Laserfiche WebLink
4L <br /> Mr. Joyal stated his application had been submitted to the <br /> Planning Board and subsequent per . t t ing agencies f i s t, before <br /> any other~ proposal . Mandatory filing requirements, crane <br /> testing, and all subcommittee meetings were held prior to any <br /> other tower proposal . <br /> Applicant has offered pro bond space to Town public <br /> servants, as well as a Teri 'Thousand $10, 0 0 0 . 0 Dollar cash <br /> contribution to be utilized as input for the new incubator. <br /> Applicant is a local company with local concerns, <br /> specifically in Mashpee. The location of the tower is creative <br /> and adds aesthetic benefit to the Town as- it is further away f rorn <br /> scenic Route 10 and due to integration of shelters inside a <br /> existing building. <br /> Dennis B i arini questioned said $1 , 000 . 00 contribution to <br /> th6 Town. <br /> Mr. Joyal stated the donation would be above and beyond, t <br /> be utilized specifically for the 'Town' s benefit to incubate new <br /> emerging technological urban businesses within the 'Town of <br /> Mashpee proper/Mashpee Industrial. Park. <br /> The Town Planner asked if said contribution had been <br /> required by the Cape Cod Commission, and how it applies to the <br /> proposed tower. <br /> Mr. Joyal. responded there has to be a benef it to the Town <br /> that would out weigh any detriments. <br /> The Assistant Town Planner explained that because the e <br /> Ca <br /> Cori Commission waived the land p <br /> landscaping�ng requirements,rext�er�t s, they proposed <br /> a 1 , 00 . 00 contribution towards future development. <br /> The Chairman asked Applicant to describe his tower and lot <br /> as compared to the previous proposal . <br /> It <br /> r. Joyal provided the site plan explaining the existing <br /> building is a combination of <br /> concrete and steel . There are no <br /> trees,. it is a fully -developed-industrial lot . <br /> r. Joyal stated the -placement of the tower to be the best <br /> .possible location in order to accommodate all future growth needs <br /> from the wireless industry. <br /> The tower and location are a result <br /> of a specific need and demographic. Any alternative design would <br /> result in an increased need for an additional tower. <br /> There is no need for two towers at this location, on1 one <br /> tower is needed t fulfill h y <br /> the requisite propagation i n requirements <br /> of all carriers. The economic model will not support the cost <br /> effectiveness of more , Pp <br /> than ore tower being built at thi-s <br /> location. <br /> _1 . <br />