Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:19-cv-12333 Document 1-4 Filed 11/13/19 Page 29 of 43 <br /> Amos House, and#4 in the NEPA summary report stated there were no adverse impacts. The photo <br /> was reviewed,which was taken toward the balloon,and there was no visual of the balloon. <br /> 'Regarding additional correspondence,the Chair added that: Opposition-Michael and Teresa Ronhock, <br /> John and Jane Lebel,Jody Davis and Freda Bryon, Wendy and Danielle Pennini,Donna and Steve <br /> Gallagher,Joan Ford,Michelle Swilla,Barbara Allen,Jody Bergeron,Lisa Pasquali,John Halperin, <br /> David Coughlin,Peter and Laraine Michaelson,Alexander and Bella Slavin,Diane and Dennis <br /> Scannell and Jane Scannell. In addition,the Chair referenced a 17 page petition submitted in <br /> opposition to the project,which had not been cross referenced to letters sent individually,but <br /> represented 250 signatures. <br /> The Chair referenced an email received from Sharon DeFrancesco,who.was present at the meeting. <br /> Ms.DeFrancesco had inquired whether the Town could release an RFP without specifying a location <br /> but questioned how only one parcel of town-owned land could be the only plausible location for the <br /> cell tower. Mr.Lehrer responded that Towns issued RFPs in order to solve a problem,granting <br /> development rights on Town owned property. The site at Red Brook Road had been identified as a <br /> solution to address the coverage gap and respondents could submit a proposed plan to address the <br /> problem. Mr.Lehrer further stated that the RFP could not grant development without the proposer <br /> acquiring the appropriate permitting. Additionally, a town could only issue an RFP on a parcel that <br /> they owned. Ms. DeFrancesco inquired about another possible site and Mr. Lehrer responded that it <br /> was his understanding that there was no other parcel within the search area that could provide a <br /> solution to the coverage problem, and the coverage deemed adequate. Ms.DeFrancisco inquired <br /> whether it was the Town's goal to provide complete coverage and Mr.Lehrer responded that complete <br /> coverage would be ideal but that the problem had been identified and a solution proposed,but no <br /> solution would be perfect. The Chair read the first sentence.of the RFP Introduction, and indicated that <br /> she did not recall specific details for coverage location. The Chair was unsure about the Committee <br /> that developed the RFP,suggesting that there could have been a detailed discussion directly with the <br /> respondents. Ms.DeFrancesco stated that she understood there to be a problem that needed to be <br /> addressed,noting that it was likely additional technology would be needed and, as a resident and <br /> taxpayer, suggested that the project be completed correctly the first time. <br /> The Chair asked how many additional members of the public wished to speak, wanting to allow further <br /> comment from Board members and the project proponent,before discussing the closure of the Public <br /> Hearing, Mr.Phelan suggested that the same issues continued to be discussed. <br /> Mr.Robert referenced the RFP requirements and the Chair responded that she would be reading the <br /> RFP again. <br /> The Chair recognized the project proponent. Ms. Thompson stated that the RFP was issued by the <br /> Town, and the site had been within an active search ring for many years. The problem was not new, <br /> and this application was the first solution to the problem. Ms.Thompson further indicated that there <br /> was no perfect solution, and that the solution was dictated by the carriers and not the Town or public. <br /> There were no additional comments from the Board members. The Chair suggested considering a <br /> motion to close the Public Hearing and deliberate at the next public meeting. The Board would not be <br /> 9 <br />