Laserfiche WebLink
t � , <br /> Communications & Electronics, Inc. before reaching a decision on the Seacoast <br /> application. <br /> 12. The Commission's decision on the Seacoast application improperly substitutes <br /> market forces in place of required consideration of benefits and detriments of alternative <br /> proposals. <br /> 13. The Commission's decision on the Seacoast application is arbitrary, capricious, <br /> without sufficient basis in fact and contrary to the law and regulations governing the <br /> Commission. <br /> 14. The Commission's decision on the Seacoast application forecloses the Plaintiff's <br /> opportunity to obtain a fair review and decision on his application. <br /> 15. Pursuant to Section 17(b) of the Cape Cod Commission Act, any party aggrieved by <br /> said decision of the Commission may appeal to the Superior Court. <br /> 16. The Plaintiff is aggrieved by said decision of the Commission. <br /> 17. By virtue of both municipal zoning and the Cape Cod Commission Act, the Plaintiff <br /> has a private property right to seek approval from the Commission for a Wireless <br /> Telecommunication Facility at his site and be fairly evaluated as an alternative to the <br /> Seacoast application. <br /> 16. Facts in support of Plaintiff's appeal include, but are not limited to the following: <br /> A. The subject sites of both Plaintiff and Seacoast are located within the same general <br /> existing gap in coverage of local telecommunications carriers. <br /> B. Plaintiff and Seacoast would serve the same carriers. <br />