Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:19-cv-12333 Document 1-4 Filed 11/13/19 Page 11 of 43 <br /> Mr.Balzarini inquired whether the site in New Seabury could have closed the coverage gap. Ms. <br /> Thompson stated that there was a proposal,but that she did not state that it would cover everything. <br /> Mr.Balzarini inquired why the Federal mandate would not apply to the New Seabury site and Ms. <br /> Thompson responded that the site was not feasible because there was not a willing landlord and the site <br /> considered had conservation restrictions. Mr.Balzarini inquired about the wildlife sanctuary located <br /> near the proposed site and Ms. Thompson responded that it did not sit within the boundary area and <br /> reference Exhibit 5. <br /> Mr. Cummings inquired about the use of Verizon antennas on telephone poles in New Seabury and <br /> Ms.Thompson stated that she was unaware of any such arrangement. Ms. Thompson..referenced <br /> Exhibit 10 regarding a letter and feasibility of using alternative technology, and the reasons it would <br /> not work. Likewise,Exhibit 14 was a report from T-Mobile stating that alternative technology,would <br /> not be feasible. <br /> There was discussion regarding the information provided by the cellular services to Blue Sky Towers, <br /> and the Radio Frequency Engineers hired by the cellular services to conduct the studies and <br /> information regarding closing the coverage gap. <br /> Richard Karreocke,representing T-Mobile,referenced his Exhibits 12, 13 and 14. Mr. Kaneocke. <br /> described T-Mobile's need to extend coverage and its location at 135 feet,with the proposed cell <br /> tower. Existing coverage was currently offered at three sites, at 130 feet in 550-B Falmouth, 165 feet <br /> 512-A Industrial Drive Mashpee and 93 feet in 511-C Falmouth. <br /> Mark Correnti,Residential Appraiser, provided a report located in Exhibit 17. Mr. Correnti stated that <br /> he considered existing cell towers,comparing properties and analyzinghome sales. Mr. Correnti noted <br /> that buyers set the market values. Referencing 9 Nancy Lane with a view of a cell tower,Mx. Correnti <br /> indicated that the property sold quickly and above the comparison. A home at 12 Windmere Way also <br /> had.a view of a cell tower'and had a similar sale as its comp. Additional properties at 114 Dover Road <br /> and 2 Oxfordshire Place,in sight of cell towers, also featured sales similar to their comps. Mr. <br /> Correnti added that there were no filed tax abatements in Mashpee, due to'the proximity of the cell <br /> towers. Mr. Correnti indicated that buyers were paying frill price for properties. Mr..Correnti also <br /> referenced his June 13 letter that highlighted information from the National Institute of Science Law <br /> and Public Policy and a cell tower study from New Zealand. <br /> Mr. Balzarini inquired about the location of the comps and Mr. Correnti confirmed that they were not <br /> located within proximity of a cell tower. Mr.Phelan inquired about the height,of the towers in the <br /> pictures and Mr. Correnti believed that they were 150 feet and 250 feet. Mr. Callahan inquired <br /> whether his company performed other cell tower market studies and Mr. Correnti confirmed that they <br /> did. <br /> Ms.Thompson explained the results of the photo simulation package,which included balloons at <br /> varying heights and simulations of the fully loaded cell tower at 150 feet and,125 feet, painted light <br /> blue,painted light grey and as a monopine. <br /> 5 <br />