Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:19-cv-12333 Document 1-4 Filed 11/13/19. Page 15 of 43 <br /> Federal, State and Town government,located in the area,which totaled 468.33 acres and inquired <br /> whether those sites had been considered for use. It was Mr.Ronhock's opinion that the cell tower did <br /> not have to be located in anyone's backyard with that many acres available for a cell tower. Mr. <br /> Ronhock referenced a previous parcel of conservation land in Mashpee that had been used for <br /> infrastructure to create drainage pits. Mr.Ronhock noted that coverage maps continued to show that <br /> many areas in Popponesset would still lack coverage with the addition of the proposed cell tower. Mr. <br /> Ronhock also referenced the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of February 2012,Section 6409 regarding <br /> cell towers,which allowed an additional 10 feet in height to approved cell towers. Mr.Ronhock also <br /> referenced the outdoor antennae system that was considered at New Seabury. <br /> Jane Lebel,Lisa Lane,stated that she had attended all previous meetings and felt that the Town should <br /> look at all options to ensure that all areas received appropriate cell service coverage. <br /> Erik Lubrano,Blue Castle Drive, believed that Blue Sky had not proven that the proposed site would <br /> be the best site for the project and felt that the location was inefficient for the necessary coverage. Mr. <br /> Lubrano inquired whether the real estate assessment included discussion with the homeowner to <br /> determine whether they were advised to ask for a lower price due to the presence of a cell tower. Mr. <br /> Lubrano asked that the Planning Board not vote in favor of the project. . <br /> There was no further comment from the Public so the Chair turned to Board members for questions <br /> and comment. <br /> Mr.Callahan inquired about the height variance from the ZBA and Ms.Thompson confirmed that the <br /> ZBA had approved a height variance of 150 feet. Ms.Thompson confirmed that the variance was <br /> found in Exhibit 7 and the DRI was located in Exhibit 6. <br /> Mr. Phelan inquired about the additional percentage increase that could be utilized without additional <br /> approvals: Ms.Thompson responded that additional information would be submitted to address the <br /> various issues stated. Ms.Thompson indicated that Section 64019 allowed an increase of 20%, but <br /> that the project proponent needed only the 150 feet at this time. <br /> The Chair stated that she would be submitting,for the record, the Zoning Bylaw,Mashpee's RFP for a <br /> cellular wireless equipment at Fire Station#2 issued in 2016,Lease Agreement between Mashpee and <br /> Blue Sky Tower in 2017,the failed Town Meeting vote October 2018 to amend the Bylaw to place the <br /> site in an overlay district, ZBA variance appealed by abutters to the Superior Court in March 201.9, <br /> Massachusetts Chapter 40 Zoning Act and Istotrope Report on the Application to the Cape Cod <br /> Commission for the DRI. The Chair asked that the documents be placed on the record for access to the <br /> public, the project proponent and to Board members. The Chair also referenced monitoring the cell <br /> tower and removal if abandoned, and asked that it be incorporated into the discussions and a plan <br /> provided, as found in Mashpee Bylaw Section 174,45L and Section 174,45M. <br /> The Chair expressed concern about the Cape Cod Commission's DRI decision as it related to Page 6, <br /> Finding 25, stating that the cell tower was in the overlay district. The Chair has asked the Cape Cod <br /> Commission to reconsider the decision and strongly recommended that the applicant request a <br /> modification. Ms.Thompson responded that she had spoken with Chief Regulatory Officer Idman <br /> 9 <br />