Laserfiche WebLink
these facilities on existing structures , He cited 17 - - <br /> D # "If feasible, personal wireless service facilities <br /> shall he located on existing -structures, including but not <br /> limited to buildings .' He stated his position that his <br /> client is in accordance with this particular provision. <br /> Attorney Dunning then cited 7B (exception to the fall <br /> zone requirement) - "'ghat in the event that an existing <br /> structure is proposed as a mount for personal wireless. <br /> service facility, a fall zone shall not be required. " He <br /> stated this to be his position, that it is an attachment to <br /> an existing building: understanding however Torn Counsel' <br /> position as well . <br /> Attorney Dunning further stated reasons to permit a <br /> reduced fall zone of 7 -feet . Making reference to Attorney <br /> Kirrane' s letter he argued the By-law does in fact <br /> encourage the use of existing structures as mounts in an <br /> attempt to prevent further disruption of green areas, <br /> trees, etc, because the building ha-s already been <br /> constructed. In this regard he feels the proposal is in <br /> accordance with the spirit of this particular section of <br /> the By-law. If the green space is not disturbed, neither <br /> are the trees or wildlife. Also, it would eliminate the <br /> construction of a -second building on the site. <br /> That portion of the building within the requested 7 - <br /> ft . fall zone would not be used for anything other than <br /> dead storage/equipment. If the Board were to approval a <br /> minimized fall zone of 7 -ft. it would pose no danger or <br /> safety issues. He asked the Board for their consideration <br /> of this matter. <br /> Attorney Dunning commented upon Town Counsel' s <br /> position of Cape Cod commission decision, he commented that <br /> a third pa-rty who has not fret finalized their application <br /> to the commission has managed to halt all other proceedings <br /> of those who had more diligently pursued their rights, <br /> calling the s1tuation unfair. <br /> In conclusion Attorney Dunning asked the Board to <br /> consider, should they decide to grant the relief sought by <br /> the Applicant, to impose a condition with reference to any <br /> approval that the resolution of this third cape Cod <br /> Commission application is in its formative stages. <br /> 17 <br />