Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:19-cv-12333 Document 1-4 Filed 11/13/19 Page 33 of 43 <br /> MOTION: Mr.Phelan made a motion to accept the proposal as written with conditions,the <br /> condition being that it successfully go through the ZBA process. Mr..Callahan seconded the <br /> motion. <br /> Initiating deliberations,the Chair invited Mr.Phelan to offer any findings to support the motion. As it <br /> was Mr.Phelan's first deliberations,he deferred to the senior members of the Board. The Chair <br /> invited Mr. Callahan to present any findings,who also deferred. The Chair confirmed that she had <br /> written findings but invited other members to present their findings. <br /> Mr.Balzarini stated that he was against the permit because it had been addressed at Town Meeting. <br /> Mr.Balzarini stated that the site had never been zoned to allow for the cell tower. Mr. Balzarini stated <br /> that Town Meeting voted down Article 14, suggesting that it was a done deal. Mr.Balzarini indicated <br /> that a failed Article could not be revisited at Town Meeting for another two years and inquired bow the <br /> matter could then be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals,when it failed at Town Meeting. In <br /> addition,Mr. Balzarini stated that there would be double coverage from the Industrial Park to the <br /> proposed site, but where the service was needed in New Seabury and South Cape Beach, the proposed <br /> cell tower would offer only spotty coverage. Mr.Balzarini further stated that the people of New <br /> Seabury could petition to have the cell tower placed in New Seabury,noting that there would be <br /> sufficient land, and it would provide better coverage. Mr.Balzarini noted that the proposed site <br /> covered wilderness areas and indicated that he would vote against the motion. <br /> Mr. Cummings stated that he would also vote against the motion, agreeing with Mr.Balzarini <br /> regarding the zoning, adding that the tower did not belong at the proposed site. Mr. Cummings added <br /> that the proposed site would not provide the necessary coverage and recommended that it should.be <br /> sited at New Seabury on the golf course. <br /> The Chair offered the findings she drafted. The Chair stated that findings were necessary in the event <br /> that the matter ryas appealed to Federal Court and it would be.necessary for the Board to provide their <br /> reasonings if they did not accept the ramifications of the Federal Communications.Act. <br /> TOWN of MASHPEE ZONING BYLA WS DOE NOT ALLOW THE PROPOSED WIRELESS <br /> COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY-AT 101 REDBROOK ROAD,MA; <br /> The personal wireless service facility, a 150'monopole telecommunication tower, is proposed at 101 <br /> Red Brook Road, Nfashpee MA (Assessor's Map 104, Lot 2) in Zoning District R-3. <br /> 101 Red Brook Road is located outside the Town of Mashpee Wireless Facility Overlay District. <br /> The use and construction of a grouhil mounted 150 foot wireless service facility (monopole) is not <br /> permitted outside the Town of Mashpee Wireless Facility Overlay District. Outside of the District, a <br /> groundmounted facility can only by ten(10)feet higher than the surrounding building or trees: <br /> Article III Section 174-5:C The Wireless Facility Overlay District shall include...all other land <br /> .in the Town not located...within the R-3 or R-5 Zoning Districts... <br /> 2 <br />