Laserfiche WebLink
consistent with the Mashpee Comprehensive Plan and local by-laws, with the <br /> possible exception of the fall zone restriction addressed in Finding 13 above. <br /> Height: <br /> Finding 18) Verizon data show more change in coverage when the height of the <br /> monopole is reduced from 150 to 125 feet than the AT&T/Bechtel data show for a <br /> change from 150 to 90.feet. Analysis by Mr. David Maxson, Broadcast Signal Lab, <br /> consisting of a shadow plot from 90 feet, suggests that providers will obtain <br /> respectable coverage at this elevation above ground. Given the lack of adjacent <br /> facilities with which to overlap coverage, and the Regional Policy Plan goal to <br /> maximize co-location, adequate coverage for six carriers may be obtained by a tower. <br /> of 150' in height. <br /> Finding 19) Consistent with the Regional Policy Plan and the Technical Bulletin, <br /> the proposed tower height would provide for co-location of 6 carriers at or above 100 <br /> feet. <br /> Finding 20) Guidelines contained in Section VII of Technical Bulletin 97-001 <br /> recommend that "licensed carriers should share personal wireless service facilities <br /> and sites where feasible and appropriate, thereby reducing the number of personal <br /> wireless service facilities that are stand-alone facilities".- The alternative to a single <br /> 150 foot tower is multiple lower towers located throughout Mashpee and the region. <br /> The proposed project is designed to limit the number of cellular towers through <br /> maximized co-location, and is therefore consistent with these guidelines provided <br /> that only one wireless tower is constructed on Echo Road in Mashpee.. <br /> Finding 21) The.Subcommittee requested that the applicant provide documentation <br /> that the proposed tower will not interfere with air safety or operations at the nearby <br /> military base. The Commission received correspondence from Mr. Everett.Oakes, <br /> Chief Analyst,-ANG TERPS confirming that a tower of up to 154 feet could be <br /> constructed with no impact to the instrument procedures at Otis Air National <br /> Guard Base. An e-mail from Brian Nickerson, Planner, E&RC, Mass. Military <br /> Reservation states that the Massachusetts Air Guard (which has overall,control of <br /> the airfield) has been.notified regarding the tower, and has made comments to the <br /> FAA. The FAA has verified that the facility poses no hazard to air navigation based <br /> on its height and location. An e-mail from Angel Cases of the FAA states, in part, <br /> "...in accordance with my regulations, I have come to agreement with all FAA lines <br /> of business, outside aviation industry concerns, and all military units including the <br /> Coast Guard, Army, Navy, Air Force and all their sub-components such as the <br /> reseives.:.Lhope this helps clarify that an approval by the Regional ATDD-of the FAA <br /> is an approval by all aviation industry parties concerned." A letter was received <br /> from Lieutenant Colonel Timothy A. Mullen, Attorney Advisor, Massachusetts Air <br /> National Guard, stating,in part, "Based upon the rggulatory compliances obtained <br /> and the proposed height, the 102FW has no objections to the tower location and <br /> height." <br /> Public Safety and Noise: <br /> Finding 22) Technical Bulletin 97-001, Section V.D. states that for safety reasons, <br /> businesses should not be located within the fall zone. At the proposed height of 150 <br /> feet, the fall zone of the proposed tower would include a portion of an existing <br /> II industrial building. <br /> Seacoast,Incâś“Mashpee DRI Decision <br /> 9/19/02 <br /> Page 9 <br />