evidence, <br /> the Board may not simply ignore the evidence where it is uncontroverted and there must be a valid <br /> reason for rejecting it. <br /> 151. In this case, the Mashpee Zoning Bylaws go even further in requiring the Board not take <br /> any action that would violate the TCA and effectively prohibit the provision of wireless services. <br /> 152. The Board did not put forth one single valid reason to reject the uncontroverted evidence <br /> of the Coverage Gap,lack of alternatives,lack of affect on property values or any other issue. <br /> 153, Rather than'rendering a decision on the basis of the application,exhibits,expert testimony <br /> and Commission's review,the Board's denial is based upon pressure from the voting public and <br /> general hostility to the Proposed Site. . <br /> 18 <br />