Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:19-cv-12333 Document 1-4 Filed 11/13/19 Page 17 of 43 <br /> issues was for the Fire Station. In addition,the water tower was located within the Conservation and <br /> Open Space restricted area,and moving the tower from one site to another,would likely still have <br /> impacts to others. Mr.Cummings inquired about the outdoor antennae distributing systems and Ms. <br /> Thompson referenced Exhibits 10 and 14,from the engineers,which indicated that the technology <br /> would not be a feasible alternative. Mr. Cummings inquired about increasing the height of the <br /> Falmouth antenna and Ms.Thompson responded that they had no control over that tower, and that it <br /> would not accomplish the goal to fill the coverage gap. <br /> Mr.Balzarini expressed concern that the coverage maps continued to show gaps in coverage and Ms. <br /> Thompson responded that those areas were considered less than acceptable coverage,but there was no <br /> one tower that could cover every pocket of coverage,so the goal was,to do the best that they could, <br /> with other solutions to be,considered in the future. Mr. Balzarini expressed concern that another tower <br /> could be considered for the future,possibly in New Seabury. Ms.Thompson emphasized that there <br /> was no feasible option in New Seabury with one reason being that a private property owner could not <br /> be forced into allowing a cell tower. Mr.Balzarini stated that if the tower was approved,he preferred a <br /> tree. <br /> The Chair acknowledged Mr. Lehrer who stated that the Water District served as a quasi-government <br /> agency,but operated independently of the Town, so was similar to a private landowners. Mr. Lehrer <br /> stated his belief that the Water District-had been approached but opted not to lease the water tower to a <br /> cell phone tower developer. ,Mr.Lehrer wished to clarify public comments regarding federally owned <br /> property but the Chair stated her preference that the project proponent respond to public comments and <br /> that Mr.Lehrer provide his technical review of the proposal. Mr.Phelan suggested that Mr.Lehrer <br /> share his comments and the Chair expressed her concern that the Town Planner was not a neutral party. <br /> Mr. Lehrer stated that he.was offering objective information regarding regulations for properties <br /> identified by the public for consideration. Mr. Lehrer clarified that the Town Meeting vote in October <br /> 2018,which failed,was to include the parcel in question within the wireless overlay, not to support or <br /> deny the project being considered. Due to the parcel not being located within the overlay,it was <br /> necessary'to seek a variance from the ZBA,which was granted. Federal or state properties previously <br /> mentioned were likely within the Wildlife Refuge or Tribal properties and would likely have <br /> conservation restrictions. Mr.Lehrer added that Chapter 84 allowed for the development of <br /> conservation land with the approval of the Conservation Commission. Mr.Lehrer confirmed that he <br /> had been in receipt of quotes should the Board wish to hire an RF engineer. <br /> Regarding conservation parcels,Mr. Phelan inquired whether the sites had been considered and Ms. <br /> Thompson stated that the restrictions were pursuant to a court settlement and different from seeking <br /> approval from the Conservation Commission. The site at the fire station was preferable because it <br /> would not have conservation restrictions. <br /> Mr.Rowley was recognized and reported the results of his technical review of the plan dated July 24, <br /> 2019. Mr.Rowley stated that the paving detail on the plan should be incorporated into the full set of <br /> plans,rather than an attachment. All prior'issues had been.addressed. Ms.Thompson stated that the <br /> sheet detail was included in the exhibits. . <br /> 11 <br />