Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5232 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOW~ CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk DATED: October 9, 2002 Zoning Appeal No. 5232 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeal No. 5232 of Omnipoint Communications Inc. by Lawrence C. Re of Munley, Meade, Nielsen & Re for a variance. Also included is: letter of transmittal dated September 26, 2002; Notice of Disapproval dated September 12, 2002; ZBA Questionnaire; Applicant Transactional Disclosure Form; Owner Authorization Agreement; and boundary & topographic survey APPEA.LS BOARD MEMBERS Lydia A. Tortora,,Chairwbman Gerard P. Goehringer George Horning Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2003 Appl. No. 5232 - Omnipoint (Owner: A. Junge) Property Location: 21855 C.R. 48, Cutchogue; Parcel 1000-96-1-19.1 RECEIVED~ SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The property contains an area of 14,859 sq. ft. and is improved with a one-story metal building (auto repair shop), one-story masonry building, an existing telecommunications monopole structure located in the rear yard. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's September 19, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, denying a permit under Section 100-165C to install public utility equipment with a rear yard setback of less than 70 feet in this Light Industrial Zone District. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on January 16, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: A Variance is requested under Section 100- 165C to install an equipment building with a rear yard setback at 7'2" from the rear property line. The proposed building is 10 x 17 ft. in size and will be enclosed in a chain- link fence compound, as shown on the August 4, 2001 survey prepared by Barrett, Bonacci and Van Weele, P. C. and site plan prepared by William F. Collins, AIA. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The Telecommunications Law requires co-location on existing towers. This property contains an existing tower. The applicant proposes to co-locate an antenna in accordance with the existing law. The need for an equipment shelter building is in support of the co-location. The existing Telecommunications Tower sits approximately 41 feet to the rear property line, and there is a need for this building to be as close to the tower as possible. The applicant requests a variance to allow him to place the storage building 7 feet 2 inches from the southwest Page 2 - March 20, 2003 Appl. No. 5232 - Omnipoint Communications 96-1-19.1 at Cutchogue rear property line based on a survey by Barrett, Bonacci and Van Weele, P. C. dated August 4, 2001 and a site plan prepared by William F. Collins, AIA. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Because of restraints caused by the Southold Landfill to the north and west and the confines of the existing tower, the building cannot be placed in another area without a variance. 3. The variance granted herein is substantial in relation to the code requirement. However, due to existing constraints, the storage building cannot be placed in another area. 4. The alleged difficulty has been self-created because the applicant was aware of the difficulty when the property was purchased. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the relief granted will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the requested relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a storage building while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Oliva, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance applied for with the condition that the applicant will provide landscaping for buffering, with five foot high arborvitae, or the like, planted four feet apart, on the west and southwest side fence area to be continuously maintained. The Board, however, reserves the right to review this buffering layout if the screening is not adequately maintained by the applicant. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that violates the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Homing, Oliva, and Orlando. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0). Lydia A.~,,~'rtora, Ch~in,~'o~'~'n 4///03-- LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE is HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on Thursday, January 16, 2003, at the time noted below (or as soon thereafter as possible); 11:10 a.m. Appl. No. 5232 - Omnipoint Communications (Owner: Junge). This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-165C, based upon the Building Department's September 19, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for the proposed installation of equipment related to a public utility wireless communications antenna, to be affixed on an existing monopole, at 21855 C.R. 48, Cutchogue; Parcel 1000-96-1-19.1. The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular Town Hall business days from (8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated: December 19, 2002. Southold Town Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 (tel. 631-765-1809) FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL TO: PO Box.299 Ch-lent, NY 11957 DATE: September 19, 2002 Please take notice that your application dated $~ptembcr I2, 2002 For p~mit to ~nx vubli¢ utiliw w/reless communications ant~.-~ to ~cistin~ monovole md fi~,l~ ~ at Looation of property: 21855 CounW P, oad 48, Cutchogue, NY County T~x Map N?. 1000 - S~ction 96 Block 1 Lot ~8.1 Is returned herewith and disa~roved on the following 8rounds: '~he vrovosed ins~al~,%n of ecmitrment/s not permuted ~ursu~nt to Article ~ Section 100-1'65 C.. wMch states, "Setbacks. Towers and ecuinment facilities ~h~ll adhere to the setbacks for vfi~fval uses in th_.. Bulk Schedule a~vlicable to the zone in which the structure(s) are located.'~' The above refer¢-_¢tm' ~ro~erW is located in the Light Industrial DistriCt. Accorain~ to the B,?~ Schedule. the mh~-~-m rear wzd setback/n that district is 70 feet. ?lan~ note a rear yard setback as +/ I0 feet. I "-A-utho//zed $i~-a~ure Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require ~urther review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A. Ex~i ned ................. , 19 .... Approved .................. , 19 .... Permit No ................. Disapproved alt .................................. BOAIm)F REALTH TOWN OF $OU'i~ltlOLD,, SURVEY ............ · .............. ~'~uiLD~ D~ ";' "~ C~C~ :: ' ' TO~ ~ .... S~T!c ~O~ ...., ~ ..... ..,.~. .... ..... S.OU~OLD; 8:y ] l~97 I .... ? ~ :. ~..: ~L: 765-1802 · NOTIFY': CALL ."... J ....... ~ ..... ~IL TO: ................. (Building I~t~c~or) APPLIcATIoN FOR BUILDING PERHIT INSTRUCTIONS Dare 19 a. 'Ibis application mint be 'ct~pletely filled in by typewriter or in ink and anhnitced to the Building InsPeCtor wit seca of plm~s, sccura~e plot plan to scale~ Fee a~cording to m:hedule, b. Plot plan r~lug location of lot and of buildings ~a premises, relationship to edjoining preafiaea or public reefs or areas, aud giving a de~ailed description of layont of property mst be dra~n on the dia~ra~ ~hlch is part of ia 9pplication. -c. ~he ~ork covered by this application ~my not be counenced before isstumce of Building Permit. d. ~ appcoval of this application, gae lkdlding h~peCtOr ~ill issue a lhilding Pendt to the applicaut. ~ mit shall be.kept on the prl~uises available for inapectic~i'thm~hont the ~rk~' '' :' ' e. No building droll be occupied or tumd in ~ho!e or, in :part"for any purpase ~hatever tmtil a Certificate of cupancy shall have been granted by lira Building Imspector, i:, · AI'I~IC&TICtl IS I~alY ~ ro the Building DeparUmnt for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the ilding Zone Ordinance of the To~n of Sonthold, Suffolk County, ~ York~ Imdother applicable l~s. Ordinances'or gulatior~s, for.the Coastroction of Imildinga, nadi~ions ~r,a!teraCiona, or, for re,vel or demolition, as herein scribed. The applic~t ngreca td ~p, ly ~rlth all,applicable !~aa, ordinances, building code, hotming code, and gulations, and to ~l~;t authorized inspectors on premises and in building'for necessary inspections. (Signature of apphcast, or n~e, ~f a COrTOration) (J~ailing address of applicator) -- 0~70~ ate ~hether applicant is cwner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer,'generel contrectur~ electrician, plumber or b~ilder ....... ~e of o~ner of premise8 , . .............. (as on rim t~x roil or lstast deed)  .t is a corporation, sigratur~ of duly authorized officer. and title of corporate officer) Builders Licamse No .......................... Plt~ber~ -License No ...................... Electriciam~. Liceose ~ .......... ........... Otl~r Trade'n License No ..................... Location of laed on which proposed york rill be duoe ........................... ~ ........................ ~ ......... .... Yf .... ...... "- 7. i c ty No. tion ...... ;.....;l. .......... . ...... Subdivision ................. ' ..................... Filed Map No ......... .. ... . .. ltot ............... (~) State existing tree and occupancy of pr~fises and intended use and oc'copancy of proiposed construction: ~. mt~a~ ~ ~a oc~:~ ....~.~. ~.,~.,//~3~ff~.. ...... i ...................................... F.~ture o~ *0ark (dme_k ~h[d~ ' ' .... ~ldltiou ....... Alteration ....... s~h~le): ~ ~tldlng ...... I~ir ............ ~al ............. l~liti~ ............ Other ~ ~o ~ ~i ~ ............... Esti~mt~ ~st .. - ......... E~ .............................................. (to ~ ~id ~ [iling this a~li~ti~) I~ ~lli~, ~r o~ ~lli~ ,mlts..~./.a... t,,~r o~ ~iling ,mit, ~ earl, ~r .~[" ......... I~ garage, ~imr al mnru ..... ~ ........................... ~ .... mc~, ~z ~. ~'r~.../m ..... ~r /~ ........ ~pth ~0.(( ........... l~i~,t L~.~.5.~/~ .......... m~r of Stories ...0.[~ .............. ~pth .................... ~i~t .................... ,i.~,si=m of entire ~ ~t~ti~: ~t ...~O.C ........ ~r ...1~ ....... ~I'~' ...~0.'~ ..... s~ o~ ~o~= ~ zo~,..ZZ ........ ~,~ .Z~.~ ........ ~,~,, .~.~fl.:.~.D. .... ,. ..... ......... ........................... I. ~ or ~ dj*trier in dfi~ pmi~ ~ ~i=t~ ~.l.=~r.Wno~r~/m~ ........................... ~. ~s ~o~ mt~ti~ violate a~ =i~ 1m, o~ime ~ re~l~ti~: ...~ ................. ' ~ill lot ~ of ~tr~tor ................................... ~re~s ............................... ~m~ ~ .............. 5. I~ tiffs p~r~wi~fin ~ ~t o[a ti~l~tl~I *W~ .......... ~ ,.~, .... PLOT DIAGRAH' locate clearly and distinCtly all buildings, ~.t~e~mr*existing or proposed,' and indicate all ret-back dir~ensions mm pmpert-y lines. Give street and block t~u~er or description according to deed, and sho~' street remco and indicate hether interior or corrmr lot. U~' ss ~$~l~ (W ... (.Of~ .............. ' ' · . ......... ~. ............. I~.,~ duly ~m, del~s ~ ~y~ that he ~ al ~vid~l si~ing c~traet) is the · (~tr~etor, agent, eor~r~te offle~r, [ ~id ~r or ~rs, n~ is duly ~thori~ to ~rfonn or h~ imrfo~ U~e ~id ~ m~ to m~ a~ [lie this ~licati~; that all stat~nts c~tai~ in fl~is ~l~l. ic~ti~, are t~ to a~e Imst al his k~l~ ' ' ' hat ~e ~rk ~[1~ ~ ~r~on~ in the ~mr ~t forth in ~e ~Henki~ fil~ tlm~.' /(Sign~.t~re o1~ ^ppheant) . APPLIC THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD~ APPEALS · For O~fice Use Only Fee: $ P~. Filed By: ~ [~(mm, Date Assigned/Assignment No. ~-~,~ ~Z . . J Parcel Location: House No. 21855 Street County Road 48_ Hamlet Cutchogue, NY 11935 SCTM 1000 Section 96 Block 1 Lot(s)__19.1 Zone District L.I. - Light Industry I (WE) APPEAL THE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED: 09/19/02 ~~er(s): OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Site No. LI-13544-A Mailing Address: 4 SYLVAN WAY - PARSIPPANY, NJ 07054 Telephone: 973-397-4813 - Contact: Kevin Griswold Note: If applicant is not the owner, state if applicant is owner's attorney, agent, architect, builder, contract vendee, etc. Authorized Representative: Lawrence C. Rr, Attorney at Law Address: 36 New York Avenue - Huntington, New York 11743 Telephone: (631) 425-4100 Fax: (631) 4104 Please specify who you wish correspondence to be mailed to, from the above listed names: Applicant/Owner(s) ~/Authorized Representative Other: WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED: FOR: ~ Building Permit ~ Certificate of Occupancy D Pre-Certificate of Occupancy ~ Change Of Use [] Permit for As-Built Construcl 09/06/02 Other: Addition/Alteration Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed, Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and paragraph of Zoning Ordinance by numbers. Do not quote the code. Article XIV Section 100-. 165 Subsection (C)(1) Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for: I~t A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map. ~n A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law-Section 280-A. n Interpretation of the Town Code, Article Section [] Reversal or Other A prior appeal has been made with respect to this property UNDER Appeal No. 5127 Year 2002 REASONS'FOR AREA VARIANCE ONLY (to be completed by applicant): Do not use these standards for "use variance" or "special exception" (Also attach sheets if necessary, with signatures.) The New York Court of Appeals in Cellular Telephone Company v. Rosenberg, 82 N.Y.2d 364, held that a cellular telephone company is considered a public utility for zoning purposes and the public utility standard applies. An undesirable change will NOT be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to hereby properties, if granted BECAUSE: The premises are already improved with existing telecommunications facilities with related equipment shelters. The addition of the small equipment cabinets proposed will not change the character that has already been determined by existing uses. The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance BECAUSE: The tower and existing equipment shelters are already in place. Due to the size and nature of the lot in question, it is not possible to locate the small equipment cabinets in a way that would not require an area variance. Existing landscaping will be preserved. The amount of relief requested is not substantial BECAUSE: The equipment cabinets will be in the fenced compound in the vicinity of the tower in close proximity to the already approved existing shelters. The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district BECAUSE: The site is already improved with a tower and equipment shelters and lies in the L1 Industrial Zone. The proposed site will be unmanned, will have no impact on traffic, parking, or air quality. It will not generate garbage or waste or require a supply of water. Radio frequency emissions will be many times lower than the FCC standard. Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( ) Yes (X) No COUNTY This is the minimum that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community INC. Sworg to befol:e~lle tlfis /f~.~_ ay of~-/-~a~ 2002, Notary Public ~ ~"M~ureen P. Hmnek ~ Notary Public of New Jersey 1~/C~m?ission E~pires Aug. 17,'199~ OMNIPOINqO COMMI~I~ICATIOI~, (Applicant) KEVIN GRISWOLD Agent must attach written consent from 'owner. :7 /oc~- ?~_/_/,?,/TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RE~:ORD CARD )WNER STREET '~//~ ~'~"~· .... ~' VILLAGE DIST. SUB. :ORMER N E ACR. · OWNER y;d~fi~( ' S ~;) / W ~ . ,,~ ~PE OF BUILDING ES~ S~S. ~ ~.-~-./FA~ COMM. CB. MISC. Mkt. vomu~N~O'' a-- IMP. L m ~TAL DATE REMARKS ~?' '/ / ' , ./~ . ~ . {. ~,( ///~'~ Ioodland 'ampland FRONTAGE ON WATER Jshland FRONTAGE ON ROAD . ~/~ ,use Plot DEPTH BULKH~D roi ' D~K M. Bldg. Extension Extension Porch Porch Breezeway Garage Patio ~"~' COLOR -I'RIM Foundation Basement Ext. Walls Fire Place Type Roof Recreation Room Dormer Driveway ")'h_c ~ o ¢-- Bath Floors Interior Finish Heat Rooms 1st Floor Rooms 2nd Floor Dinette LR. DR. BR. FIN. B. NOTE: -~ INFORMATION SHOWN HEREIN IS BASED UPON A SURVEY PREPARED BY: BARRETT, B(~NACCl & VAN WEELE, P C CIVIL/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/ PLANNERS. 175A COMMERCE DRIVE HAUPPAUGE. N.Y. 1~788 (631) 435-1022 (ON AUGUST 4. 2001 PROJECT NO: A010670) EXISTING MONOPOLE. -- EXISTING FENCED COMPOUND NEW OMNtROINT COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT II~THIN NEW CHAINUNK ~FENCE COMPOUND. SEE ENLARGED EQUIP PLAN ON {SEC~?%.. 'c' ! / PROPERTY LINE. / EXISTING ELEC/ TELCO UNDERGROUND. EXISTING TREE LINE. I FUTURE NEXTEL EOUIPMENT BY OTHERS %q ' ASPM^LT ;~VEME.~ / /- , / , ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN MUNI.Ey~ MEADE~ NIELSEN & 1~ (631) 425-4100 (631) 425o4104 January23,2003 BY HAND Linda Kowalski Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Omnipoint Communications Inc. Application to the Southold Board of Appeals Assigned Number 5232 SCTM #100-96-1-19.1 Premises: 21855 County Road 48 Cutchogue, New York 11935 Dear Ms. Kowalski: During the public heating held on January 16, 2003, in connection with the captioned application, the Zoning Board of Appeals requested that we submit a landscape plan depicting landscaping to buffer our clients equipment cabinets. Accordingly, we submit herewith seven (7) revised site plans to replace the site plans on file. The revised site plans include the requisite landscaping. Thanking you for your courtesies, we remain, Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ By: Lawrence C. R6 LCR:lh Enclosures (631) 765-1809 OFFICE OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Email addresses: Linda. Kowalski(~Town.Southold.ny.us or Paula. Quintie~i~Town. Southold.n¥.us http://southoldtown.northfork.net fax (631) 765-9064 FAX TRANSMISSION Please feel free to call if you did not receive all sheets. Town Hall hours are be~een 8 and 4. Thank you. Pages to follow: ~ . O:DEA LYNCH ABBATTISTA CONSUlTiNG ENGINEERS ,June 10~ 2002 Ms. Veronica Harris Crown Castle 1200 Mac, Arthur Blvd., Suite 200 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Re: Cutchogue (BU #806579) 21855 Country Road, Cutchogue, NY OLA P/No,: NCAI0161.00 Dear Ms. Harris: Our office has completed the structural analysis of the existing 100' monopole and foundation located at the above referenced site. The guidelines used in our analysis were those set forth by the New York ' State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Co(Je and TIA/EIA-222-F. St~Jctural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Suooortinc~ Structures. Our analysis was based on the following information made available to our office: · The original monopole design calculations prepared by Engineered Endeavors Incorporated ('EEl'), Mentor, OH, dated August 21, 1991, EEl Job # CSONY257. * . The original monopole design drawing prepared by EEl, drawing # GS46880, dated August 21, 1991. · The odginal monopole foundation as-built drawing prepared by Edwards & Kelcey, Inc., Livingston, NJ, drawings # 92-8012 ST1, dated November 12, 1992. · Structural analysis report prepared by our office dated December 7, 2001, project # NNCC0004.00. And the following loading: · Nine (9) existing Verizon Wireless ALP 9212 panel antennas mounted on one (1) standard amps type mounting platform at elevation 102'+1- · Twelve (12) proposed Omnlpoint EMS RR65-19-02DP panel antennas and one (1) Thales 8100 VP/360/2 omni antenna mounted to six (6) 6' curved cobra arm antenna mounts at elevation 90'+~- · Twelve (12) future Nextel AP13-850/065 panel antennas mounted to six (6) 6' curved cobra arm antenna mounts at elevation 80'+~- We have concluded that the existing monopole, anchor bolts and foundation have adequate capacity to accommodate the above stated loading. Under lhe above stated loading, the existing base plate is slightly overstressed and the existing anchor bolts and monopole shaft are at approximately 90% and 84% of their capacities respectively. Please note that our analysis assumes that the existing monopole, anchor bolts and foundation were pro--ned and constructed and are free of any defects in workmanship Or materials. Sh~ions, please feel free to contact our office. 50 8roodwoy Howfhorne, New York 10532 tel 914.747,2800 fox 914.747.0453 www.oloce.com ¢0~ ul~te ; O'DEA LYNCH ABBATTISTA CONSULTING ENGINEERS Lea~/I..icense # June 10, 2002 Ms. Veronica Harris Crown Castle 1200 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 200 Mahwah, NJ 07430 Re; Cutchogue (BU #806579) 21855 Country Road, Cutchogue, NY OLA P/No.: NCAI0161.00 Dear Ms. Harris: Our office has perfon~ed a structural analysis of the existing 100' monopole and foundation located at the above referenced site for Omnipoint's proposed antenna installation. The guidelines used in our analysis were those set forth by the N(~w York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and TIA/EIA-222-F. Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Suooortinrl Struc(urss.. The analysis evaluated the existing monopole and foundation for Omnipoint's F.,oposed installation of twelve (12) EMS RR65-19-02DP panel antennas and one (1) Thales 8100 VPI36012 omni antenna mounted to six (6) 6' curved cobra arm antenna mounts at elevation 90'+1- with all coaxial cables routed inside the existing monopole. Please refer to our structural analysis report dated June 10, 2002, for complete details on the analysis performed. The analysis concluded that the existing monopole and foundation have adequate capacity to accommodate Omnipoint's proposed antenna installation. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contaCt our office. Sincerely, JHF/jhf cc File K:~p rojects~lCAI0161 ~Docs~cover.doc NEW YORK - DALLAS 50 Broadway Hawthorne, New York 10532 tel 914.747.2800 fox 914.747.0453 www.olace.com SECTION FOUNDATION PLAN ANCHOR BOLT ORIENTATION O[TA L. AS BUILT NYNEX POWER STRUCTURES, INC. DESIGNED & SUPPLIED BY: - TUBULAR STEEL POLES ENGINEERED ENDEAVORSt INC. COMPOSITE SUM/~tARY TABLE MAX, ALLOWABLE 'HEIGHT STRESS STRESS (FT) (KSI) (KSI) 100,00 2.051 65,000 90,00 8,930 65,000 80,00 '13.681 65,000 72,00 21,895 65,000 .... SLIP SPLICE .... 72.00 15.6'26 65,000 70,00 16.787 65.000 60,00 21.304 65.000 50.00 24.321 65.000 40.00 26.391 65.000 36,00 27.088 65.000 .... SLIP SPLICE .... 36,00 25.812 65,000 ......... 30.,00 .......... 26.4~ ....... 65.~00 .... 20.00 27,294 65,000 10,00 27,795 65,000 ,00 28,099 65,000 GOVEP'NING LOADING CASE SURVIVAL (80 MPH WIND) SURVIVAL (80 MPH WIND) SURVIVAL (80 MPH WIND) SURVIVAL (80 MPH WIND) SURVIVAL (80 MPH WIND) SURVIVAL (80 MPH WIND) SURVIVAL (80 MPH WIND). SURVIVAL (80 MPH WIND) SURVIVAL (80 MPH WIND) SURVIVAL (80 MPH WIND) SURVIVAL (80 MPH WIND) .SURUIVAL_.{80. MPH.WIND) SURVIVAL (80 MPH WIND) SURVIVAL (80 MP~ WIND) SURVIVAL (80 MPH WIND) POWER STRUCTURES, INC. TUEULA/{ STEEL POLES DESIGNED & SUPPLIED BY: ENGINEERED ENDEAVORS~ INC. POLY'T~ELVE ANDREV CORPORATIO# CSDN¥2S? 100' HONOPOLE (CUTCNOGUEo NY) <<<<< POLE DESIGN INPUT >>>>> POLE HEIGHT 100.0000 FT. TOP DIAMETER 14.5000 IN. BASE DIAMETER 36.0000 IN. POLE TAPER .228556 ]N./FT. YIELD STRENGTH 63.00 KSI ~JEIGNT O.L.F 1.0000 <<<<< POLE LOADING DATA >>>>> WIND /START ELEV.(FT) ' PSF/ / .00' 11.58/ 40.00- 15.85/ 80.00- 18.35/ LOAD 'LONG. VERT. TRANS ARM ARM HEIGHT LOAD LOAD LOAD LENGTH ANGLE (FT.) (KIPS) (KZPS; (~ZPS) (Fr.) (DEG.} ** TRANSVERSE UIND LOADING ** DRAG COEFFICIENT 1.000 106.000 .000 .120 .268 .OOO ..... 102.000 .000 3.000 .67S .000 ..... 102.000 .000 .492 1.079 .000 ..... 80.000 .000 .S36 1.387 .000 ..... 80.000 .000 .536 1.190 .000 ..... <<<<< pOLE SECTION PROPERTIES >>>>> MOMENT OF SECTION ALLO~. HEIGHT DIAMETER TBIC[NESS AREA INERTIA HOOULUS STRESS ?2:~qq._...2__q~2_%0__ ...... :~81__~ ...... ]a,126 932.2445 88.6080 65.000 ?O.O00 20.7813 .2813 18.539 P97.35r4 92.7156 65.000 60.000 23.0625 .2813 20.602 1368.6940 114.6499 65.D00 50.000 25.3438 .2813 22.665 1822.3650 138.9115 63.000 40.000 27.6250 .2813 24.726 2366.6130 [65.5004 63.000 36.000 28.53?5 .2813 25.553 2611.5240 176.7877 65.000 ~{ SLIP SPLICE ~> .312~ 2?.60? 2667.6830 185.4635 65.000 .3123 28.982 3086.5340 204.5094 65.000 .3125 31.275 3878.2590 238.3212 65.000 .3125 33.567 4794.9~0 274.71~ 65.000 ,3125 35.859 5845.8360 313.7025 65.000 36.000 27.7875 30.000 29.1363 10.000 33.7188 .000 36.0000 POWER STRUCTURES, INC. - TUBULAR STEEL POLES DESIGNED & SUPPLIED BY: ENGINEERED E};DEAVORS, INC. POLY~TUELVE ANOREU CORPORATION CSONYZS? 100' MONOPOLE (CUTCHOGUE, SURVIVAL (80 MPfl <<<<< POLE DESIGN INPUT >>>>> POLE HEIGNT 100.0000 FT. TOP DIANETER 14.5000 IN. BASE D[AHETER 36.0000 IN. POLE TAPER .228554 IN./FT. YIELD STRENGTH 65,00 KSI UEIGNT O.L.F 1.0000 <<<<< POLE LOADING DATA >>>>> LOAD LOMD. VERT. TRAH$ ABM ARM NEIDHT LOAD LOAD LOAD LERGTH ANOLE (FT.) (KIPS) (KIPS) (~IP$) (FT.) (DEG.) 706.000 .000 .060 .238 .000 102.000 .000 2.000 .677 .000 102.000 .000 .32~ 1.299 .000 80.000 .000 .30~ 2.116 .000 80.000 .000 .304 1.587 .000 TRANSVERSE WIND LOAOIMG DRAG COEFFICIENT 1.000 <<<<< POLE SECTION PROPERTIES >>>>> MGHENI OF SECTION ALLO~. NEIGH! OIAMETER THICKNESS AREA INERTIA MCOULUS STRESS POWER STRUCTURES, INC. - TUBULAR STEEL POLES DESIGNED & SUPPLIED BY: ENGINEERED ENDEAVORS, INC. POLY-T~ELVE ANDREU CORPORATION CSONY257 100' HONOPOLE (CUTCNOGUE, NY) OPERATIO#AL (50 HPH ~lgO) <<<<< POLE DESIGN INPUT >>>>> POLE HEIGHT 100.0000 FT. TOP DIAHETER 14.5000 IR. BASE DIAMETER 36.0000 IN. POLE TAPER .228554 ~./~T. YIELD STRE~GT~ 65..00 KSI WEIGHT O.L.F 1.0000 <<<<< POLE LO'ADING DATA >>>>> U~NG /START ELEV.(FT) o PSF/ / .00- 6.03/ 40.00- 8.26/ 80.00- 9.56/ LOAD LONG. VERT. TRANS ARN ARM HEIGHT LOAD LOAO LOAD LENGTH ANGLE (FT.) ([ZPS) (KIPS) (KIPS) (FT.) (OEG,) 106.000 .000 .060 .093 .000 · 102.000 .000 2.000 .264 .000 102.000 .000 .324 .508 .000 80.000 .000 .30~ .826 .OOO 80.000 .000 .$04 .620 .000 <<<<< POLE SECTION PROPERTIES >>>>> 100.000 1~.5000 .1875 8.629 226.2753 30.1469' 65.000 PAGE NO. 6 COMMUNICATIONS STRUCTURE LOADING DEVELOPMENT CUSTOMER: ANDREW CORPORATION STRUCTURe: 1~0' MONOPO[LE LOCATION: CUTCHOGUE, NY LOADING CASE III - SURVIVAL PER EIA 222D 02:$9 PM APPLIED LOADS 2 3 4 6 7 8 HEIGHT HEIGHT (FO HEIGHT .~PPURTNEANCE HORIZONTAL FORCE~ (Fo) 106 268 102 67I 102 1079 MICROWAVE HORIZONTALFORCF~(Fc) 80 1587 80 llg0 WIND ON POLE (PSD 20 11.$8' 60 100 18.33 140 2~20 VERTICAL FORCES (LBS) 3000' 492 VERTICAL FORCES (L~S) $36 PAGE NO. 4 COMMUNICATIONS STRUCTURE LOADING DEVELOPMENT CUSTOMER: ANDREW CORPORATION STRUCTUR~ I~'MONOPOLE LOCATION: CUTCHOGUE, NY LOADING CASE II - SURVIVAL APPLIED LOADS PER EIA 222D JOB NO,: SITE: 21-Au8-91 0.~57 PM CSONy257 HEIGHT APPURTNEANCE (FI~ ' HORIZONTAL FORCE~ (Fo) I 106 2~ 2 102 677 3 102 1299 4 6 ? 2 3 HEIOHT MICROWAVE (FT) HORIZONTAL FORCES (Fo) 80 2116 80 1587 HE[GilT (FI) WIND ON POLE (PSb') 20 15.45 60 21.14 100 24.46 140 26.93 VERTICAL FORCF~ (LBS) 60 20~0 VERTICAL FORCF~ (LBS) PAG~ NO. 2 COMMUNICATIONS STRUCTURE LOADING DEVELOPMENT LOADING CASE I - OPERATIONAL PER EIA 222D JOB NO.: C$0NY2~7 APPLIED LOADS 2 3 $ ? I0 HEIGHT HEIGHT HEIGHT APPURTNEANCE HORIZONTAL FORCF. S CFc) 106 93 102 102 $08 MICROWAVE HORIZONTAL FORCES 80 80 620 WIND ON POLE (PSF~ 20 6.03 60 8.26 VERTICAL FORCF.~ (LBS) ~0 2OOO ~24 VERTICAL FORCES (LBS) 3O4 ENGINEERED ENDEAVORS IN CORP~ RAT£D Page 1 of Customer ANDREW CORPORATION By TJGOODING 8/21/91 Date Structure 100' MONOPOLE .Checked__ 0SONY257 Job/Quote No. SITE LOCATION - CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 100' (5) DB560 OMNI ANTENNAS (12) ALP 9212 DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAS AMPS TYPE PLATFORM (2) 8' DIAMETER STANDARD MICROWAVE ANTENNAS, FREQUENCY- 60HZ DESIGN NOTES: DESIGN IN ACCORDANCE NTH EIA 222D 80 MPH BASIC WIND SPEED 1/2" RADIAL ICE ALLOW. ROTATION = 1.25 DEG. @ 80' CASE II - SURVIVAL 80 MPH ~ND CASE III - SURVIV NOTE; Ir IS ~E .......... OF ~E PURCHASER ~0 ~RIFY . · . OF ALL LOCAL BUILDING CODES ENGINEERED END~VORS, INC. 8500 Station Street * ~ite 240 *~¢:' Ohio 44060 TCephone: (216) 974-6060 * Telefox: (216) 974-9238 y ° ~\ \0 72.0 inch diam. f' = 3.5 ksi C f = 60.0 ksi Y Confinement:Tied clr cvr = 3.75 in spacing = 6.82 in 24#11 at 0.9% = 37.44 in2 Ix = 1319167 in4 I = 1319167 in4 _Y x 0.00 in ~ = 0.00 in ~c~) 1992 PCA Licensed To: k i P S -2022 PCACOLTM Interaction Diagram 9973 7979 ..... /-. Project: NorthCoast - Cutchogue Column Id: Pier Engineer: Jim Fahey, P.E. Date: 12/07/01 Time: 16:27:25 Code: ACI 318-89 Version: 2.20 Slenderness not considered x-axis File name: UNTITLED.COL Material Properties: E 3587 ksi ~ C U f = 2.97 ksi E C S = 0.85 Stress Profile : Block Reduction: ~c = 0.70 0.003 in/in 29000 ksi 'qJb = 0.90 ~/~oJo ~ ?. II. Iqe fl. Iq o,~ k~; OK--, ~ ...... / Axial Bend. Allow. Stress A~I. (ft) (~n) (=q. In) (in"4) (k;ps~ ~k~s) (k-n) (*si) (ks~) (ksl) (~.00 Max.) ~omme. t 33.00 29.48 28.28 2870.42 13.35 764 648.39 0.21 39.95 32.00 0.77 OK 32.OO 29.71 28.51 2940,73 t3.43 7.73 661.74 O,27 40.11 52.~O 0.78 OK 3100 29.95 28.74 3012.21 1351 7.83 67518 027 4028 52.{X3 0.78 OK 30.OO 30.18 28.97 3~4 82 1360 7.93 68869 027 40.43 52.~0 0.78 OK 29.00 30.42 2920 3159.59 13.58 603 7m29 0.27 40.58 52.00 0.79 OK 26.00 30.c~ 29.43 3=33.52 ~3.75 6. t3 7~395 0.28 40.73 52.~0 0.79 OK 27.C0 30.03 ~9.55 3309.63 1384 0.23 729.72 0.2a 40.67 5200 0.79 OK 26C~ 31.13 29.~8 33~3 13.93 8.33 743.57 0.25 41.00 52,~0 0.79 OK Page 4 of 4 AGL (f~ (in) (sq. In) (In^4) (kips) (kl~s~ (k-f t) (k~ (ksl) (ksl) ff. O0 MaxJ Comment 100.00 15.01 B.62 22~.15 3,16 2.26 e.27 0.26 2.~0 S2.00 0.os OK 99.C0 1525 8.76 237.14 3.22 229 944 0.26 3.64 52.00 0.08 OK 98.00 15.48 8.~o 248.47 328 232 12,66 0.26 4.73 52.00 010 OK 97.00 1572 9,04 260.16 3.34 2.35 1593 0.2~ 5.78 5200 0.12 OK Page 3 of 4 I Project: Crown Castle - Cutchogue (BU #806579) OLA Project No.: NCAI0161.00 Analysis of Existing f~O' Monopole Code Reference: TIA/EIA-222.F Site Locsii~n: Suffolk County, NY Basic [4qnd Speed: 85 mph Date: 06/10f02 Engineec James H. Fahey, P.E. Note: DL+WL Load Case Controls by Inspection of O~glnal Analysis Steel ~qekf Strength: 65 ksi Number of P~e Sides: 12 (18,16,12 or 8) wma · ~avlw r.o: ama ?~ ~'l la: (FlatS) Projected Area VV[nd A~(~ ~n) (~,~ pn] (sq. ic) ~b] (In*a) Kz C~ (~ g. Page I of 4 MAP l Site ID ~113544A Cutchogue Subject site and ~ sites (In-Vehicle Coverage) Date: Dec. 30, 2002 MAP2 Site ID LI13544A Cutchogue Subject site Existing and proposed adjacent sites Coverage frmn the adjacent existing and proposed sites including the subject site (>=-S6dBrn) (In-Vehicle Coverage) Scale: 1"= 1.1o8 mi Prepared by: D~e: Dec. 30, 2002 '/02/2002 09:21 B317659064 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard E Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A, Tortora George l-loming Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando ZONINGAPPEALSBOARD : BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 1, 2002 Jacqueline Caputi, Esq. Munley Meade Nielson and Re 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Re: ADpl. No. 5127 -Variance for Nextel Equipment Shelter Structure PAGE 01 Southold '13)wn Hall 53095 Ma in Road P.O. Bo:: 1179 Southold, New ¥)rk 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (63 t) 765-9064 Telephone (621) 765-1809 http://$outboldtown.northfotk.nct Dear Ms. Caputi: Enclosed please find a copy of the Board's variance determination the above application. Please be sure to follow-up with the Building Department for the ne:<t step in the zoning review/application process. Before commencing const.'uction activities, e building permit (and possibly Planning Board and other agencies approvals) is necessary. An extra copy of this determination should be made available to the Building Department at the time of submitting your maps and any other required documentation when obtaining a building permit. Very truly yours, Enclosure Copy of Decision to: Building Department Planning Board GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN ZONINGAPPEALSBOARD : PAGE 02 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard ?. Goehlinget, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando Southold '[~wn Hall 53095 Mzin Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New Work 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (62,1) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 25, 2O02 Appl. No. $127 - ~ (A. Junge, Owner) Property Location: 2185S C.R. 48 (Middle Road), Cutehogue Parcel: 96-1-19.1 SEORA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the prope,'ty under - this review fails under the Type II cate¥.ory of the consideration in this application and determines that State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the envirenment if the project is implemented as planned as a setback request. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on the north side of C.R. 48 in Cutchogue~ with 45~89 sq. ft. of land area and rood frontage of 168.17 ft. The l*ropecPJ is immediately adjacent to the Landfill at the north side. To the we~t are residences, and to the east, vacant land. The property is located in the Light Industrial Zone District and improw~d with an existing TMecommanicnfiona Tower, and business buildings. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's March 6, 2002, Amended March 11, ];O02 Notice of Disapproval denying n permit to construct' an equipment shelter (storage building) for the reason that the building is proposed in a location at less than 70 feet from the rear property line. The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on ~, at which time written and oral evidence was presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property and the area, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REOUESTED.: Applicant's request u location of n prop¢.sed 12'8" x 20'8" equipment shelter building at 38 feet from the rear property line. This shelter building is shown at the northwest section of thc property near the existing one-story masonry building sad existing monopole structure* REA$ON~ FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted, and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The Telecommunications Law requires co-locution on existing towers. This property contains an existing tower, and applicant's proposed a co*locate of an antenna in accordance with the codes. The need for an equipment shelter building is in suppoct of the co- Iocatian. The existing Telecommunications Tower sits approximately 41 feet to the rear [ruperty llne, and there is a need for this building to be as close to the tower as possible. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to oursue, other than an area variance because of environmental constraints and because the proposed iocntlon is the mOSt beneficial to the applicants and the neighborhood. The requested variance is not 89:21 6317659064 ZONINGAPPE~LSBOARD : PAGE 83 ~ Ap pi- ~qo. 5127 - iqext¢l 96-1-~ 9, t at CutCho~e unreasonable a~d is within keep~n~ of the many re;Ulatlons pe~C~'mg to p~bKc ~llty ~ and ~smlsslon towe~, 3. ~ a~a variance is not subs~6~l, will be on~stu~ ~ h~gbt, ~d o~s the ~m~ w~cb appty to si~tar WP~ and d~i~s of ~cc~sO~ stor~e ~ in t~s ~d o~r znne district- -~- -hvsiC~ or e~ro~t~ · ~ve~e eff~ or impact on my p .: · .... ~ .,-~ce ~H not have ~ . . ....... ~d to su~z~t the ~ Ioca~on 4. I ne propusc~ -~., - -- ~'---:-+ ~o ev~fl~ce Bas ~ auv~-~- condlfions ~n ~ ~ghbarno~ or matz, of ~ equip~t she~r ~ructure wU! h~ ~ adver~ ~t of ~Pa~ o~ ~e ph~c~ en~ronm~ cond~ons in the neighborhood or ~strlct. T~ ~pli~t ~ proH~ ~dsc~g for buffing, tO scr~n ou~ide of the f~ce ar~. The Bo~d su~ts fiv~f~t ~bo~t~ pl~ four ~ ~, to ~ continuomly maint~n~. Howevcr~ the ~ard ~ the figM 10 ~ buffing layout if screening is not adequately follow~ by applic~t ~ative to ~ p icu r area. 5. In considering this application, the Board deems this action to be the minimum necessary and adequate for the applicants to enjoy the benefit of a new accessory equipment shelter, and that the grant of this variance will preserve the character of the neighborhood, and the health, I;afety, welfare of the community. BOARD RESOLUTION: in considering ali of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Tortoro, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, and duly carried, to: GRANT the variance as applied for, and shown on the site plan drawings SP-lmd SP-2 dated S/22/01, revised 8/22/01, by William F. Collins, This action does not authorize or condone eny current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of th.e. Board: Ayes: .V~mtS~~ . (M~mber Ohva was absent.) ,;1~, I~,..~n~:.~r GG:Ik ~~,~ (4-0). s, Orlando, VISUAL RESOURCE REPORT FOR A PROPOSED OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY Town of Southold 21855 County Road Cutchogue, New York Suffolk County Prepared for: Omnipoint Communications, Inc. 4 Sylvan Way Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Prepared by: DMS Consulting Services, Inc. 560 Hudson Street Suite 3 Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 (201) 229-1550 January 15, 2003 DMS CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. INTRODUCTION Omnipoint Communications, Inc. ("Omnipoint") seeks approval for the installation of a public utility wireless communications facility located at 21855 County Road (CR 48), within the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The proposed installation would be mounted to an existing monopole. The facility would comprise of twelve (12) panel antennas and three (3) outdoor ground based equipment cabinets. The proposed facility would be a co-location, as a similar installation currently exists at 105'-8" feet, which is the top of the existing structure. The addition of this provider will not change the design or location of the original footprint of the existing structure. The proposed project is limited to a minor alteration to the existing structure with a minimal addition to the subject parcel. A site visit was conducted by DMS Consulting Services, Inc. ("DMS Consulting") on January 12, 2003 to assess the subject property, surrounding area and the possible visual impact of the proposed project. OCI- LI-13-544 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a wireless communication facility. The facility would be comprised of three (3) sectors consisting of four (4) panel antennas each, for a total of twelve (12) panel antennas. Three (3) ground based equipment cabinets would be required to support the functions of the facility. The Omnipoint antenna facility would co-locate at a total height of 93'-0" feet AGL on the existing 105'-8" foot monopole. Each antenna is positioned to provide service within a specific sector or direction. The directional coverage being provided are: 30, 150 and 270 degrees from North. The proposed facility will be comprised of the following element: · Twelve (12)-panel antenna. The dimensions are: 72" height x 8" width x 2.75" depth. · Three (3) equipment cabinets. Cabinet dimensions are: 63" tall x 53" wide x 25" deep. · Coaxial cables attaching the antennas to the cabinets. The installation design allows for the placement of the facility not to exceed the height of the existing structure as a whole. The height of the monopole and top provider is 105'-8" feet AGL. The drawings dated September 3, 2002, show the installation of a second provider, although at the time of the field visit, the monopole structure had only one existing provider. The proposed installation would co-locate at a height of 93'-0" feet AGL. The antennas are supported by three (3) outdoor equipment cabinets that are to be located immediately southwest of the existing monopole structure, which is located in the rear yard of the subject property. The equipment compound will be approximately 200 square feet enclosed with a chain link fence. Currently the equipment of the existing providers are contained within a separate enclosed fenced compound. 2 OCI- L1o13-544 LAND USE EXISITNG CONDITIONS The subject property fronts County Road 48,and lies within a light industrial zoning district. Currently the property contains an existing commercial building. The rear yard contains an existing communication structure and associated equipment compound that is enclosed by a chain link fence. The abutting property to the east-northeast is a developed industrial park. During the field visit, it was noted that the rear of the industrial park provided parking for school busses and heavy-duty equipment. The surrounding land use along Cox Road east of County Road 48 are agricultural as is most of the immediate area. Uses west along Cox Road are mixed; residential one -family to the north and industrial to the south. This small minor road is completely developed with industrial and commercial uses. Residential one-family uses are minimal and scatted through out the area of analysis. A small residential cluster is located south of the subject property along Middle Road and along Oregon Road, to the west. METHODOLOGY FIELD ANALYSIS A site visit and windshield analysis was conducted on January 13, 2003 from approximately 1:00PM to 2:00 PM. The weather conditions provided clear skies, sunny, strong winds and approximately 40° F. Photographs were taken from viewpoints located in publicly accessible areas. Photo renderings from seven (7) different locations are provided to illustrate the visual impact of the proposed installation to the existing structure. The analysis comprised of a half-mile radius from the subject property. 3 OCI- LI-I 3-544 VISUAL ANALYSIS The surrounding area is primarily agricultural, vineyards specifically. The remaining developed areas are mixed with residential and commercial and industrial uses. The existing monopole currently has one provider atop the structure. The subject property and adjacent properties are industrial and commercial uses. The nearest residential uses are located along the eastern portion of Cox Road and Mathews Lane, north/northeast of the subject property. The western portion of Cox Road are all commercial uses with associated equipment. A small cluster of residential one-family residences are located southwest of the subject property. The residences along Horseshoe Road view the currently industrial and agricultural conditions. Impacts both visual and non-visual, associated with commercial and industrial business and or uses have the possibility of effect on the residential uses they abut. Country Road 48 is a four-lane thoroughfare with overhead traffic lights, utility poles and signage for the existing businesses. Although visibility of this structure may be limited to the surrounding residences to the west-southwest, the majority of the residences will not have a view of the proposed installation. As the proposed installation is in keeping with the current installations, the additional antennas would not change the current zone of visibility or the degree of visual impact currently existing. The height of the Omnipoint facility does not exceed the height of the existing monopole structure, as it currently exists. CONCLUSION Visibility of the proposed installation will remain consistent with the current zone of visibility as the proposed installation does not increase the height of the existing structure. The visual impact remains limited to those that currently have a view of the existing installation. The immediate vicinity is comprised of residential, industrial and commercial uses. Changes to the visual environs would be nominal to non-existent. The proposed installation would not increase or alter the height of the existing structure and therefore negating any changes to the horizon. The proposed installation in a minimal alteration to the existing facility. There are no non-visual impacts associated with the proposed installation, as it would not alter the existing level of noise, vibrations or traffic that currently exists. The proposed facility does not emit fumes, odors or vibrations. The facility will be unmanned. The footprint of the existing compound would not be disturbed, although an additional 200-foot compound is required for the supporting equipment of the proposed installation. The proposed facility would not alter the current development of the parcel, neighborhood or future development. Therefore, the visual 4 OCI- LI-13-544 appearance of the horizon would undergo a minimal alteration, which would be consistent with the current view. PROCESS The photographs were taken with a Nikon N60 Camera. The lens was set on 50mm auto focus to match the human eye's focal view. Kodak Gold 200 ASA print film was used for the negatives for this project.. All photos were developed in a 4x6 size print and the then scanned into digital format at 600 dpi. The images are directly imported into the Adobe Photoshop version 6.0 software program. The proposed images of the equipment portrayed in the renderings are digital files of actual existing structures/antenna. The files are layered omo the photographic image and scaled using internal graphing and pixel measuring tools. Lighting and colors are matched based on time of day, current weather conditions at the time of picture and proposed construction drawings. The blending of these layers will create the final image. The final image is exported to a post production software Adobe Illustrator 9.0 and scaled to page size using its Vector Based scaling engine to ensure zero percent distortion in final print. Text additions and final prims are run from Illustrator with Pantone Color Matching on all colors. Final images are printed on a Epson Glossy Photo Paper to maximize contrast, brightness and attention to detail for each image. 5 OCI- LI-13-544 VIEWS AND DISTANCES The seven (7) views that are provided here were assessed for visual impact and are described below. A blue flag notes the location of the existing tower. Microsoft Expedia measured the approximate distances from which the view was taken through the mapping program of Streets. View Point Key Distance View 1 View taken from the intersection of Cox Road and ±750 feet County Road eastbound, looking northwest. Simulation of Before and After View 2 View from the driveway of 7200 Depot Lane, ±2880 feet looking east. Simulation of Before and After. View 3 View taken from the southeast comer of the intersection ± 4100 feet of Oregon Road and Depot lane, looking southeast. Simulation of Before and After. View 4 View taken from the front of 780 Gold Spur Street, ±3200 feet looking east. Simulation of Before and After View 5 View taken from the entrance to Bidwell Vineyards on 4-1515 feet Country Road 48, looking northeast. Simulation of Before and After. View 6 View taken from the front of 18216 Country Road 48, 4-4035 feet looking east. Non-Impact View. View 7 View taken from the rear parking lot of the industrial park, 4-600 feet looking west. Simulation of Before and After. 6 OCI- LI-13-544 Omnipoir~t - Key Map 21855 CoUnty Road, Cutchogue, NY ~Cutchog~e Station 0,2 DMS Consulting Services, Inc, Project: 21855 COUnty Rood 48 Cutehogue, New I'ork OCI OCI DMS Corm~lting ~2arv~ces, ;nc, Project: 2~855 Cotl~c,, Road 48 Cutchogue, }ic, u~ }~'k ~/7ew 21 EXisting ¥iew takenfr°m the driveway °f7200 DepOt Lane. OCI P~je~t: 21855 Co,my Rcz~d 48 Ci~tchogue, New Yo~k p?ew 2. proposed v~w taken fivm thE driveway of 7200 Depot Lane. Project: 2)855 Coilnty Rc~'~d 48 Cutchoom~e, N~w York Flew 4; Existing view taken from the front of 780 Gold Spur Street, looking east. OC1 Proposed Antenna DJ~:~S Comedting Services, Inc. Project: 21855 Couniy Road 48 C~ttcho~g~te, .New ?;vrk OCI Existing taken from the entrance to Bidwetl Vineyards on CR 4& looking northeast. DMS Con~dting Ser¥ices, Project: 2185~ Co~tnty Road 48 Cutchogu~, ~ ew York' ~ 5: PropOSed t~keh ?roject: 21855 Co~i~ Road 48 Cutcho~te, New York O~ ~ew 7. Existing view taken from the rear parking lot ofthe industrialpark' lo~mg west: ])$~ Co~sulting gervices, inc. Project: 21855 CounO* Road 48 Cutchogu¢, New York AFFIDAVIT OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 21855 Middle Road {County Road 48) Cutchogue, New York 11935 Suffolk County Tax Map ~ 1000-96-1-19.1 DATE OF HEARING January 16, 2003 PREPARED FOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 PREPARED BY LYNCH APPRAISAL LTD. 294 New York Avenue, Suite 2A Huntington, New York 11743 (631) 427-1000 AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL J. LYNCH STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) SS.: MICHAEL J. LYNCH, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am President of Lynch Appraisal Ltd. with offices at 294 New York Avenue, Huntington, New York. I am a certified New York State general real estate appraiser. I have been qualified to testify as an expert witness before the Town of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals and Town Board, Town of Oyster Bay Board of Zoning Appeals and Town Board, Town of Hempstead Zoning Board of Appeals and Town Board, Town of North Hempstead Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Babylon Zoning Board of Appeals and Town Board, Brookhaven Board of Zoning Appeals, Town of Smithtown Board of Zoning Appeals and Town Board, Town of Shelter Island Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Islip Planning Board, Town of Riverhead Planning Board, Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southampton Planning Board, as well as numerous incorporated villages throughout Nassau and Suffolk Counties. 2. At the request of 0MNIPOINT COMlVlUNICATIONS, INC. ('Omipoint), I have inspected the proposed site that is the subject of this application. I am fully familiar with the site, the neighborhood in which it lies, and I am fully familiar with what is proposed by Omnipoint. 3. The proposed Omipoint wireless site in the hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, calls for the installation of twelve (12) panel antennas (making up a total of three sectors), affixed to an existing 105' monopole. The antennas will be at a height of 93' There will also be associated equipment cabinetry on a concrete pad near the base of the tower. 0mipoint's site will join an existing wireless site by Verizon Wireless, whose antennas are situated at the top of the tower. Also, Nextel Communications was recently granted a permit to install antennas and ground equipment at the site, but has not yet commenced construction. The Omnipoint site will be at the north-westerly corner of an auto repair site situated along the northerly side of Middle Road (County Road 48), 750' westerly of Cox's Lane. It contains a total site area of 1.05 acres and is situated within a ~LI" Light Industrial zoning district. Adjoining properties include a Town of Southold recycling center to the north/west, vacant land to the north/east, and a single-family dwelling to the south/west, all zoned Light Industrial (LI). Across Middle Road to the south/east is vacant land and farmland zoned Agricultural Conservation (A-C). Nearby properties include a multi-tenanted industrial center, and vacant industrial and agricultural land. Accordingly, it is my professional opinion that the proposed site will not negatively affect property values in the surrounding area, and will not have an adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood or the pattern of its development. The property values, neighborhood character and pattern of development have already been well established by the existing conditions, uses and zoning within the area. 4. In addition, my opinion is supported by studies we have conducted regarding other wireless facilities. We have studied the effects of the installation of wireless telecommunications on water tower sites at Langdon Road, South Farmingdale, New York, and Arlington Avenue, Franklin Square, New York. We have studied the effects of an existing 300' lattice tower on new luxury housing homes at Southwoods Road, Woodbury, New York. We have the studied the effects of a rooftop wireless site at Glen Cove Road, East Hills, New York. And we have studied the effects of monopole antenna sites at Rte. 110, Farmingdale, New York; Port Washington Boulevard, Port Washington, New York; and North Country Road, Shoreham, New York. These studies are summarized as follows: A. Water Tower Site, Langdon Road, South Farminqdale, Nassau County, New York. Wireless antennas went on-line affixed to this water tower site on April 1999. This tower is situated in a stable residential neighborhood comprised of a relatively homogenous group of split-level style, single-family dwellings. Our staff compared sale prices of homes in the immediate area (up to 3 blocks away) before and after the on-line date of the antennas. Our "before" data, which included eleven (11) sales running from 4/96 to 1/99, was compared with "after" data, which included twelve (12) sales running from 5/99 to 10/00. The average price per square foot of the homes in the before and after groups was 33% higher for the latter, but statistically similar after adjusting for market appreciation. This leads the appraiser to conclude that the antennas did not lead to a devaluation of nearby property values. B. Water Tower Site, Arlinqton Avenue Franklin Square, Nassau County, New York. Wireless antennas went on-line affixed to this water tower site on January 1998. This tower is situated in a stable residential neighborhood comprised of a relatively modest and homogenous group of single-family dwellings. Our staff compared sales data (price per square foot) of homes in the immediate area (up to 3 blocks away) before and after the on- line date of the antennas. Our "before" data, which included eight (8) sales running from 11/95 to 10/97, was compared with "after" data, which included six (6) sales running from 3/98 to 7/00. The average price per square foot of the homes in the before and after groups was 21% higher for the latter, but statistically similar after adjusting for market appreciation. This leads the appraiser to conclude that the antennas did not lead to a devaluation of nearby property values. C. 300' Lattice Tower, Southwoods Road, Woodbur¥, Nassau County, New York. An existing 300' telecommunications tower sits along the west side of Southwoods Road, opposite Shannon Drive. Across the street from this tower is a series of housing developments of luxury homes that were built from 1994 to 1999. Many of the homes in these developments are within clear sight of the tower. In addition to researching overall sales in the Woodbury-Syosset area, we included looking at other home sales within the same developments that were not within direct sight of the tower, but otherwise similar to the affected homes. Our research indicates that the selling prices of the affected homes far exceeds the average selling prices of homes in the Woodbury-Syosset area, based on Multiple Listing sales data. Furthermore, the selling prices for the affected homes was similar to that of homes within the same developments that were not within direct sight of the tower. The following data reflects sales of homes along those streets within view of the tower, and average sales prices in the Woodbury-Syosset area: PRICE RANGE OF HOMES (FROM 1994-1997) ALONG SHANNON DRIVE, PIRONI COURT, AND CHAUNCEY PLACE: $500,000 $?47,000; AVERAGE $626,000 AVERAGE 1997 SALE PRICE IN WOODBURY BASED ON MLS DATA: $491,565 AVERAGE 1996 SALE PRICE IN WOODBURY BASED ON MLS DATA: $434,647 AVERAGE 1997 SALE PRICE IN SYOSSET BASED ON MLS DATA: $402,878 AVERAGE 1996 SALE PRICE IN SYOSSET BASED ON MLS DATA: $357,172 Our research has concluded that the presence of this tower has not had a negative effect on real estate values for those homes that are within sight of the tower. D. Rooftop Antennas, 70 Glen Cove Road, East Hills, Nassau County, New York. Wireless antennas were affixed to the rooftop of this 3-story office building in late 1997. This building is bordered to east, north/east and south/east by a relatively homogenous group of mid-priced single family dwellings, sharing similar appeal and utility. These include Colonial, Cape and Split-level styles, and are situated within the Red Ground Civic Association. Our staff compared sales data of homes in the immediate area (up to 3 blocks away) before and after the on-line date of the antennas. Our "before" data, which included eight (8) sales running from 10/94 to 4/97, was compared with "after" data, which included twelve (12) sales running from 1/98 to 8/00. The average price per home in the before and after groups was 20% higher for the latter, but statistically similar after adjusting for market appreciation. This leads the appraiser to conclude that the antennas did not lead to a devaluation of nearby property values. E. Monopole Antenna Site, Rte. 110, Farmingdale, New York. A 120'± monopole was erected at the south end of a retail store parking lot in approximately Fall 1999. This property is adjacent to a residential neighborhood comprised of modest- priced, detached single-family dwellings of Hi-Ranch, Cape Cod and Colonial styling, all sharing similar utility and appeal. Our staff compared sales data (price per square foot) of homes in the immediate area (up to 3 blocks) before and after the installation date of the monopole. Our ~before" data, which included eight (8) sales running from 12/98 to 9/99, was compared with ~after" data, which included eight (8) sales running from 6/00 to 8/01. The average price per home in the before and after groups was 28% higher for the latter, but statistically similar after adjusting for market appreciation. This leads the appraiser to conclude that the antennas did not lead to a devaluation of nearby property values. F. Monopole Antenna Site, Port Washington Police Department, Port Washinqton Blvd., Port Washington, New York. A 100'± monopole mounted w/cellular panel and police antennas was erected on this site in approximately August 1992. This property is adjacent to a small residential development comprised of a homogenous group of mid-priced single-family dwellings. Our staff compared sales data of homes in the development before and after the installation date of the monopole. Our ~before" data, which included ten (10) sales running from 8/89 to 8/92, was compared with "after" data, which included fifteen (15) sales running from 11/92 to 12/96. The average price per home in the before and after groups was nearly equal at $302,750 vs. $302,465. The real estate market during this study period was relatively level. This leads the appraiser to conclude that the antennas did not lead to a devaluation of nearby property values. G. Monopole Antenna Site, Rocky Point Fire Department, North Country Road (S.R. 25A), Shoreham, New York. A 100'± monopole mounted w/cellular panel and emergency service antennas was erected on this site in approximately December 1992. This property is adjacent to a stable residential neighborhood comprised of a relatively modest and homogenous group of single- family dwellings. Our staff compared sales data of homes in the immediate area (up to 2 blocks) before and after the installation date of the monopole. Our ~before" data, which included eight (8) sales running from 2/91 to 9/92, was compared with ~after" data, which included thirteen (13) sales running from 6/93 to 11/96. The average price per home in the before and after groups was nearly equal at $132,438 vs. $131,577. The real estate market during this study period was relatively level. This leads the appraiser to conclude that the antennas did not lead to a devaluation of nearby property values. 5. In summary, we found no correlation between the presence of wireless telecommunication antennas and declining property values in the seven Long Island residential communities we studied. As such, it is my opinion that the proposed Omnipoint wireless facility will not have an adverse impact on the subject property or the surrounding community. MI~AEI~J. LYNCH Sworn to before me this /~- day of January 2003. NOTk~LIC ?I',~OTHY J. CALLAHAN ADDENDUM OMNIPOINT LONG MICHAEL J. LYNCH Certified N.Y.S. General Real Estate Appraiser #46-1012 QUALIFICATIONS Real estate appraiser since 1981. President of Lynch Appraisal Ltd., located at 294 New York Avenue, Huntington, New York 11743. Appraised various types of real property on Long Island, New York City and Westchester County including multi-family dwellings, apartment buildings, commercial property, factories, warehouses, R & D buildings, office buildings, large residential estates, residential and commercial subdivisions, boat yards, and special-use properties. Prepared appraisals for use in estates, estate planning, feasibility studies, condemnation proceedings, tax certiorari, and matrimonial matters. Specialized in testimony such as area or use variances for properties. Applications have included proposed wireless antenna sites, fast food establishments, convalescent homes, service stations, multi-family residences, new construction, etc. Recognized as Expert Witness: Nassau County Supreme Court. New York Supreme Court. Town of Babylon Zoning Board of Appeals. Town of Babylon Planning Board. Town of Babylon Town Board. Town of Brookhaven Board of Zoning Appeals. Town of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals. Town of Huntington Town Board. Town of Islip Town Board. Town of Islip Planning Board. Town of Riverhead Planning Board. Town of Riverhead Board of Zoning Appeals. Town of Shelter Island Zoning Board of Appeals. Town of Smithtown Board of Zoning Appeals. Town of Smithtown Town Board. Town of Southampton Planning Board. Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Town of Oyster Bay Zoning Board of Appeals. Town of Oyster Bay Town Board. Town of North Hempstead Board of Zoning Appeals. Town of Hempstead Board of Zoning Appeals. Town of Hempstead Town Board. Town of Shelter Island Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Bayville Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Brookville Board of Zoning Appeals. Village of Cedarhurst Board of Zoning Appeals. Village of East Hills Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Floral Park Board of Trustees. LYNCH APPRAISAL LTD. Recognized as Expert Witness (cont.): Village of Freeport Planning Board. Village of Garden City Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Garden City Board of Trustees. Village of Garden City Planning Commission. Village of Great Neck Plaza Board of Trustees. Village of Great Neck Estates Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Lawrence Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Lynbrook Board of Trustees. Village of Massapequa Park Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Matinecock Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Mill Neck Board of Zoning Appeals. Village of Mineola Board of Trustees. Village of Munsey Park Board of Trustees. Village of New Hyde Park Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Muttontown Board of Zoning Appeals. Village of Old Brookville Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Old Westbury Board of Zoning Appeals. Village of Oyster Bay Cove Board of Zoning Appeals. Village of Roslyn Board of Trustees. Village of Upper Brookville Board of Trustees. Village of Upper Brookville Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Valley Stream Board of Zoning Appeals. Village of Westbury Board of Trustees. Village of Westbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Williston Park Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Asharoken Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Huntington Bay Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Northport Board of Zoning Appeals. Village of Lindenhurst Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Patchogue Planning Board. Village of Port Jefferson Board of Trustees. Village of Quogue Zoning Board of Appeals. City of Glen Cove Planning Board. City of Glen Cove Zoning Board of Appeals. EDUCATION Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York: BBA - Management (1983); MBA - Banking & Finance (1991). TECHNICAL TRAINING Appraisal Institute Real Estate Appraisal Principles - Exam #1 A-1. Basic Valuation Procedures - Exam #1A-2. Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Part A, - Exam #1B-A. Capitalization Theory and Tech. Part B, - successfully challenged Exam #1B-B. Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation - successfully challenged Exam #2-1. Standards of Professional Practice, Part A (USPAP) - Exam #I410 Standards of Professional Practice, Part B - Exam #11420 LYNCH APPRAISAL LTD. Board of Appeals: Town of Southold State of New York: County of Suffolk In the Matter of the Application of Omnipoint Communications, Inc. Premises: AFFIDAVIT 21855 County Road 48 Cutchogue, New York Section 96; Block 1; Lot 19.1 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) NICHOLAS BALZANO, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am a radio frequency engineer providing services to Omnipoint Communications, Inc. ('Omnipoint'). As a radio frequency engineer, I am trained to identify service deficiencies in wireless telecommunications coverage and to evaluate the ability of proposed antenna sites to remedy such deficiencies. I am fully familiar with Omnipoint's antenna network in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. My curriculum vitae is submitted herewith. 2. I submit this affidavit in support of Omnipoint's application for a variance pursuant to Article XIV, Section 100-165(C) of the Town of Southold Zoning Ordinance. 3. Omnipoint is considered a public utility for zoning purposes under the laws of the State of New York and is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to serve the public within Suffolk County and throughout much of the United States. 4. The proposed public utility telecommunications facility will consist of the installation of antennas on the already existing monopole and the installation of related equipment on a concrete slab on the ground adjacent to the existing monopole at the premises captioned above ('the premises') as depicted in the plans previously submitted to the Board. 5. Omnipoint strives to provide reliable service throughout its licensed coverage area. At present, Omnipoint is unable to provide reliable service in the vicinity of the subject site in Cutchogue. This unreliability represents an inconvenience to users of Omnipoint's services and can have serious consequences at times of emergency or disaster. The proposed facility will enable Omnipoint to remedy this problem and provide reliable service in the area in question. 6. In order to understand why the antenna site that is the subject of this application is needed, it is necessary to understand how Omnipoint's system works from an engineering standpoint. 7. Omnipoint's wireless communication system is a communications system designed by strategically placing low powered base stations at determined distances apart and at predetermined heights. The frequencies used by the system are generally "line of site". Because of such factors as hills, valleys, trees, buildings, and other physical obstructions and due to the nature of radio waves, each coverage area is irregularly shaped. Additionally, the sites require some overlap to ensure "seamless" coverage. With some overlap and sufficient signal from each base station, the Omnipoint user can move through the cells and not lose its call. The sites are engineered to cover a limited area, so that an antenna facility will cover the area surrounding it but will not interfere with other sites in the system. 8. In order to eliminate the service deficiency in a particular area, we perform propagation studies to determine the height and location of the cell site needed. Based on our studies, we determined that an antenna facility we determined that an antenna facility would have to be established within a narrowly defined search area in order to eliminate the service gap. In this case, we determined that the installation of the antennas on the already existing monopole at the premises in question would allow Omnipoint to provide reliable service in the vicinity of the premises. 9. The antennas in question must be affixed at the height described above in order to ensure that reliable service can be afforded to Omnipoint users in the vicinity of the site. The location and height of the antennas is determined by some or all of the following factors: drive test data, the location of existing antenna sites in the area, topography in the surrounding area, land cover features in the area such as buildings and foliage, and the results provided by computer propagation software programs that enable radio frequency engineers to predict the anticipated signal propagation at a given height and location. 10. In order to illustrate the effect that the proposed site would have on coverage in its vicinity, maps have been prepared for submission to the Board at the public hearing. The maps depict the areas presently enjoying reliable service in the vicinity, and the area to be served by the proposed site. 12. The proposed antenna facility is of vital importance to Omnipoint's efforts to provide reliable service to the area in question. Although a service gap will continue to exist, the proposed site would act to mitigate the deficiency by providing reliable service in the vicinity of the proposed site. 13. The antennas proposed will not interfere with radio or television service, or public safety telecommunications in the surrounding area. 14. Based on all of the foregoing, the proposal represents an excellent choice; it will enable Omnipoint to provide reliable service in the area in question and will have no negative effect on the aesthetics or character of the surrounding area. ~NICItOL~A BALZANO Radio Frequency Engineer Sworn to before me this ~I~)~ ' day of ~,~C~vlloe_W, 2002. v }q-(~Tt~RY PUBLIC APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A, Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 ,~..~%,..,' .~ ,r'2 % ~' :-,i' ,.,,.. ~ ~, BOA~ OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOU~OLD SCO'Iq? L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 ACTION OF THE BOARD Appl. No. 4062. NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC. Request for Special Exception approval under Article XIV, Section 100-14lB(i) for permission to establish public utility use and construct monopole radio tower and accessory equipment-storage building. Zone District: . Light Industrial (LI). Location of Property: 21855 County Road 48, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-96-1-19.1. WHEREAS, after due notice, a public hearing was held on October 24, 1991, and at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact and determination: 1. The premises in question is located in the Light Industrial (LI) Zone District in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, and is more particularly identified as County Tax Map District 1000, Section 96, Block 1, Lot 19.1. 2. The subject parcel contains a total area of 1.04 acres (or 45,589 sq. ft.) with a frontage of 168 feet along the north side of County Route 48 and a lot depth of 252+- feet. This parcel is improved with an existing building and uses which were the subject of a conditional approval by the Board of Appeals under Appl. No. 3835 rendered April 27, 1989 and Appl. No. 3705 rendered March 3, 1988 (Arthur Lo Junge, Inc.), as well as site plan approval by the Southold Town Planning Board. 3. By this application, a Special Ex~c~eption is requested for "...consuruction of an equipment building a~d monopole for cellular mobile communications...", both of which are public Page 2 - November 211~9~2 Matter of NYNEX/ART~ JUNGE, INC. Decision Rendered November 21, 1991 utility structures providing a public telephone communications service. 4. Reference is made to the following documents and site plan information submitted for the record: (a) Certificate of Occupancy #Z17295 issued by the Building Inspector on September 13, 1988 has been provided for the existing electric shop Of Arthur V. Junge and building. (b) Certificate of Occupancy #Z18981 issued by the Building Inspector on April 23, 1990 has been provided for a wholesale bakery and in the existing light industrial building to Local Talent, Inc. (c) the proposed equipment storage building and tower structure will be unmanned, not requiring active daily parking for on-site personnel or customers related to this use. (d) an existing tree line is shown along or very near the northerly and southerly lines the property; pine-tree screening shall be along the westerly property line. (e) also proposed a stockade fence along the northerly and easterly sections of the proposed radio equipment storage building; (f) other site plan elements will be provided as may be determined by the Planning Board under its simultaneously pending site plan application {see PB letter of 11/7/91). (g)~ New York SMSA Limited Partnership and NYNEX have furnished information for the record concerning its licensing as a public utility to provide cellular radio transmission serving to its full extent the public interest, convenience and necessity as per written consent and order authorized by the N.¥.S. Public Service Commission, Federal Communications Commission, which includes limitation on the Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters up to 7 watts, and output power for mobile transmitters up to 60 watts. It is also not permitted to be assigned or transferred to any person, firm, company, or corporation without the written consent of the Commission, and it is understood that upon any future proposal of this applicant or owner(s) to transfer or assign this authorization, subsequent application to this Board must be filed for consideration. 5. Also noted are the following data: ;e 3 - November i f -)~ Matter of NYlqEX/AR~UR jLrNGE, INC. Decision Rendered November 21, 1991 (a) cellular communication systems must operate through a network of cell sites, the first for this applicant in the Town of Southold at the subject premises in Cutchogue. (b) this cell site has two principal components, a 12' by 26 ft. structure for computer equipment storage, and transmitting/receiving antenna-tower structure, both of which are incidental and necessary to operate a wire line telephone communications use. The top of the tower is 12 ft. equilateral triangle, 40 inches high, 36 inches at the base and 18 inches at the top. There would be two whip antennas that are 10 ft. above that, and one below. (c) the tower and building are monitored seven days a week, 24 hours per day per FCC mandates, although it is unmanned physically at the site. (d) the tower and antenna are solely for use by this applicant/public utiIity and will not be rented or leased to any other corporation, person, firm or company. Also, it is expressly understood that no new cell, or expansion will be established, unless further application and approvals by this board and the regulating commissions, on this site in order that appropriate criteria may be evaluated, including engineering data relative to wind pressures, wind loads and other safety considerations for such future utility expansion. (e) the tower and antenna shall not be constructed of steel lattice design, but shall be a monopole structure designed to withstand continuous wind loads in excess of 150 mph and wind peaks of 190 mph or more (sufficiently mounted with wires and brackets capable to support these pressures). (LI) and Light Industrial-Office {LIO) Zoning Provisions authorize this type of telecommunications use by Special Exception. The use of this proposed monopole tower and accessory equipment storage building would include, to some extent, telephone exchanges. Although a telephone exchange is listed as a permitted use in the Light InduStrial (LI) ZOne District, this application for public utility structures and uses does require a special exception as provided by Article XIV, Section 100-14lB(i) and Article XIII, Section 100-131B(4) for "... Public Utility Structures and uses .... " The Special Exception provision is applicable to this proposed project, and has been filed and considered under this provision. 7. In passing upon this application, the Board Members have also considered Sections 100-264, subsections A through P, and have found and determined the following: Article XIII, Section 100-130 of the Light Industrial Matter of NYNEX Mobi~l~ Communications/Jun~e Decision Rendered November 21, 1991 (a) That the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (b) That the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located or of permitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts; (c) That the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, or order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; (d) That the use will be in harmony with and will promote the general.purposes and intent of this chapter; (e) That the use will be compatible with its surroundings, with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regard to visibility, scale and overall appearance and the fact that the property is bounded on the north by the Town Landfill, south by a major dual-lane highway, and bounded by other properties also located in the Light-Industrial Zone DiStrict. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the application for a Special Exception for the establishment of a public utility for the construction of a cellular telephone communications tower and accessory equipment-storage building as applied under Appl. No. 4062 in the Matter of NYNEX/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC., .BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. No excessive (disturbing) noise levels; 2. No expansion or additional construction (with the exception of emergency, fire or police necessities which serve the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order to the town), unless further application and approvals are obtained, and for which engineering certifications will be required concerning increased loads, winds pressures and other safety considerations for such expansion; 3. No microwave dishes, as agreed by the applicants (none of which are proposed during the consideration of this tter e mmunications/Junge :ision Rendered November 21, 1991 application); 4. No disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, light, vibration or noise, or harmful distribution levels radiation, as agreed. of VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MESSRS. GOEHRINGER, GRIGONIS, DOYEN AND VILLA. (MEMBER DINIZIO ABSTAINED FROM DISCUSSIONS AND FROM VOTE). This resolution was duly adopted. lk --~-~' . : .... ~ '~ //~..~__-~-- GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAI.RMAN SCOTT L. HARRIS SUPERVISOR FAX (516) 765 - 1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765 - 1800 BOARD OF APPEALS: Gerard P. Goehringer Chairman 765-1809 OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 4058: NYNEX MOBILE COMFfUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JITNGE, INC. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XIV, Section 100-142 for permission to construct monopole radio tower and accessory equipment-storage building with insufficient side and rear yard setbacks. Zone District: Light Industrial (LI). Location of Property: 21855 County Road 48, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-96-1-19.1. WHEREAS, after .due notice, a public hearing was held on October.24, 1991, and at said hearing all those who desired to 'be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are · familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is located in the Light Industrial (LI) Zone District in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, and is more particularly identified as County Tax Map District 1000, Section 96, Block 1, Lot 19.1. 2. The subject premises consists of a total area of 1.04 acres (or 45,598 sq. ft.) with a frontage of 168 feet along the' north side of County Route 48 and a lot depth of 252+- feet. This parcel is improved with an existing building and uses which were the subject of a conditional approval by the Board of Appeals under Appl. No. 3835 rendered April 27, 1989 and Appl. No. 3705 rendered March 3, 1988 (Arthur L. Junge, Inc.), as well as site plan approval by the Southold Town Planning. Board. ~ 3. By this applicatiOn, reduced setbacks are requested: ~a) from the~n-~h-g~Dv~r~-~z~V~-d andw~~ ,,=~ ~ ~A zeet~and 24+- f~eet~ r~specti~~,~;~n~t~;n of bhe proposed accessory storage building, and (b) from the northerly rear yard at 39+- feet and from the westerly side yard at 21+- feet for the fOundation of the proposed monop.~le tower Page 2 - Appl~.~o. 4~ Matter of NYNEX MOBIL]~ COMMUNICATIONS Decision Rendered November 21, 1991 structure, all as more particularly shown on map of proposed site plan and details prepared by Richard E. Tangel, P.E. dated July 31, 1991. 4. ~The subject premises is located in the Light-Industrial (LI) Zone District, and the setbacks applicable are noted for a principal use structure at 70 from the rear prQperty line and 20 for the side yard. 5. The following documentation and site plan information are noted for reference and consideration: (a) an existing tree (screening) line is shown along or very near the northerly and southerly lines of the subject property; pine-tree screening must be located along the' westerly property line, as shown on the site plan maps; (b) also proposed is a stockade fence along th~ northerly and easterly sections of the proposed equipment storage building; (c) Certificates of Occupancy have been found of record for the existing uses as follows: (1) ~Z17295 issued on September 13, 1988 for the electric shop/building of Arthur V. Junge; (2) ~.Z18981 issued on April 23, 1990 for a wholeale bakery and for Local Talent, Inc. in the existing light-industrial building; (d) the proposed equipment storage building and tower structure will be unmanned, not requiring active daily parking for additional on-site personal or any increase'of on-site customers related to the establishment of this public utility us~; (e) other site plan elements are to be placed as conditioned by the Planning Board under its simultaneously pending site plan application {see PB letter of 11/7/91); (f) New York SMSA Limited Partnership and NYNEX have furnished information for the record concernings its licensing as a public utility to provide cellular radio transmission serving to its full extent the public interest, convenience and necessary as per written consent and order authorized by the N.Y.S. Public Service Commission, Federal~ Communications Commission, etc., which includes limitation on the Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters up to 7 watts, and output power for mobile transmitters up to 60 watts. It is also not permitted to be assigned or transferred to any person, firm,' company, or corporation without the.written consent of the Commission; and it is understood that upon any future proposal of. this applicant or owner(s) to transfer or assign this ~age 3 - Appl. No.~8''~/~ Matter of NYNEX Mobile Communications/Junge Decision Rendered November 21, 199t authorization, subsequent application to this Board must be filed for consideration. 6. Other relevant technical information considered in this project are also noted below for the record: (a) cellular communication systems must operate through a network of cell sites, the first for this applicant in the Town of Southold at the subject premises in Cutchogue. (b) this cell site has two principal components, a 12' by 26 ft. (13' by 27' foundation) structure for computer equipment storage, and transmitting/receiving antenna-tower structure, both of which are incidental and necessary to operate a wire line telephone communications use. The top of the tower is 12 ft. equilateral triangle, 40 inches high, 36 inches at the base and 18 inches at the top. There would be two whip antennas that are 10 ft. above that, and one below. (c) the to~er and building are monitored seven days a week, 24 hours per day per FCC mandates, although it is unmanned physically at the site. (d) the tower and antenna are solely for use by this applicant/public utility and will not be rented or leased to any other corporation, person, firm or company. Also, it is expressly understood that no new cell, or expansio~ will be established, unless further application and approvals by this board and the regulating commissions, on this site in order that appropriate criteria may be evaluated, including engineering data relative to wind pressures, wind loads and other safety considerations for such future utility expansion; (e) the design of the tower and antenna submitted is not a steel lattice design; this monopole structure must, however, be designed to withstand continuous wind loads in excess of 150 mph and wind peaks of 190 mph or more (sufficiently mounted with wires and brackets capable to suppor~ these pressures). 7. This date, a Special Exception was conditionally approved by this Board concerning the applicant's request under Article XIII, Section 100-130 of the Light Industrial (LI) and Light Industrial-Office (LIO) Zoning Provisions for authorization to establish a telecommunications use.by a public utility. Page 4 - Appl. No. Matter of NYI~EX MOBILE COMMIINICATIONS Decision Rendered November 21, 1991 8. In considering this application, the Board also finds that the relief requested: (a) will not be adverse to the~'~ssential character of the neighborhood and is the minimum necessary to afford relief under the circumstances; (b) will not in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town, or be adverse to neighboring properties; (c) will not increase dwelling unit density or cause a substantial effect on available governmental facilities; (d) cannot be obviated by another method feasible to appellant to pursue, other than a variance (e) is uniquely related to the property and is not personal in nature; (f) in considering all of the above factors, the. interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. 'Goehringer, seconded by' Mr. Grigonis, it was as RESOLVED, to GRANT relief ~or the reduced setbacks requested and noted above on the first page~ paragraph #3, in the Matter of the Application of NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATioNS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: RESOLVED, that the application for a Special Exception for the establishment of a public utility for the construction of a cellular telephone communications tower and accessory equipment-storage building as applied under Appl. No.. 4062 in the Matter of NYNEX/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC., BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. No excessive (disturbing) noise leVels; 2. No expansion or additional construction (with the exception of emergency, fire or Police necessities which serve the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order to the town), unless further application and approvals are obtained, and for which engineering certifications will be required concerning increased loads, winds pressures and other safety considerations for such expansion; 3. No microwave dishes, as agreed by the applicants (none of which are proposed during the consideration of this.~ application); 5 - Appl. No. of NYNEX Mob~ Communications/Junge Rendered November 21, 1991 application); 4. No disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, light, vibration or noise, or harmful distribution levels of radiation, as agreed. 5. The setbacks shall be not less than that applied for and shown on the plan dated October 18, 1991 (Drawing No. 92-8012) prepared by Richard E. Tangel, P.E., from the northerly property line. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MESSRS. GOEHRINGER, GRIGONIS, DOYEN AND VILLA. (MEMBER DINIZIO ABSTAINED FROM DISCUSSIONS AND FROM VOTE). This resolution was duly adopted~ GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN I 271 North Avenue, Suite 71 1 PO Box 1620, New Rochelle. NY10802-1620 I 7a)° n~ :1 49:~47 ~_706~7665 3 0 ~1 I C 0 R P 0 R A T I I I I I ENGINEERING REPORT SUMMARY I JANUARY 3, 2003 I PREPARED AND SIGNED BY I LOUIS G. CORNACCHIA, B.E.E. PRESIDENT ! I I I I EVALUATION OF RADIO EMISSIONS FROM THE PROPOSED OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC,, PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE (PCS) ANTENNA INSTALLATION ( SITE- LI- 13-544-A) TO BE MOUNTED TO AN EXISTING MONOPOLE, LOCATED AT SECTION 096, BLOCK 1, LOT 19,1, 71855 COUNTY ROAD 48, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK, I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 271No~h Avenue, Suite 711 RO Box 1620, New Rochelle, NY10802-1620 Phone: 914-576-6530 Fax: 914-576-0576 C O R P O R A T i 4) N Mr. Kevin Griswold Project Manager Omnipoint Facilities Network 2, LLC 4 Sylvan Way Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Subject: Evaluation of Radio Emissions from the Existing Omnipoint Communications Inc. "Omnipoint" Antenna Installation Site#LI-13-544-A ("Facilities") to be mounted to an existing Monopole, located at Section 096, Block 1, Lot 19.1, 71855 County Road 48, Cutchogue, New York. Attn.: Mr. Kevin Griswold As per the request of the Applicant, Omnipoint Facilities Network 2, LLC ("Omnipoint"), enclosed please find: An analysis of findings and conclusions prepared by SCINETICS Corporation Engineers on the following: Maximum Power Density of the combined field closest to the existing Omnipoint Antenna Installation, and at specific radial distances from the Omnipoint Transmitting Antennas, where people can be. Calculated levels compared to allowable EMF continuous Exposure levels as per ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1991/NCRP (49 CFR 1.1310), Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Continuous Exposure Standards, NCRP, OSHA and the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Limits. A I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY This report is the result of an extensive study of Electromagnetic Field Intensities (EMF - Power Densities) emitted by the Proposed Facility, Site #LI-13-544-A to be mounted to an existing Monopole, located at Section 096, Block 1, Lot 19.1, 71855 County Road 48, Cutchogue, New York. The study incorporated the most conservative considerations to determine practical combined cumulative worst case Power Densities, contributed by the proposed Facility in question and existing Verizon and approved Nextel transmitting antennas on the existing Monopole the Cutchogue community could theoretically encounter. It is the conclusion of this report, that the emissions meet the safety criteria specified by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, with respect to environmental considerations of RF emissions as well as the limits recognized by NYSDOH. The results of this analysis indicate that the maximum level of RF energy to which the public may be exposed from the operation of the proposed Facility is below all applicable health and safety limits. Additionally, the Power Densities emitted by the proposed carrier installation, are far below the safety criteria adopted by the Federal Communications Commission, as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the health standards adopted or proposed in the United States and any health standard used anywhere in the world. The issue of EMF compliance is pre-empted from the municipality regulatory powers beyond the applicants stating that it has examined the emissions in accordance with "OET Bulletin No. 65 - Edition 97- 01, August 1997" with analytical adjustments to equations per Richard Tell and Ed Mantiply of the FCC Office of Engineering Technology and that the applicant is in compliance with the FCC/NCRP MPE of 1000 microwatts/cm, sq. General Public or "uncontrolled environment" Standard. This Standard is recognized by the New York State Department Of Health (NYSDOH). Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 states No State or local government or instrumentality thereof, may regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless services facilities on the basis of environmental effects of B I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I radio frequencies emissions to the extent that such Facilities comply with the Commissions (FCC) Regulations concerning such emissions". This law directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to offer assistance to state and local governments in wireless facilities issues. On August 1, 1996 the FCC adopted portions of the 1991 ANSI/IEEE, and NCRP Maximum permitted exposure (MPE) criteria. CONCLUSIONS The results of this theoretical worst case safety analysis clearly indicate that the EMF emissions contributed by the proposed Omnipoint transmitting antennas will be far below EMF continuous Exposure levels as per ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1991/NCRP (49 CFR 1.1310), Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Continuous Exposure Standards, OSHA, and NYSDOH limits. The emissions broadcast from the Omnipoint transmitters are in the non-ionizing 1930-1950 MHz frequency band, a band previously assigned to fixed mobile communications since the 1950s. Presently the FCC has assigned these same frequencies in the 1930-1950 MHz band to the Wireless Communications Industry, capable of transmitting at power levels of 500 Watts ERP. This frequency band, has in fact, been a part of the EMF environment for over fifty years. The EMF levels attributed to the emissions caused by this wireless system will be well below EMF Standards which in the scientific consensus based on overwhelming evidence, are well below threshold effects. The derived Standards have added safety limits to the threshold levels. When EMF levels encountered are at or below the Standard, no health effects occur, therefore no cumulative effect is possible regardless of exposure duration. This analysis and the results of this analysis assumes an antenna power output of three hundred sixty (360) Watts ERP per channel. The theoretical highest cumulative emissions the Cutchogue community could be exposed to at any point, would be less than 0.64% of the applicable FCC General Public EMF Standards (contributed by the proposed Omnipoint PCS, existing Verizon Wireless, and approved Nextel (iDEN) transmitting antennas, at an elevation of 16 feet (AGL). This theoretical highest combined cumulative percentage of EMF levels which could be emitted, is below all applicable FCC MPE EMF Standards by a factor of 155. C I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (Note: All future co-locating carriers must complete an FCC Compliance analysis, including the proposed carrier Emissions as determined herein, providing cumulative EMF emissions impact.) This EMF level and all other levels presented in Table II-IIB are theoretical maximas that could occur only under worst case, assuming conditions such as in phase reflections occurring steady state, all transmitters operating simultaneously and continuously and excluding resistance or attenuating characteristics of construction material used in homes, schools and other similar structures. In reality, actual field measurements continually provides readings of power density levels far lower than the more conservative analytical levels indicated. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, is the applicable Federal Law with respect to consideration of environmental effects of RF emissions in the siting of wireless Radio facilities. It is the conclusion of this report, that the proposed Omnipoint application meets the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) present criteria and the FCC criteria as it is effected by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, with respect to environmental considerations of RF emissions. Furthermore, Mobile PCS Radio Frequency Bands do not interfere with television reception, telephones or radio reception due to the wide separation of the Broadcast Bands as mandated and monitored by the FCC. (See Table I) ANALYSIS This critical analysis* incorporated Radio antenna emission characteristics and included the following assumptions which exceed realistic conditions of operations, but will yield worst case EMF - Power Densities ordinarily not realized and never exceeded. 1. All antennas are located at the lowest elevation indicated in the construction drawing to absorb errors in actual locations and to bring the antenna cluster closer to facilities and citizens than would normally be the case. 2. All antennas will be transmitting continuously, 24 hours a day. 3. All channels will be communicating simultaneously. 4. Power levels emitting from the antennas are increased by a factor of 4 to take into account possible in - phase reflections at any point in the Cutchogue community, which is rarely the case, and if so, are never continuous. D I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I At all distances greater than 2000 feet, the Power Densities decrease by a factor of four (4) with every doubling of distance. The Wireless Antenna Installation in question is an assembly of low power antennas that emits radio energy at levels 100 to 1000 times below those of Commercial Broadcast Antennas. Given the distances between the antennas studied in this report and the community field points in question, as well as the overall community, the densities of the radio energy are extremely low. * Reference Basis for calculations: 1- "Evaluating Compliance With FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. OET Bulletin No. 65 -Edition 97-01 "with analytical adjustments to equations per Richard Tell Associates and Ed Mantiply of the FCC Office of Engineering Technology 2- Copies of data, sketches and specifications submitted by Omnipoint are the basis for our studies, calculations and analysis. Frequency Bands According to the FCC, microwave (MW) frequencies cover the approximate band from 900 MegaHertz (MHz) to 300 GigaHertz (GHz). One MegaHertz (MHz) is a million cycles and One GigaHertz (GHz) is a billion cycles per second. Table I lists several other communication and interrogation frequencies used in the United States. Clearly, a large fraction of commercial and private telecommunication involves MW Frequencies. TABLE I (Some Frequency Definitions) Type of System FM Radio VI-IF TV UHF TV Mobile Phone: Typical Radar Cellular/PCS Systems Frequency Interval 88 MHz to 108 MHz 174 MHz to 216 MHz 470 MHz to 806 MHz 806 MHz to 2.0 GHz 200 MHz to 3.0 GHz E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I POWER DENSITY CALCULATIONS-Analytical Data The Scinetics Engineering report represents a worst case scenario, and the provided EMF analysis considers maximum number channels to be transmitted by the proposed antennas in each sector. For determining maximum public exposure to EMF emissions potential close proximity of the public to the proposed location of the applicants transmitting antennas must be defined as "near field region", or "far field". The following will examine procedures followed in accordance with FCC OET Bulletin 65-Edition 97-01, with analytical adjustments to equations per Richard Tell and Ed Mantiply of the FCC Office of Engineering Technology. All noints determined to be in the Far Field Region Far Field When power density predictions of field points calculated Far Field equations can be used. For far field (ff) EMF analysis: in the community are Where Sff = n F EIRP 4~cR2 S(ff)=power density EIRP=power output of antenna relative to an isotropic radiator =P(erp) x 1.64 (correctionfactor) R=distance from point in question to center of emissions of antenna F=The ground reflectivity n=number of channels In cases where antennas incorporating directional arrays and where antennas are pointed to the horizon, the far field equation shown will result in overly worst case prediction. Therefore the equation can be modified by the antenna vertical emissions pattern where a .relative gain can be derived: S= n F EIRP FO 4~R2 FO=Relative field factor (relative numeric gain) "OET Bulletin No. 65 - Edition 97-01, August 1997" (Pages 21 - 23) F I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Principal Features Of Tile Proposed Installation And The Assumptions Considered In The Analysis Are As Follows; a) The proposed Facility antennas will be mounted to the existing Monopole as indicated by the Omnipoint drawings. The elevation from the centerline of the proposed antennas to the base of the existing Monopole will be approximately 90' feet. The closest a person could approach the transmitting antennas would be 84' feet. This assumes a 6 foot tall person, with the distances being measured from the top of that individual's head standing at the base of the existing Monopole, to the centerline of the proposed antenna panels described. b) The antenna clusters will consist of three (3) Sectors, using four (4) dualpole Directional type antennas [EMS RR65-19-02DP or equivalent] for proposed carrier, Omnipoint, in each sector for transmission and receive. The physical arrangement of these antennas is indicated by the Omnipoint drawings. (Assumed 2° degree downtilt for all antennas in this analysis.) c) The maximum number of channels that will be assigned to the antenna array, for proposed carrier Omnipoint, in any direction, will not exceed eight (8). The maximum power from the transmitting antennas in each sector, with all eight (8) channels transmitting simultaneously, will not exceed 2880 Watts, ERP (@ 360 watts ERP/channel). The radio transmissions will be at frequencies between 1930 and 1950 MegaHertz. d) It was assumed that the elevation of the Cutchogue community within a radius of 2000 feet from the existing Monopole perimeter is equal to the elevation at the base of the existing Monopole, with exceptions as noted in Table II-IIB. e) All field points are at Radial distances indicated from the base of the existing Monopole where the vertical line of the Transmitting antennas intersect. G I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f) The EXISTING and APPROVED carrier RF and elevation data including transmitting characteristics, located/to be located on the existing Monopole: Verizon (existing) Maximum ERP/Channel 100 watts Number of Channels 20 Number of Transmit/Receive Antennas/Sector 4 Antenna centerline height above grade 102.66 feet Antenna Model- [Swedcom ALP-E-9011]- Directional-Gain=Il dBd Frequency of transmission- 806-900 MHz Maximum continuous residential Exposure-550 microwatts/cm, sq. Nextel (approved) Maximum ERP/Channel 100 watts Number of Channels 8 Number of Transmit/Receive Antennas/Sector 4 Antenna centerline height above grade 80 feet Antenna Model- [Scala AP13-850/065]- Directional-Gain=12.5 Frequency of transmission- 806-900 MHz Maximum continuous residential Exposure-550 microwatts/cm. dBd sq. H I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE IIA-1 EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM. SQ. / PERCENTAGE OF STANDARDS PROPOSED OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS SITE: LI-13-544-A 71855 COUNTY ROAD 48, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK Field Point - Any point in the community Antenna System Elevation Power Standard Calculated Feet WERP FCC/NCRP EMF Density Residential OMNIPOINT (12) - 1930-1950 MHz (Proposed) 90 360W 1000 0.501 Percent of Standard 0.05 VERIZON CELLULAR (12) - 835-894 MHz (Existing) 102.66 100W 550 1.732 0.32 NEXTEL (12) - 806-900 MHz (Approved) 80 100W 550 1.483 0.27 Total Percentage Of All Antenna Sources 0.64% NOTE: 1. 2. N/A is less than 0.001. Unless Indicated - Total Percentage of All Antenna Sources = less than 0.01%. WERP - power output per channel ** EMF emissions contributed by transmitting antennas in differing frequency bands are regulated by MPE Standards for the specific bands in which the emissions are analyzed. When adding the emissions resulting from transmissions in differing frequency bands, the resulting percentages of the emissions compared to the governing MPE standards are added. Per the FCC, percentages of EMF Density levels of applicable Standards, as specified by the FCC OET Bulletin No. 65 Edition 97.01, are addressed as follows: "Therefore, in mixed or broad band fields, where a number of different frequencies are involved, the contributing of all RF sources must be considered, When different limits are recommended for different frequencies, the fraction of (or percentages) the limit incurred within each frequency interval should be determined, and the sum of all such fractions (or percentages) should not exceed 1.0 (or 100 percent)" See section 4.1 in Appendix A). I I I I I I TABLE II I~WIF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SO. PROPOSED OMNIPOINT SITE- LI-13-544-A 71855 COUNTY ROAD 48r CUTCHOGUE~ NEW YORK Proposed Lower than the 1996 Percentage compared to the OMNIPOINT Telecommunications Act 1996 Telecommunications Act Field Points PCS FCC/ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1991 FCC/ANSI/IEEE Antenna General Public Exposure (1000 C95.1-1991 General Public Emissions micro watts/cm, sq.) by a factor ExposureStandard (1000 micro of watts/cm.sq./ Point 1 0.450 2200 0.04% R=10'- Base of Monopole Elev. - 6' Point 2 0.658 1500 0.07% R=100'~ Nearest Home Elev.- 16' Point 3 0.848 1175 0.08% R= 120'- Existing Garage Roof Elev. -22' Point 4 0.891 1100 0.09% R=200'- Shopping Center Elev. -16' Point 5 0.501 1975 0.05% R=500'- Cutchogue community Elev. -16' Point 6 0.639 1550 0.06% R= 1000'-Cutchogue community Elev. -16' Point 7 0.220 3100 0.03% R=2000'- Cutchogue community Elev. - 16' Note: N/A =factor over 100000 or less than 0.01% I TABLE IIA EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SO. PROPOSED OMNIPOINT SITE- LI-13-544-A 71855 COUNTY ROAD 48 CUTCHOGUE~ NEW YORK Existing Lower than the 1996 Percentage compared to the VERIZON Telecommunications Act 1~996 Telecommunications Act Field Points WIRELESS FCC/ANSI/IEEE C95 A - 1991 FCC/ANSI/IEEE CELLULAR General Public Exposure (550 C95.1-1991 General Public Antenna micro watts/cm, sq.) by a factor ExposureStandard (550 micro Emissions of watts/cm.sq.) Point 1 0.237 2320 0.04% R=10'- Base of Monopole Elev. - 6' Point 2 0.202 2700 0.04% R=100'- Nearest Home Elev. - 16' Point 3 0.536 1025 0.10% R= 120'- Existing Garage Roof Elev. -22' Point 4 0.592 925 0.1.2% R=200'- Shopping Center Elev. - 16' Point 5 1_.732 315 0.31.% R=500'- Cutchogue community Elev. - 16' Point 6 0.883 620 0.16% R= i000'-Cutchogue community Elev. - 16' Point 7 0.279 ]-950 0.05% R=2000'- Cutchogue community Elev. - 16' Note: N/A =factor over 100000 or less than 0.01% I I I I I I I I TABLE liB EMF LEVELS IN MICROWATTS/CM.SO. PROPOSED OMNIPOINT SITE- LI-13-544-A 71855 COUNTY ROAD 48~ CUTCHOGUE~ NEW YORK Approved Lower than the 1996 Percentage compared to the NEXTEL Telecommunications Act 1996 Telecommunications Act Field Points CELLULAR FCC/ANSI/IEEE C95.1.1991 FCC/ANSI/IEEE Antenna General Public Exposure (550 C95.1-1991 General Public Emissions micro watts/cm, sq.) by a factor ExposureStandard (550 micro of watts/cm.sq.) Point 1 0.254 2150 0.05% R= 10'- Base of Monopole Elev, - 6' Point 2 0.798 675 0.15% R=100'- Nearest Home Elev,- 16' Point 3 1.004 540 0.18% R= 120'- Existing Garage Roof Elev. -22' Point 4 1.279 425 0.23% R=200'- Shopping Center Elev. -16' Point 5 1.483 350 0.27% R=500'- Cutchogue community Elev, - 16' Point 6 0.446 1200 0.08% R= 1000'-Cutchogue community Elev. -16' Point 7 0.112 4900 0.02% R=2000'- Cutchogue community Elev. - 16' Note: N/A =factor over 100000 or less than 0.01% I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EMF STANDARDS REVIEW The U.S. Congress adopted "The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969" (NEPA) which requires all government agencies to take into account the potential environmental impact of their actions. The agencies must consider whether their actions significantly affect the "the quality of the human environment". To implement this mandate, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted rules covering the NEPA in licensing and approving facilities and operations under its jurisdiction. Rules adopted were codified in the code of Federal Regulations, Part 1, Subpart I, of the FCC Rules and Regulations. Facilities or operations specified must provide information assessing the environmental effect of their proposal. In the case of RF radiation, the environmental effect would be the relative health risk to people living or working near or at the facility in question. The FCC was required by NEPA to make a determination as to whether the facilities or operations it approves may significantly affect the human environment with regard to RF emissions. As there was no federal standard for exposure to RF emissions, the FCC chose to rely upon a recognized non-government standard. The FCC selected the "American National Standard Safety Level With Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, "300 KiloHertz (kHz) to 100 GigaHertz (GHz)" prepared by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in 1982. The protection guides recommended by ANSI were the guidelines the FCC had identified for using in evaluating environmental significance with respect to Human Exposure to RF emissions. The FCC adopted rules which required preparation of environmental assessment if the particular facility or operation would cause exposure of workers or the general public to levels of radio frequency radiation in excess of the ANSI protection guides. The rule was contained in 47 CFR 1.1307(d). That rule applied to facilities or operations licensed or authorized under the following parts of the Commission's Rules, 5,21 Subpart K), 25, 73, 74 (Subparts A, G, I, and L), and 80. The facilities and operations licensed or authorized under all other parts, subparts or sections of the Commissions Rules were categorically excluded from consideration. In 1986 the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Sub-Committee SC-53, published recommended J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I limits for occupational and public exposure (NCRP - "Biological effects and exposure criteria for radio frequency electromagnetic fields." NCRP Report No. 86, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland). Sub-Committee SC-53 independently retained Radiation Frequency Protection Guidelines (RFPGs) similar to those of the 1982 ANSI Standard but with one notable exception: two tiers appear, one for occupational exposure and one for exposure of the general public. In 1993, the EPA, aware of the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rule Making (In the matter of Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation, August 13, 1993. ET Docket No. 93-62), recommended adoption of the 1996 NCRP Limits. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104-104- February 8, 1996 recommended adoption of portions of the ANSI - IEEE C95.1 - 1991/NCR Standards, and in August of 1996, the FCC did adopt the ANSI - IEEE C95.1 - 1992 two tier Standards, implemented for all applications submitted beginning September 1, 1997. The attached photograph indicating acceptable EMF emissions from various household appliances provides a further perspective for better understanding the EMF levels encountered in this summary. For additional information addressing the environmental impact EMF Emissions please refer to the section in the report titled "References" which provides current names of agencies, contact personnel and phone numbers. of K I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I References for EMR recommended ceilines, data and comments to radiation sources, radiation hazards and available reports on studies of household appliances emitting electromagnetic radiation: Summary of International, Federal, State and Consensus Safety Criteria For Exposure to Radio Frequency Energy at Frequencies Used for GSM/PCS Wireless Communications Organization/Government Agency Exposure Power Population Density (gW/cm sq.) International -World Occupational 4,875 Health Organization-(EHC 137, 1993) Public 975 International -National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB, 1993) Occupational 10,000 Public 10,000 International -European Prestandard Occupational 4,875 (CENELEC ENV.50166-2, 1995 Public 975 Federal -Federal Communications Commission(follows NCRP-1986) Occupational 5,000 Public 1,000 Consensus Standards American National Standards Institute Occupational 5,000 (ANSI C95.1-1982) Public 5,000 ANSI & Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 Occupational 6,500 Public 1,300 National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements (NCRP Report 86,1986) Occupational 5,000 Public 1,000 State Codes New Jersey (NJAC 7:28-42) Public 5,000 Massachusetts (Dept. of Health, 105 CMR 122) Public 1,000 New York State (Dept. of Health follows NCRP-86) Public 1,000 L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NAME: STATUS: EDUCATION: PRESENT: PERSONAL RESUME Louis G. Cornacchia Married, Four Children Manhattan College, BEE Iona College, Computer Language Courses* Manhattanville college, Business Law Courses SCINETICS Corporation - President Engineering Consultants. After Market Wireless phone Patent Applied for- US Patent Office Charger tech Services, Inc.-President Engineering Services OTHER ACTIVITIES: School Board President - New Rochelle, New York. Finance Campaign Manager - Mayoral Campaign, New Rochelle, New York. SDA District Chairman - Boy Scouts of America, New Rochelle, New York. Chairman- Board of Directors Reliance Bank, White Plains , New York Member of Advisory Board of Patriot National Bank Stamford, Connecticut. Licensed Real Estate Broker State of New York I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Cornacchia has been employed in the Electronics Industry as Electronic Engineer after receiving his BEE from Manhattan College, School of Engineering. Prior to forming Collins Consultants Int'l in 1969 and subsequently Charger Tech Services Inc. in 1974, Mr. Cornacchia was employed by Hazeltine Electronics Corp. as Engineer, Designing Signal Processor and Radar Display Module for The SAGE System, Primary Early Warning System or DEW LINE, the TPS-1- GROUND BASED SEARCH RADAR SYSTEM and AWACS (A6E) Power Systems. Subsequently, Lou was employed by Loral Systems Design Team developing the AN/ALQ58 Reconnaissance System and developed (two man team) the precursor YIG TUNER - [ALR-20] Crystal Scanner covering the full 200 megahertz - 12 gigahz Frequency Range Surveillance System for interception of Enemy Navigational Fire Control and Homing Devices for purposes of Identification and Signal Jamming. Seven years after receiving his degree Mr. Cornacchia was hired as Chief Engineer by Victory Electronic to Develop the Image Intensifier or Night Vision Scopes (Using Star Light) for the Fort Dix Army Command. At Norden Systems, Mr. Cornacchia developed unique, more aggressive programs incorporating Built-In Test Equipment (BITE) to detect on- coming circuit failures of the FlllD-E Avionics to increase reliability and was responsible for Air Force change of Automatic Test Equipment Specifications to accommodate this innovation. In 1969 Collins Consultants Iht'l, LTD was formed to continue servicing Norden Systems in developing Automatic Test Programs for AIRBORNE Computers and Navigational Radar Modules. In 1974 Charger Tech Services, a New York Corporation was formed by Cornacchia (President), with Mr. Robert ltarris to service additional companies in both the Nuclear and Industrial communities on an Engineering level. In 1987 SCINETICS was formed by Mr. Cornacchia (President), and application for a service mark was filed with the United States Patent Office, and granted. As of July 1990, SCINETICS Corporation assumed responsibilities for Mobile Cellular and PCS FCC EMF Compliance analysis, Intermodulation studies, RF/EMF Site studies and Site propagation analysis. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A partial listing of companies SCINETICS aud Charger has beeu contracted with, employing 30 to 50 state of the art Engineers, Technicians and Programmers, are as follows: Westinghouse Corp. Grumann Corp. Miles Inc. ITT NYNEX Fairchild Camera Division Syracuse Scieutific Corp. Martin Marietta United Technologies Corp. Airborne Instruments Labs Verizon Wireless Loral Electronics Systems Perkin Elmer Corporation New York Telephone Co. Shore Media Inc. IBM Allied Signal - Bendix AT&T Wireless Mobile Radio Cellular.EMF Studies and PCS FCC EMF Compliance analysis, Intermodulation studies, RF/EMF Site studies and Site propagation analysis, including Expert Testimonies, were provided SCINETICS for the Following Communities. by Case law decisions* favoring Applicant, where SCINETICS Corp. was mentioned as providing critical writlen technical support data and Expert testimony in applicant's application process. (Partial Listing): Hillsborough, New Jersey Valley Cottage, New York Fair Lawn, New Jersey* New York City, New York Hastings, New York Bedminister, New Jersey Martinsville, New Jersey Little Silver, New Jersey* Hazlet, New Jersey* Readington, New Jersey* Garwood, New Jersey* Huntington, New York Hempstead, New York * Favorable Supreme Court, Superior and Appellate Court Decisions Benefiting Wireless Carriers E£ECTROMAGNET C SPECTRUM Non-Ionizing Radiation Ionizing Radiation I I Power Frequency 'Jt'~ 103 ~ AM Radio: 535 - 1605 kHz CB Radio: 27 MHz Cordless Phones: 49 MHz TV Ch 2-6:54 - 88 MHz FM Radio: 88- 108 MHz Marine Radio: 160 MHz TVCh7-13: 174-216MHz TV UHF Ch 14-69:470 - 800 MHz Cellular Radio, Specialized Mobile Radio, Paging: 806 - 946 MHz Antitheft devices: 10-20 kHz and/or 915 MHz Microwave oven: 915 and2450 MHz Personal Communication Sen/ices: 1800 - 2200 MHz Intrusion alarms / door openers: 10.5 GHz Microwave radio: 1 - 40 GHz Satellite Communications: 100 MHz - 275 GHz 106-I 1 0 9 -J¢--"-"l~lO~ 2~10~ 5 I ~ 60 Hz lkHz 1MHz 1GHz Frequency (Hz) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERs BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. ~z~v~ P.O, Box 1179 Chairman ~EI Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 RICHARD CAGGIANO ~ ~-~ Telephone (631)765-1938 WILLIAM J. CREMERS Fax (631) 765-3136 KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN SIDOR ~ December 16,2002 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Re: Lead Agency Coordination Request Dear Reviewer: The purpose of th'is request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the proposal and a completed Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: Omnipoint Communications Inc. Requested Action: Proposed site plan proposing to co-locate up to twelve communications antennas on an existing monopole station,and install related equipment and fencing. SEQRA Classification: ( ) Type I (X) Unlisted Contact Person: Victor L'Eplattenier (631) 765-1938 The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (ELS) on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency. Page 2 Lead Agency Coordination Request Planning Board Position: ( X ) This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. ( ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. ( ) Other (see comments below) Comments: The proposed co-location of this antenna is in accordance with the Towns' Wireless Communications Ordinance. Please feel free to contact this office for further information. Very truly yours, Chairman cc: Board of Appeals Board of Trustees Building Department * Southold Town Board Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYSDEC - Stony Brook Suffolk County Department of Public Works U.S. Army Corp of Engineers New York State Department of Transportation Thomas Cybulski, Greenport Public Utilities David Abatelli, Greenport Village Administrator Suffolk County Water Authority *Maps are enclosed for your review STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION I. APPLICANT/' SPONSOR Omnipoint Communications, loc. 3.PROJECT LOCATION: Town of Southold Municipality for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 2. PROJECT NAME Wireless Communications Facility Suffolk Counb/ 4. PRECISE LOCATION; S~eet Addess and Road Intemections. Prominent landmarks etc -or provide mad 21855 County Road 48, Cutchogue. 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: ['~ New ~ Expansion ~ Mod[flcatk)n I alteratior~ SEQR 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: The co-location of a wireless communications facility to an existing monopole. The facility will consist of the following elements: twelve(12) panel antennas that are to be mounted to the exterior of the monopole at a centeriine height of 90-feet AGL; three (3) equipment cabinets within new chainlink fence compound located at ground level. 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially N/A acres Ultimately N/A acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? []Yes [] NO If no, describebdefly: A Variance - Zoning Board of Appeals 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply,) ~]Resid~ntial []--]Industrial [-'-~Cornmercial r-'~Agriculture r'--~ Park / Forest / Open Space r-] Other (describe) ,10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, Stateor Local) ['~Yes [~No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: Variance - ZBA; Site Plan Approval - PB, and ARB. 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? r-]Yes r~No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: tj~AS A ~.,~ULT OF PROPOSED ACTION W~LL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? Yes ~ No I CERTIFY THAT TH~ IN, FORMATI~Oi~ P,ROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant / Spon.~ Name Omni. point Co)~.~nications, Inc Date: October23, 2002 ,-- / " If the action is a Cos At~rea,/~you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment LI-1 3-54,[ COX'8 LANE 56'42'30" N 60'54'20' W 252,68' LEGEND Barrett, Bonacci & VanWeele, P.C. PROPERTY SITUATE CUTCHOGUE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY I PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Ch~irman RICHARD CAGGIANO WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN SIDOR P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1.938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Date: November 14, 2002 To: From: Re: Gerard Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner ff(,~,/ Omnipoint Communications The Planning Board recommends granting permission to this applicant to co-locate antennas on an existing monopole because this is in keeping with the Town's long term planning policy of encouraging co-location. This policy reflects the Town's goal of minimizing the visual and other negative impacts of wireless transmission towers on the landscape, particularly within the State recognized Scenic Byway of CR 48. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman RICHARD CAGGIANO WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN SIDOR P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Munley, Meade, Nielsen & Re' 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 NOV $ Re~ Application for Consideration of a Site Plan Omnipoint Communications Inc. Premises: 21855 County Route 48 Cutchogue, NY 11935 SCTM# 1000-96-1-19.1 Dear Mr. Re': Your application has been reviewed upon receipt of the following items the Planning Board will proceed with it's review. 1. Authorization letter from the property owner: Arthur Junge. 2. Additional fee of $9.95 to cover the area of the equipment enclosure. 3. A copy of the Zoning Board of Appeals degis[6-~, The proposed action has been determined to be a~/u/uuunlisted~ction. The Planning Board will start the lead agency coordination process at[its nextj,r~gularly scheduled public meeting on December 16, 2002. ~ If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely yours, Valerie Scopaz Town Planner Cc: Zoning Board of Appeals MUI~,~Y~ I~IEADE~ NIELSEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW (631) 425-4100 (631) 425-4104 September 26, 2002 BY HAND Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Omnipoint Communications Inc. SCTM #100-96-1-19.1 Premises: 21855 County Road 48 Cutchogue, New York 11935 Dear Sir / Madam: We are attorneys for Omnipoint Communications Inc., with respect to the captioned matter. Enclosed is our application to affix public utility wireless telecommunications antennas to an existing monopole on the premises and install related equipment. Accordingly, we enclose herewith the filing fee check made payable to the Town of Southold in the sum of $600.00 and one (1) original and six (6) copies of each of the following: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Notice of Disapproval of the Building Inspector dated September 19, 2002; Application; Owner's Authorization; Applicant Disclosure Form; ZBA Questionnaire; Survey; and Site plan and zoning drawings. In addition, please find a receipt from the Building Department indicating service of a copy of this appeal application. Should you have any questions with regard to the foregoing, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ By: I_axorea~ce~C. ~e~ LCR:lr Enclosures OWNER AUTHORIZATION AGREEMEWE Msrkec New York-MTA Sits Nm nb~: ~ Site Nm a~: Cutohouec Site Ad< k~ss: 2 ! 85!; CR48 Cutchouee. NY 1195~ Tax ID RE: Prep~rly described as: 21855 CR48. Cutchou~, NY 11~35 (the 'Tropcrty") Arthur J un_g.E is the owmer of the Property (tim "Owner") and has the authorizy te enter into a lease sgreer~nt with Ol~mipoint Commu~icatiom, Inc. ("Om,~oinf') concerning r~ portion of the Propony that Oranipoint seeks I~ occupy. Owner ~ereby grants Om-lpoi~t and its agents a revocable fight to enter the property to pofform any reasonable tests that Orrm;.~oint deen~ desirabk to cleterminc the feasibility of eo~<a-ucting and operatiug its com~ntu dcafions facility upon thc Propeay, including but not limited to I) radio frequency te~ting; 2) soils ,esting; 3) on-sito £casibility assessment; and 4) fili.g of*zoning app]ication~ (the "A~oess Right"). Owner ~ my revoke the Access Right at a~y ~ by delivering writtc~ noti~ to Omnipo~ut by certified rctm'n r~.ce/pt r~quested, at the f~llowing address: Onmipoint Conmmn.~atiom, !ac. 360 Hewark Pompton Turnpilte Wayne, New Jersey 07470 At~ Le~e MInl~nt Dept. This notice will be effective three (3) days after actual r~c~ipt by Omnipoint, provided, however, that Omnipr i. nt may still enter thc Property to r~move any equipment it has placed th~-~. Owner ~orther agrees to cooperate with Onmlpo/,ut Ln ob'~iui-g, at Omnipoint~s ext:~mse, all licenses and permits or authorizations requirexi for Om,~oint's ~se of the Property from all applicable government and/or reDllatcry ontitles (including, without limitation, zoning and land use authorities, and the Federal Coreamrdcation Commi.lion ('~FCC"), including appoiraing Om-ipoint a~ agent for all land us~ and zoning p~it applicatiom, and Owner agr~s to cooperate with and to allow Om. lpoint, at no c~st lo Owner, to obtain ~ title report, zoning approvals, variances, and la=d-use pennlts. Omnipc i~! agrees to r~pair any damage to Property caused by 0m~ipoint's use of the AcceSs P,.ight. Onmipc tut further agree~ to indemuffy, dcfand and hold Ova~r harmless ~'om and agaimt any and all dan~.ge 3, losses and expenses arlsi~g out of or resulting from any claim, action or other proceeding that based upon a~y negligant act or omission or willful misconduct of Omnipoint or Rs employes or agents, arising :n connection with the Access Right. EACH PARTY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE OTHEK t-I. AS MADE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR COMM[TIvIENTS THAT A LEASE AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE PROPERTY WILL BE ENTEI~ ED INTO IN THE FUTURE. oMNI2 ~ COlVIMUNICATIONS, INC. Arthur Junge TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL ~ROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR /~ ~ _ ,--,,~,,,3 D^TE OF ~U~D~,~ t,S~O,'S DECiSiON A~D: ...E~.~.~.~..... Y...(Z~.~ ~' zo ~H~ ZONINO ~O~ O~ A~P~A~: ~ (W,)~l~?~l~.~.~.~.~.~L~l~ HEREBY APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING iNSPE~OR D~E~..~....~.. WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSP~OR DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED..~Z/.~.. ~R: ) Permit fo Build ) Permit for Occupancy () Permit fo Use () Permltfor~-B~t ?.,o. o, smct 1 ~ Secnon.~ ~... Block. ~... Lof(s)....[.~.,.{ ............ Cunent Owner~...~ ~ Provlslon of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (Indicate A~cle, ~flon, Subse~on ~d ~a~r~ph of Zoning Of~n~ce by numbs. Do not quote ~e I~w.) ~mcmA~..f. Section 100- i~..Sub-Secflon~ ............ 3. Type of Appeal. Appeal Is made herewith fen ( ) A Va~ance ~ the Zoning Ordinance or Zonthg Map ( ) A Variance due fa lack of access as required by New York To~ Law Chap. 62, Cons. Laws AH. 16, Section 2~-A. ( )Interpretation Of~cle ....... ~Secflon 100-....~. ............ 4. Previous Appeal. A previous appeal (has) (has not} been made wl~ respect ~ prope~ or wl~ respect to this decision of the Building Inspecfer (Appeal ~ ...... Year ....... ). REASON5 FOR APPEAL {'Additional shee~ may be used with aaDff~s slana~e}~ AR A VARIA REA S: (I) An undesirable ,ttange will not be produced In the CHARACTER of ~e nelghb~ho~ or a de,merit to n rby prope~es, I~ granted, because: (2) The benefit sOUght by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by same method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than on area variance, because: The amount of relief req~,ested is not substantial because: (4) The variance wll], NOT have an adverse effect or Impact on the physical or environmental conditions In ine neighborhood or district because: (5) Has the ·alleged difficulty i~een self-created? ( ) Yes, or ~V~ No. This Is the MINIMUM that is n,~cessan/and adequate, and at the same time preserve and protect the character of th~ neighborhood and the health, safely, and welfare of the community. ( J Check thls box If USE VA~.LANCE ST~,~.~DS are completed and attached. Swol'n to before me this / (SIgna-%re of Appellant mr Authorized ~'da f ~ ,e/;~..,- ~)~ r Agent) ~.~ 20__. (Agent must submit Authorization from Owner) Comml.k)n Exl~me QUESTIO~NAIi~E FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION A. Please disclose He ~smes of the owner(s) and any other individuals (and entities) having a f~n-ncial i~2erest in the subject pr-mJ~es and a description of their inte=ests: (~eParatD sheet may be attached. } B. Is the subject premises listed on the real estate marke~ for or be~ulg show~ to pro~e ~rs~ { } No. (If Yes, plebe at~ c~ of "con~" C. ~e ~ere~ p~pos-~ to ch~-ge or ~ter l~d comto~s~ { } Y~s ~ No 2. ~e ~e wetl~d ~e~ on ~e' ~p ~ tt~ ~e URi~ b~3~!ng ~ea? 4. If yo~ prope~ coue~-~ we~ds Or pond ~e~, have Fou connoted ~e ~fice of ~e T~T~te~ for its E. Is ~ere a depressio~ or slop~g ele~on ne~ ~e ~ of 'pro~s~ Cg~s~c~on at or ~1~ five f~= ~ve me~ sea level? ~ (If not app~=~le, state "N.A.") F. ~e ~ere ~y pa~os, cou~e~ ~i~s, h~a~ or fences w~ ~t ~=e not sh~ on ~e ~y ~p ~t ~ou s.~i~fng?~0_ If none -~, plebe s~te "none." · Dep~ ~t. If none, pl~e s~te. H. ~ Y~ 9% ~U co~ ~o ~ o~ ~-~ close to p~cel~ ~O If ~es, please ~1-~- ~ere or ~,~t copies of I. Plea.S.e LL~t Resent use or n .p?r~_~-t. cns conducted /&u~ ~ ~ ~e . '- 3/87, 10/~0~ date and sl~n where lndica~ed. parefl~, or child is (check al! tha~ apply), co~poca~ion); DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSIIIp OWNER AUTHORIZATION AGREEMENT Market: New York-MTA Site Number: LI-13-544-A Site Name: Cutchouge Site Address: 21855 CR48 Cutchouge, NY 11935 Tax ID No: RE: Property described as: 21855 CR48, Cutchouge, NY 11935 (the "Property") Arthur Junge is the owner of the Property (the "Owner") and has the authority to enter into a lease agreement with Omnipoint Communications, Inc. ("Omnipoint") concerning the portion of the Properly that Omnipoint seeks to occupy. Owner hereby grants Omnipoint and its agents a revocable right to enter the Property to perform any reasonable tests that Omnipoint deems desirable to determine the feasibility of constructing and operating its communications facility upon the Property, including but not limited to 1) radio frequency testing; 2) soils testing; 3) on-site feasibility assessment; and 4) filing of zoinng applications (the "Access Right"). Owner may revoke the Access Right at any time by delivering written notice to Omnipoint by certified mail, return receipt requested, at the following address: Onmipoint Communications, Inc. 360 Newark Pompton Turnpike Wayne, New Jersey 07470 Atto: Lease Management Dept. This notice will be effective three (3) days after actual receipt by Omnipoint, provided, however, that Omnipoint may still enter the Property to remove any equipment it has placed there. Owner further agrees to cooperate with Omnipoint in obtaining, at Omnipoint's expense, all licenses and permits or authorizations required for Omnipoint's use of the Property from all applicable government and/or regulatory entities (including, without limitation, zoning and land use authorities, and the Federal Communication Commission ("FCC"), including appointing Onmipoint as agent for all land use and zoning permit applications, and Owner agrees to cooperate with and to allow Omnipoint, at no cost to Owner, to obtain a title report, zoning approvals, variances, and land-use permits. Omnipoint agrees to repair any damage to Propen'y caused by Omnipoint's use of the Access Right. Omnipoint further agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Owner harmless from and against any and all damages, losses and expenses arising out of or resulting from any claim, action or other proceeding that is based upon any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Omnipoint or its employees or agents, arising in colmection with the Access Right. EACH PARTY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE OTHER HAS MADE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR COMMITMENTS THAT A LEASE AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE PROPERTY WILL BE ENTERED INTO IN THE FUTURE. OMiT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ts:[ Tecta. Arthur Junge By: Name: TOWN ~ SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL ~OM DE~$ ON OF ~ILDING DATE O~ B~ILDIN~ iNSPECTC)R~ -~- -~SlON APPEAr.ED: [ ') Pe~t fa Bu~ ( )Perm~arO~u~ney ( ) :Permffto Uie .. [ ) ~Vad~n~ ~ the Zoning Ordln~n~e ~ ZOn~g Map ( ] A V~dan~e ~ue ~o fack of a~ ~s requlmd by New Yo~ 4. ~r~ Appel. A prevl~ ~ppe~ ~.s] (h.s nof}'bee~ made ~ resp~f fa ~is prope~ or ~ :re~e~ to lh~ de:Islo~ of ~e i~l]~ng ]~pector (Appeal ~E~ONS par APPEl[ [Add.anal ~ee~ may ~ used ~ ==G=~ca~F~ (I~ ~ undesirable ,.~nge will no~ be produc~ in fha CHA~ ~e n~ghb~d or a de.merit to n~ ~by Prope~es, It:gm.ed; [2] The benefit sought by ~he applicant CANNOT be achieved by Some method for the applicant fo pur~ue, other th~n an area variance, because: ~3) The. amount of relief requested'is not substantial because: [4) The variance will, NOT have an adverse effect or Impact on the physical or environmental conditions in ~e neighborhood or dlstrlct because: ($') Has the.alleged difficult7 ~een self-created? ( ) Yes, or (v~ No. This Is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time PreServe and protect the character ~f fha neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the communfiy. ( J Check this box If USE VAgLANCE ST~$ are completed and attached. sw~,t~b;~res~.~,- **~_ /"/ ,~?_g_n_a?ure?A.pbellant~rAUthorlzedAgent} ~:.~ -u__. L^gem must' suomlt Authorization Dom Owner) E. Is, there a depression or sioP~ng e~eV~tion nas= the area 'prO.seal ~~ =t or ~1~ ~ive ~t ~ve me~ sea ~~ ~ ~ none ~-=, ple~ ~ .~.- , (If ".O~her/. n~e, bhe~cbivi'b7.) . Name o~ person employed b~ hhe Town ~ ,sou~h~l:d shock O~ ~he a;pplic~b (~hen ~he a;pplgcan~' C) an O~f~cer, di~ecbor, pa'~tner or employee o~ the DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIp. ~WNER AUTHORIZATION AGREEMENT Market: New York-MTA Site Number: LI-13-544-A Site Na~e: Cutchouge Site Address: 21855 CR48 Cutehou e NY 11935 Tax ID No: RE: Property described as: 21855 CR48. Cutchouee. NY 11935 (the "Property") ~ is the owner of the Property (the "Owner") and bas th~ authority to enter into a lease agreement with Omnipoint Coi~,mications, Inc. ("Omn'.moint") concerning the portion of the Property that Omnipoint seeks to occupy. Owner hareby grants Omnipoint and its agents a revocable right to enter the Prop~3 to perform any reasonable tests that Omnlpoint deems desirable to determine the feas~ility of constructing and operating its communications facility upon the Property, incinding but not imlted to 1) radio frequency testing; 2) soils testing; 3) on-site feasfoility assessment; and 4) filing of zouing applications (the "Access Right"). Owner may revoke the Access Right at any time by delivering written notice to Omnipoint by certified mail, return receipt requested, at the following address: Omnlpoint Communications,/nc. 360 Newark Pompton Turnpike Wayne, New 3rersey 07470 Arm: Lease Management Dept. This notice will be effective three (3) days after actual receipt by On'm/point, provided, however, that Omnlpoint may still enter the Property to remove any equipment it has placed there. Owner further agrees to cooperate with Omnlpoint/n'obt~inlng, at Omnipoint's expense, all licenses and permits or authorizations required for Omnlpoint's use of the Propen'y from all applicable government and/or regulatop/ entities (including, without limitation, zoning and land use authorities, and the Federal Communication Corami~sinn ("FCC"), including appointing Omnlpoint as agent for aH land use and zoning permit applications, end Owner agrees to cooperate with and to allow Omnipoint, at no cost to Owner, to obtain a title repo~ zoning approvals, variances, and hnd-use permits. Omnlpoint agrees to repair any damage to Property caused by Omnipoint's use of the Access Right. Omnipoint further agrees to indemnify, defend end hold Owner harmless from and agaln~t any and all damages, losses and expenses arising out of or resulting from any claim, action or other proceeding that is based upon any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Omnipoint or its employees or agents, arising in connection with the Access Right. EACH PARTY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE oTHER HAS MADE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR COM/vllTMENTS THAT A LEASE AGREEMENT CONCEILNING THE PROPERTY WILL BE ENTERED INTO IN THE FLrFLrRE. OMNIP/~ COMMUNI~ATIONS, INC. I _', ' Arthur Junge Town Of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 10/09/02 Transaction(s): Application Fees Receipt~: 1354950 Subtotal $600.00 Check#:1354950 Total Paid: $600.00 Name: Omnipoint, Communications Inc 21855 County Rd 48 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Clerk ID: LINDAC Internal ID: 63321 MUNLEY~ MEADE~ NIELSEN & 1~ ~EPLY TO: ~ October 16, 2002 OCT (631) 425-4100 (631) 425-4104 VIA UPS Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 RE: Omnipoim Communications Inc. Application to the Southold Board of Appeals Assigned Number 5232 SCTM # 100-96-1 - 19.1 Premises: 21855 County Road 48 Cutchognc, New York 11935 Dear Sir / Madam: We are attorneys for Omnipoint Communications Inc., with respect to the captioned matter. Enclosed is an original and six (6) duplicates of our revised application pursuant to the Office of the Board of Appeals Reply Form dated October 1, 2002 (copy enclosed). Should you have any questions with regard to the foregoing or need any additional information, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ By: Laxvre, me, C. Re, LCR:lr Enclosures BOARD C)F APPEAL Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 765-1809 tel. r. 766-9064 ZBA fax. REPLY FORM Dated: Io- I-~ ,?~ ~4 . 5-.Z ~ ~L) (~ Your application//~i~ incomplete for the reasons noted below. ( ) It is requested that the following be forwarded as soon as possible (within about 7 days, if feasible). The advertising deadline is 22 days before the meeting date and the information is necessary for review and advertising purposes. You may forward the information by fax at 765- 9064, however, please send .the original by mail. Thank you. ~ The appeal was not-f~i~d within 60 days..~e decision of the Building Inspector. ('[~-Missing information - please see missing information checked below. Please submit all the documentation, together with information noted below. If you have any questions, please call us at 765-1809. Thank you. Information requested: ( ) Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector after his/her review of this particular project map. ( ) Check payable to the Town of Southold totaling $ _ ~'Signature and notary public information are needed.-~ ~ ~ ~ '7~ ( ) An original and six prints of the map were not included. (Preparer's name and date of preparation to be shown.) ( ) Setbacks must be shown for the subject building to a property lines, with preparer's name. ( ) Six (6) sets of a diagram showing the doors, number of stories, and average height (from natural grade). ( ) Ownership Search back to April 23, 1957 for the subject parcel and all adjoining parcels, certified by a title insurance company, and insuring the Town for $25,000. ( ) Copies of all current deeds and tax bills of the parcels back to~ {~Other: ~,~ -~,~ ~ ~ - ~ ~/~/,~d-,~ ~ // /~ v . · '.3 OTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: September 19, 2002 TO: Arthur Jung (Omnipoint) PO Box 299 Orient, NY 11957 Please take notice that your application dated September 12, 2002 For permit to affix public utility wireless communications antennas to existing monopole and install related equipment at Location of property: 21855 County Road 48, Cutchogue, NY County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 96 Block 1 17,/ Lot ~ Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed installation of equipment is not permitted pursuant to Article XVI, Section 100-165 C., which states, "Setbacks. Towers and equipment facilities shall adhere to the setbacks for principal uses in the Bulk Schedule applicable to the zone in which the structure(s) are located." The above referenced property is located in the Light Industrial District. According to the Bulk Schedule, the minimum rear yard setback in that district is 70 feet. Plans note a rear yard setback as +/- 10 feet. Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. CC: file, Z.B.A. DEPARTMENT OF' PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT J OAF'F-NEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECLrFtVE APR ~ 1 2003 BOARD OF APPEALS: J~ :ONING THOMAS ISLES, AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING April 17, 2003 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the following application(s) submitted to the Suffolk Cgunty Planning Commissionis/are considered to be a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or a disapproval. Applicant(s/ Municipal File Number(s) Carroll, Nancy Sidorowicz, Charles Sanford, Linda '~mnipoint Communications Laoudis, Theodore and Ann Hoeg, James and Karen Barton, Geraldine N. Kurz, Jeanne R. 5134 5179 5217 5232 5238 5239 5285 5289 Very truly yours, Thomas Isles Director of Planning GGN:cc G:IC CHORNY~ZON1NG~ZONINGIWORKINGILD2003',APR/SD5134 APR S/s Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H LEE DENNISON 8LDG - 4~ FLOOR · P. O. BOX 6100 · (516} 853-51g0 I O0 VE~_RANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY I 1788-0099 TELECOPIER 15 I 6) 853-4044 Page 37 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing CHAIRWOMAN: Mr Homing. MEMBER HORNING: Do you know if the applicant had any ideas to demo the existing garage and build a new structure attached to the existing dwelling? MR. STOUTENBURG: No plans of doing anything to the existing house, strictly to replace the garage and increase the amount of room. I believe there are 1 or 2 small utility buildings there that are now not on the site because they were a part of the original demo permit that they are sort of tool shed things that are now going to be incorporated in the structure. CHAIRWOMAN: That was in the record. Mr. Goehringer. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I've been to the site. I've spoken to the judge and I think quite honestly he has a substantial amount of files that he wants to move we've done it before and it's like a library situation and he wants to be able to preserve those files and that's the reason for the heating and air conditioning. CHAIRWOMAN: Let's see what happens. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 11:37 am Appl. 5232 - OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS (owner Jun~,e). This is a request for a variance under section 165C, based on the Building Department's September 19, 2002 Notice of Disapproval for the proposed installation of equipment related to a public utility wireless communications antenna to be affixed on an existing monopole. Location of property 21855 CR 48, Cutchogue 96-1-19.1 CHAIRWOMAN: Is someone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? LAWRENCE RE, ESQ: Good morning my name is Lawrence Re, law finn is Mundley, Meade, Nielson, and Re 36 N. New York Ave. Huntington. This is an application lbr a variance to permit Omnipoint to install 3 equipment cabinets within the rear yard setback. Briefly, Omnipoint is licensed by the FCC to operate a personal communications system here in Suffolk County and throughout much of the US. Ominpoint strides to provide reliable service throughout it's license coverage area and at present in the northern part of Cutchogue and surrounding areas there is a lack of service, a service deficiency. In order to eliminate this service gap, Omnipoint needs to establish an antenna facility. We've reviewed the Town of Southold Code and we see that the town encourages co-location on existing towers wherever possible and we've investigated the existing tower that exists on the property in question and it works on an engineering standpoint and so Omnipoint proposes to affix it's antennas on that tower and to install it's equipment on the ground adjacent to the tower. That tower was installed Page 37 of 128 Page 38 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing pursuant to 2 actions to this board a variance and a special use permit that was granted a number of years ago and I have copies which I can submit. Recently, another carder, Nextel made a similar application and it was granted just a few months ago and I'd like to hand up the 3 decisions ifI could. I could hold on to them and bring them up all at the same time. CHAIRWOMAN: If you'd like to bring up everything at the same time, that's fine. MR. RE: Our predicament is very much like Nextel's in that the layout of the property is such and the location of the tower is such in the northwest comer of the property and it makes all the sense in the world to install the cabinets next to the tower and that results in the setback variance and we believe that by placing the equipment in that location it will not have a negative effect on the surrounding area will not effect property values and will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. I saw that the board recommends that we submit reports written testimony wherever possible so I have the affidavit of Nicholas Balzano who is here he is the radio frequency engineer for Omnipoint and his affidavit deals with why the site is needed and we also have coverage maps that show the service gap in the area that will be covered by this site. I also have the affidavit of Michael Lynch he's our appraiser and the report indicates that this will not have a negative effect on property values. We also have the visual resources report by DMS consulting and we have a report prepared by Sinetics that shows that the antennas in question are not exceed the FCC limits even when taken into consideration the other antennas on the monopole and approved, and with the boards decision I'd like to hand up all of these documents as exhibits. I have with me this morning if the board has questions, Neil McDonald from the firm of William Collins Assoc. that prepared the plans and Nicholas Balzano the radio frequency engineer, Michael Lynch the appraiser, Lou Comaccia the FCC specialist and Donna Marie Stippo who prepared the visual analysis. If the board has any questions of any of those witnesses. CHAIRWOMAN: I'm not sure they do, frankly this seems like a straightforward application as you say the town's telecommunication law encourages co-locations. Just to confirm you are proposing 12 antennas mounted on 3 t-arm frame at approximate height of 90' mounted on the existing monopole which is 105' so you are going to be somewhere in the middle. MR. RE: Verizon is at the top and Nextel has been approved below the location chosen. CHAIRWOMAN: The antennas are approximately 6' in depth. MR. RE: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN: The equipment is going to be 10x20 6' high? MR. RE: No it's 3 cabinets and each cabinet is 6'3" high 4'5" wide and 2'2" deep. They are individual cabinets look more or less like a rethgerator. CHAIRWOMAN: The concrete pad is 17x7 and with the chainlink fence is another 3' which is 7 to 10 to 17 to 20. Correct? Page 38 of 128 Page 39 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing MR. RE: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN: And that would leave you with an existing rear yard setback of approximately 10'. This is an existing situation and the Towns telecommunications laws specifically allow for this type of facility and in fact encourages it. As far as the audience is concerned they are here for a setback. A setback for the antennas and a setback for the equipment pad building. Whatever the 3 little cabinets are going to go on. Ms. Oliva. MEMBER OL1VA: I don't have any questions. MEMBER ORLANDO: In following suit with Nextel who was here a month ago we will require natural screening on the southeast comer because Nextel will be providing that for their boxes so you'll be required to screen on the southeast side. MR. RE: Would you prefer that we work with your office as far as the layout of the screening. Or how do you want to work that. Because our office also represented Nextel and- MEMBER ORLANDO: We'd like to follow suit. If you're planting arborvitae, we'll continue with arborvitaes or whatever the natural screening. I don't think the landfill will require screening on that I don't think they'll complain, hut on the southeast side as you drive by that road it's a vacant lot so if you could just screen it. CHAIRWOMAN: If you could provide us with a screening plan that will work with the Nextel. Mr. Homing. MEMBER HORNING: No questions. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: My questions are always quite different than everybody else's and of course everything I say is not derogatory, it's pragmatic. If we were not to grant the variance you simply could not put the antenna on the monopole. My question is what is the effect, do you have anybody here who could tell us the effect of the antenna on the monopole and the loading aspect of it and what effect that might have in reference to a failure of the monopole. MR. RE: We had a structural analysis of the existing monopole. While I'm fishing for it I'll bring up Mr. McDonald to answer questions. NElL MCDONALD: I'm Neil McDonald, I'm with William Donalds architects located at 10-1 Technology Drive, Setauket, NY. Just to cover your question before we proceeded with the application Voicestream or Omnipoint moved forward with the structural analysis based on their antenna done according to the EIATIA 222F standards which is the telecommunications standards which is the telecommunications standards for analyzing towers, monopoles and takes into account the wind criteria the actual wind loads on the antennas the aerodynamics of the structure and any kind of radio ice that may occur and all of the findings in the report which was Page 39 of 128 Page 40 January 16, 2003 Southold Town Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Public Hearing submitted by Paul J. Ford I believe was the engineering company found that it was in accordance of the requirements of EIATIA standards. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: What is the pole rated for? MR. MCDONALD: 85 mph wind velocity and with the ½" ice brings you down to about 78 mph. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would happen if the pole faltered? MR. MCDONALD: There's been no known failure of a pole where it falls over. If there was a situation where a pole was erected that didn't comply with those standards perhaps you may have a situation where a pole would bend because essentially what happens when a tower starts to bend it's aerodynamics change and the effect of the wind on a bent structure would be less than a vertical structure and we may not have a situation where it would fall or collapse. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: So what we saw on September 11th with the WTC where it actually tear dropped down if you had a significant bend or if you had a significant ice storm with the ice on these antennas at the very worst, the top of the pole would bend down and could actually bend down and meet a portion of the pole. MR. MCDONALD: The dynamics of the WTC were much different because the strength of the steel was effected by the heat mainly by the fires so here you're not going to experience these conditions where the steel is weakened. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: But that's why they built it that way so it didn't take out city blocks as opposed to this situation where it is very simply just going to bend. Is there a maximum load that an antenna of this nature can take in reference- MR. MCDONALD: The actual antenna itself?. MEMBER GOEHR1NGER: Is this monopole at max now? MR. MCDONALD: No it's not. There's still rcserve capacity. CHAIRWOMAN: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. PLEASE SEE MINUTES FOR RESOLUTION 11:45 am Appl. 5259 - ESTATE OF MURRAY SC[tLUSSEI,. This is a request for a variance under section 32, based on the Building Department's September 24 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed dwelling with a front yard setback at less than 50' from the Page 40 of 128 ZONING BOARD Of APPEALS .... TOWN Of SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (Name of Applicant) AFFIDAVIT OF SIGN POSTING Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land Identified as 1000- 96 - 1 - 19.1 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I, Janine Marchese residing at 43 Calvert Avenue, Commack , New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the 6th day of January ,2003, I personally placed the Town's official Poster, with the date of headng and nature of my application · noted thereon, securely upon my property, located ten(lO) feet or closer from the street or right-of-way (driveway entrance) - facing the street or facing each street or right-of-way entrance;* and that I hereby confirm that the Poster has remained in place for seven days prior to the date of the subject hearing d'c 'n s ,wn to be ~l.v'~, ht~.,n~g~)l~_~.~,la~& ~, Attorneys for/ -~) (SigHa't-ure) App/lcan: JAlqINE MARCHESE, Paralegal Sworn to before me this (.~'~ day of~::~.~-~200'~. (NotaO(Public) -- DOROTHY A. BELARD Notary Public, State of New Yo~ No, 01BE6036810 Oua~ified in Suffolk Coun~ ~,/_ Commission Expires Feb, 7, *near the entrance or ddveway entrance of my property, as the area most visible to passersby. ~IuNI,EY~ MEADE~ NIELSEN (631) 425-4100 (631) 425-4104 January 7, 2003 VIA UPS Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Omnipoint Communications Inc. Application to the Southold Board of Appeals Assigned Number 5232 SCTM #100-96-1-19.1 Premises: 21855 Cotmty Road 48 Cutchogne, New York 11935 Dear Sir / Madam: We are attorneys for Omnipoint Communications Inc. in connection with the captioned application. Enclosed is the Affidavit of Sign Posting, together with three (3) photographs, which show the sign posted on the subject premises. Should you have any questions with regard to the foregoing, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, MUNLEY, MEADE, NIELSEN & RI~ By: Lawrence C. R6 LCR:jm Enclosures ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of 0mnipoint Communications (Name of Applicants) CTM Parcel #1000- 96 - 1 19.1 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILINGS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) residing at 29 Caroline Avenue, ~, Lynanne Huer tas New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: Smithtown On the 27 day of December , 200'2, I personally mailed Mt the New York, by CERTIFIED UnRed States Post Office in ~t,-*~-~t~,, .' MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the ~tz) Assessors, or for every unt Rea Property Office .. ' .... ( ) Co y ....... ,..,; .... r;vate street -or vemcular rlgnt-oT- nronertv which abuts and is across .a pu~,~ ,~, t-,, 7 . ,~a~," of ~-eoord, surrounding the ap~ property. /// Z. , / ~_/~' / (Signature) Sworn to before me this ~9~'day of ~n~ I,~x.,~, 2__OOg- ' 2 and 3. AJso complete or on the front if space permits. 1. A~icle Addressed to: ~ ~'~' ttarriS Estate ~- jennie c/O Larry Ta~or CU~°~ Agent O. is detiv~rY addreSS ~l No if yES, enter detivetY certified Ma[~ [~ Express Mai~ Registered [~3 Return Receipt for Merch= E~ yes ore'S Lane North 7002 0510 0001 5063 9733 List of Names and Addresses of Owners of Property Adjacent to and Across the Street from the Premises SCTM# Section 96.1, Block 1, Lot 19.1 Application for Variance Omnipoint Communications, Inc. Public Hearing Dated Thursday, January 16, 2002 Time: 11:10 A.M. Pursuant to Town of Southold Assessor's Office Records, December 26, 2002: Adiacent Properties 1) 96-1-20.1 Owner: Joseph Schoenstein, 1060 Moore's Lane North, Greenport, NY 11944 2) 96-1-18.3 Owner: Jennie Harris Estate, c/o Larry Taylor, P.O. Box 373, Cutchogue, NY 11935 3) Lot behind the premises is Town Landfill owned by the Town of Southold, 53095 MainRoad, Southold, NY 11971-0959. (~ ¢_ [,.. I "7, ~ Across the Street 1) 96-2-8 Owner: Town of Southold, 53095 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971-0959 (Lot is Residence Vacant Land - 21750 County Road 48, Cutchogue, NY 11935) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY CHECKLIST FOR NEW PROJECTS LABEL ASSESSORS CARD (7 COPIES) CTY. TAX MAP (7 COPIES + 1) INDEX CARD (ATTACH OLD) LIST ALPHA BOOK RESEARCH ALPHA COPY PRIORS SIX COPIES I I [INSPECTION PACKETS COMPLETE J I REF: UPDATED NEW INFORMATION LEGAL NOTICE sov?~o~.v TOWN THURSD~%' JANUARY ~, 200~: · PUBLIC HEARINGS ' NOTICE is HEREBy GIVEN, put- suam to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100.(Zoning), Code 6f the Town of South0~h, the following publi~i '$OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF ' APPEAL~ at the Tow~ Hall, 53095 ." · ' .. : Main Road, Southold, New York 1 ! 971, on Thursday, January 16. 2G03, at times no~¢d bclow (or as soon thereafter as possible); 10:45 a.m. Appl No. 5221 - Dnn~el Denn T~i~ is a ~equest for a Varianc~~ Un.~, .r. Sect/on 100-30^ 4, based on But/drag Department's August 22, 2002 Notice of Disapproval concerning a pro- posed accessory swimming pool in an area other than the rear yard, at275 Major's Path, Southold; Parcel 1GG0-54- 1-26.1. · ...10:50.a.m. ApHNo' 5249 / Wa~=~ · · Paree! 1000-38-3~15. ~rom Gardeners Bay Estates Lot No. 43, ref County Tax Parcel 1000-38-3-24. Location of Prepay: 2345 and 1640 East Gilletle Drive( East Marion; Parcel Nos. 38-3-15 and 24. S ,~.~er. ~ i~ ~ ~quest fOr ~: pec~al Exception under Section 100-' 31B(13) to establish a proposed Accessory Apartment in conjunct/on with the owner's residence, at !575 Minnehaha Blvd., Southoid; Parcel 1000-87-3-51. lt!l~ a:m. App No. 5232 .i U~S. ec~o~ 100-165C, ba~ed Ulx~ 2002 Notice of DisaPproval, for the STATE OF NEW YORK) )SS:. ' .... C_..~JJN.TY Q,F SUFFOLK) ' ' '~----'~'~x~/.'~'~-/,~-/~-~/~'-~.,~'~".~-.~ ,of Maffituck, Jn Said county,' . being duly sworn, ·says .that he/she is Pr!nclpal 'cJerk of ~E SUFFOLK ~MES,' a weekly newspa~r,, published at Maffituck, In' the Town 0f Southold, Coun~ of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for / .weeks succes. sively, commencing on the /~ day of .~ 20~ . · / ~rincipal Clerk Swornt0befpreme't~is /~'- d,yo( : '" LAURA E. BONDARCHUK Notary Public, State of New York No 0~ B06067958 Qualified in Suffolk County 20~ My Commission Expires Dec. 24, LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE is HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on Thursday, January 16, 2003, at the time noted below (or as soon thereafter as possible); 11:10 a.m. Appl. No. 5232 - Omnipoint Communications (Owner: Junge). This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-165C, based upon the Building Department's September 19, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for the proposed installation of equipment related to a public utility wireless communications antenna, to be affixed on an existing monopole, at 21855 C.R. 48, Cutchogue; Parcel 1000-96-1-19.1. The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not star[ earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular Town Hall business days from (8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated: December 19, 2002. Southold Town Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 (tel. 631-765-1809) LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE is HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on Thursday, January 16, 2003, at the time noted below (or as soon thereafter as possible); 11:10 a.m. Appl. No. 5232 - Omnipoint Communications (Owner: Junge). This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-165C, based upon the Building Department's September 19, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for the proposed installation of equipment related to a public utility wireless communications antenna, to be affixed on an existing monopole, at 21855 C.R. 48, Cutchogue; Parcel 1000-96-1 - 19.1. The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular Town Hall business days from (8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.). If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated: December 19, 2002. Southold Town Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 (tel. 631-765-1809) APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard E Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A, Tortora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road EO. Box 1t79 Southold, New York 119714)959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.nor thfork,net FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 25, 2002 Appl. No. 51:27 - ~ (A. Junge, Owner) Property Locatiun: :11855 C.IL 48 (Middle Road), Cutchogue Parcel: 96-1.19.1 SE RA BETERMINATIO : The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under eomiderafiun in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment ii' the pro]ect is implemented as planned as a setback request. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on the north side of C.R. 48 in Cutchogue, with 45,589 sq. tL of land area and road frontage of 168.17 ft. The property is immediately adjacent to the Landfdl at the north sid~ To the west are residences, and to the east, vacant land. The property is located in the Light Industrial Zone District and improved with an existing Telecommunications Tower, and business buildings. BASIS ~: Building Department's March 6, 2002, Amended March 11, 2002 Notice ~f Disapproval denying a permit to construct~ an equipment shelter (storage building) for the reason thst the building is proposed in a location at less than 70 feet from the rear property llne. lqNIHNGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on Jul( 25~ 2002, at which time writ~an and oral evidanse was presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspactiun of the property and the area, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF I~EQUESTED: Applicant's request a location of a proposed 12'8' x 20'8" e di ment shelter bui ding at'~f~ ff~om the rear property line. This shelter building is shown q P . ~-z.~ · · ' ' ' 'n at the northwest sect~un of the pr0~'~t~near t~e existing une-story masonry braiding and existi g monopele structure. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted, and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The Telecommunications Law requires co-location on existing towers. This property contains an existing tower, and applicant's proposed a co-locate of an antenna in accordance with the cedes. The need for an equipment shelter building is in support of the ce- location. The existing Telecommunications Tower sits approximately 41 feet to the rear property line, and there is a need for this building to be as close to the tower as possible. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to p~rsue, other than an area variance because of environmental constraints and because the proposed location is the most beneficial to the applicants and the neighborhood. The requested variance is not ZBA Appl. No. 5127- Nextel unreasonable and is within keeping of the many regulations pertaining to public utility uses and transmission towers. 3. The area variance is not substantial, will be one-story in height, and exceeds the setback requiee~nents which apply to similar types and designs of accessory storage structures in this and all other zone districts. 4, The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. No evidence has heea submit~l to suggest the new location of the equipment shelter structure will hav~ an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The applicant will Provide landscaping for bufferlng, to screen outside of the fence area. The Board suggests five-fuot arborvitae, planted four feet apart, to be continuously maintained. However, the Board reserves the right to review this buffering layout if screening is not adequately followed by applicant relative to this particular area. 5. In considering this application, the Board deems this action to be the minimum necessary and adequate for the applicants to enjoy the benefit of a new accessory equipment shelter, and that the grant of this Yarinnce will preserve the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, welfare of the community. BOARD RESOLUTION: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Tortore, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, and duly carried, to: GRANT the variance as applied for, and shown on the site plan drawings SP-land SP-2 dated 5/22101, revised 8/22/01, by William F. Collins, A.I.A~ This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: ~oe/~ving.er (CJmi~lnaa), Tortara, Homing, and Orlando. (Member Oliva was ab sent~~v~l~//y/~f~o~ (4_0). ~ -'--~-'--'-------~ ~rd 1~. Goehringer, Chairm}~ ~ To~ Clork, Town o/Sout!~old~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS, JR. SERGE DOYEN, JR. ROBERT J. DOUGLASS JOSEPH H. SAWICKI Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD- STATE: ROAD 2.~ St'lU'T'HDLD, L.I., N.Y. 1"1cj'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 M I N U T E S SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 1988 A Special Meeting was held by the Southold Town Board of Appeals on Thursday, March 3, 1988 commencing at 7:15 o'clock p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Charles Grigonis, Jr.; Serge Doyen, Jr. and Robert J. Douglass, con- stituting four Board Members. Absent was: Joseph H. Sawicki. Also present in the audience were: Victor Lessard, Building- Department Administrator, Curtis Horton, Sr. Building Inspector, Thomas Fisher, Building Inspector, James A. Schondebare, Town Attorney, Ruth Oliva, Councilwoman, and approximately 85 persons. The meeting commenced at 7:15 p.m. and the Board proceeded with the first item on the agenda, as follows: DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3705: Application of ARTHUR V. JUNGE for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article VIII, Section IO0-80(B) for permission to establish electrical shop use and construct two buildings located as shown on Site Plan dated March 10, 1987, prepared by John A. Grammas & Assoc. Zone District: C-Light Industrial. Location of Property: North Side of C.R. 48, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 96, Block 1, Lot 19, containing 45,589± sq. ft. in lot area. The Board deliberated and took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on 1988 in the Matter of the Application of ARTHUR V. JUNGE Appl. No. 3705-SE; and January 14, under Southold Town Board of Appeals -2- March 3, 1988 Special Meeting (Appl. No. 3705-SE - JUNGE decision, continued:) WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is a described parcel of land containing a lot area of .975 of an acre, or 45,589 sq. ft. with frontage (lot width) of 168.17 feet along the north side of C.R. 48, in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, is vacant, and is more particularly shown on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 96, Block ), Lot 19. 2. The subject premises is located in the "C" Light Industrial Zoning District as approved by the Town Board at a Regular Meeting held December 15, 1987, and is immediately adjacent to the Southold Town,.Disposal Site at the north side. The premises immediately adj~dining this property along the west side is a parcel of 1.2± a~res.improved with a single-family dwelling and along the east side is a vacant parcel of 39,524 sq. ft., which has also received a change of zone from "A" to "C" (Parcel 1000-96-1-20). 3. Town assessment records indicate that the applicant acquired the premises from Watson Gray on April 6, 1987 (see Deeds at Liber 10221 cp 162). 4. By this application, appellant requests a Special Exception under Article VIII, Section lO0-80(B) for permission to establish electrical shop use as more particularly shown on Amended Plan prepared by John A. Grammas & Assoc., Drawing No. P-1 presently under review by the Town Planning Board (and filed February 10, 1 988 ). 5. It is the opinion of this Board that the 7,750 sq. ft. building together with all parking and other site-plan elements are consistent with the zoning requirements for this zoning district. 6. In considering this application, the Board has also Southold Town Board of Appeals -3- March 3, 1988 Special Meeting (Appl. No. 3705-SE - JUNGE decision, continued:) determined: (a) the use proposed will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (b) the uses will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or le§ally established uses in adjacent use districts; (c) the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the Town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; (d) the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. The Board has also considered items [a] through [1] of Article XII, Section 100-121(C)[2] of the Zoning Code. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Special Exception in the Matter of the Application of ARTHUR V. JUNGE under Appl. No. 3705 for the proposed electrical shop use in the proposed 7,750 sq. ft. building as shown on Site Plan prepared by John A. Grammas & Assoc. (dated March 10, 1988), SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. There be no outside storage; 2. All vehicles left on-site must be registered and licensed, for parking only [No storage of vehicles shall be permitted]. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehrin§er, Grigonis, Douglass and Doyen. (Absent was: Member Sawicki.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -25oAugust 20, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3642-~_M 0 decision, ox~ntinued:) Mr. Grigonis, it w~s ~ RESOLVED, that the~Jri~'q.ce requested under Appeal No. 3631 in the Matter/o~f the A~p, lication of PUDGE CORP. BE AND HEREBY IS ~D WITHOUT P)~DICE. Vote of t~e~Board: Ayes: Mess¥,,s. Goehringer, Doyen, Grigonis, Dou~i/ass and Saw ickl~ This ~e~solution was duly adopted. . . *~ DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3635: Application of ARTHUR V. JUNGE for a Variance to the Zoning Ordi- nance, Article III, Section lO0-30(A)~for permission to establish elec- trical shop use in this "A-40" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District. Location of Property: North Side of C.R. 48, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 96, Block 1, Lot 19, con- taining 45,589~ sq. ft. in lot area. Deliberations. Following deliberations, the Board took the following action: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and concluded on July 1987 in the Matter of the Application of ARTHUR V. JUNGE, under Application No. 3635; and 16, WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and are WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. The premises in question is a described parcel of land containing a lot area of .975 of an acre, or 45,589 sq. ft., with frontage (lot width) of 168.17 feet along the north side of C.R. 48, Hamlet of Cutchogue, is vacant, and is more parti- cularly shown on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District lOOO, Section 96, Block 1, Lot 19. 2. The subject premises is located in the "A-40" Residential and Agricultural Zoning District and is immediately adjacent to the Town of Southold Disposal Site at the north s~de. The premises immediately adjoining this property along the west side is a parcel Southold Town Board of Appeals -26- August 20, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3635 - JUNGE decision, continued:) of 1.2± acres improved with a single-family dwelling and along the east side is a vacant parcel of 39,524 sq. ft. lalso located in this Residential and Agricultural Zoning District). 3. Town assessment records as of the date of this decision show the owner of the subject parcel to be John S. Wickham, although it is our understanding that there has been a recent conveyance to Arthur V. Junge or Arthur V. Junge Inc. (A copy of an unexecuted deed from Timothy Scott Gray to Arthur V. Junge dated April 6, 1987 has been furnished for the file.) 4. By this application, appellant requests a variance from the Zonin§ Ordinance to permit the construction of an 4400 sq. ft. building as shown on Site Plan prepared March 10, 1987 by John A. Grammas and Associates and referred to as Building "A," with dimensions of llO ft. wide by 40 ft. deep and shown to be set back 60 set from the front property line. Also shown on the Site Plan is a future Building "B" to the rear (north) of Building "A". The occupancy proposed by the appellant is a contractor's business and shop. 5. No evidence has been introduced as required by law that: (a) the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for the purpose of the zone in which it is located; (b) that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions of the neigh- borhood which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself; (c) that the use to be authorized will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; (d) there is dollars and cents proof to substantiate the unnecessary hardship claimed. This Board is aware that the proposed new Master Plan Maps depict this property for LIO, Light Industry, which would permit this use by Special Exception approval, and does sympathize with petitioner's plight; however, the Board finds that the criteria set by the Courts has not been sufficiently Southold Town Board of Appeals -27- August 20, 1987 Regular Meeting (Appl, No. 3635 - JUNGE decision, continued:) met and therefore lacks authority to grant the relief as requested. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Douglass, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the Variance requested under Appeal No. 3635 in the Matter of the Application of ARTHUR V. JUNGE BE AND HEREBY IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Grigonis, Douglass and Sawicki. adopted. Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen, This resolution was duly · Southoldl Town Board of ~Appe'als -17- April 27, 1989 Special Meeting DELIBERATIONS/.DECISION: ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. NO. 3835: Mat%er of the Application of ARTHUR V. JUN~E, INC. Amendmen~ ~ ,'SPecial EXc~ption Granted'~nder At, pl. No.' 3705 ~r A~ic~e VIII~ Sect!on !00-80B of the prior zoning. R~lat!onslfor thls previously zoned C-Light industrial Zone Di~t~iCt,i nb.w rerzoned to Light I,aUStria!, Ar~ia~eXIo, SeC{ion 100,1~11 't01nclude establishment of car re~airS with outside storage and future occupancy of vacant buildin~ area a~ easterly side of building (said use to be a Permitte~'usein thisZo~e District). Location of Property: 22355 C.R~ 48, c~tchooue, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 96, Block 1, Lot 19, containing 45,589+- sq. ft. in lot area. -~ _ At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on April 27, 1989, the following action was taken: WHEP~AS, a 'public hearing was held on April 13, 1989, under File NO.' 3535, ~il~d Maruh 10, 1989; and ~, at. ~%d ~earing all those who desired to beheard were heard ~nd thei~ testim6ny recorded; and ~S, .~h~ Board has carefully consider,ed all testimony and docUmentatid~s~tted concerning this application; and · ,~,,t~e Boa~Membe~s hav~ personall~ viewed and are fami!iarlwl, th ~e p~e~ses in question, i~ p~esent zoning:,, and the s~rroU~aing areas'; and WHEREAS, the Board made the fellowin~ ~indings cf fact: .1. By t.b~]s app!i~a~i?n, applicantrequostsan, Ame~t to ~Pec~al Exc~ptlO?: APPl~C~t%oDNo. 3705 to. incl.ude es~ab,!iShment Of car ~e.p?irs W~th 0~ts~de..sto~age and ~Htur~.occupa~cYb~! vac~n~$~iidin~ (t0~ OCCupied wi~h a USe permitted in th~s Light Industrial Zone District). . So~thold Town Board· of Appeals -18-April 27, 1989 Special Heeting (Appl. No. 3835 - ~ V. JUNGE, INC. decision, continued:) 2. The property in question: (a) contains a total lot area of 45,.589 square feet and lot wid%h {fron%age} along the north side of County Road 48 of 168.17 feet, 'in 'the Hamlet of Cutchogue; (b) is i~eBtified on the Suffolk Coun%y Tax Maps as District I008, Sectio~ 96, Block 1, 19;~ (o) is located in the Light Industrial Zon~ District, as re-d~esignated Januar~ i0, 1989 u/lder the new Master Plan revisions; (d) is b~uz~ on the northerly side bythe southctd Town Landfill, on.~t,he~ .Wg. st by a single-family dwet.ling now or for~_erly of J. Har~is'~state, .and on the east b!r Vacant I_.a~. now Or for~rly of GraY, a'il Of which is' also located in the Light Industrial Zone District. 1. For the record, it is also note~ that: · (a) aB Us~ Variance was de~-i~d wight .p~ejudice under App~at No. 3635 oB AuquS~ 2~ i987, when th~ premises was zoned "A" Residenk, iai ~and Agric~IturaI; · (b)..a ~ge of zone was .g~anted b~ the S0uthotd Town BQard on DecOr. 15,. ~I987..re-zOning the Premise~ from Residential and Agric~Itural to '~C-Light Indust~ial'~; .{o) , ~ ~ ,cc. '%~_:t: ExcePtion. for., the co~Stmuction, and .o~_. ~ of .a ~,7:50"sC~. ft. ~!~!!ng Was. qranted blt the Board of A~pPeals on ~ct.% 3; 1;988 under A~D1. (d) ..the o~..~_~/tS 0{ the ~bui~'~lding o]t or abc~t Jan~a.ry 1, !98.9,1.~ ~eved. to'be for~ thel following ~us.e.s: [1) ~_nc%d~entat to the es~tished principal uses. 4. BM this application, the property 0wne~ approval., as an ame~dz~eht to the 1988 Special approval: (a). f~r .the .e. stablishme~t of the. vehicle repair area d'f the. exlstju%g'~l~ing.. (at the cenEe~ thereof), ai~ for Southold Town Board of Appeals -l~-April 27, 1989 Special Meeting (Appl. No. 3835 - A~t'~CR V. JUNGE, INC. decision, continue~:) approval ,of outside, storage of licensed vehictes,~ parked while unde. r ~epa~r, with.proper screening. The area of the. p~opoSed vehicl~ P~rking (vehicles for repairs)is that area direct1 ~in ~ rea~ .Yar~, behx~ .the bu!ldxn~, with fe2~lng and/or other ~Creen~_n~ a.~.~Und ~t~..,.~ per~pher~ 6f the rear yard~ inc!%i~g that are~ cluse to'the ~grthe~ly and eastert¥ P=°Pert¥ li~'s, and bU!~di~ (if needed:fOr r~f~rence, see S~bj~at ~t0rage area ~epmc~ed i~ red 0n. Drawi~g .No. P-la dated March 10, 1987, submitted~ for c~n~lderation) (b) f_o~ og,~.:.%%p~ncy of Bay ~3 at ~ easterly third sect.i.O~:, Of"the .~!~ng ~Or a .special EXc& ,I~ion'."USe' ~.1¥-as ~ezmit%ed'undex ~he:~igh~ In~USirlal ~zdne.Di~iot it s~d~ ~o~;'..h~e~, tha% t~ Li~ ~ha~ia~ (hi) zone Di~r~e~ p~o~td~ f~r ~e~tai~ ~ses a~e~a~ PrOVid~ in o~er [~ a~. ~e "~Q"' Light-~n~t~iai' offi~Park~' ~ecti0n ' 10er13i~{.1%1!~ B{5,7110}, which: inei~deS w~duse~, ~{%'4i~? materi~l 'storage ~ Sales-, ~ild~ 6on, factors e~c. ). ~.. ~o~1~,. ~00-!4~, S/~e~t~0~.~{~)..~ ~ 8~eCiat ~e~n .~d site Park/pi ~' ~fi~ "~k' Zone [Dis~ict, S~e~ti~'"10~-T31B{2} t~re~, px~s by s~oIal ex~on :~d site ~1~ a~roVal: Uses may · mackine of the same or similar nature of a light=industrial use. $outhold Town Board of Appeals _2.0 APril 27, 1989 Special Meeting (Appl, No. 3835 - ARTHUR V. JUN~E, INC. decision, continued:) 6. In considering this application, the Board also has: (a) considered SectiOn 100-262 (General Standar4s} and Section 263 {Co~s!deratton) of the z0nln~ ~e; (b) determined use will net prevent the orde=lya~Id, reascD~le use of adja=ent proper%~es, or of Pr0pe~ties in:~d~a~en~&uSediStrictS; d~temined the safety, health~iwe!fa~.~e, comfort,.conv~r, ience, an~ order of the~ ~'0wn.wi!l not.be a~ersely affected by pr°~medUseand i~S }oca~£°n~ (~) de~ermined tha~ the use is · n ha.rg, ony ¥ith and wxll pr~Uo~e the general purpoSeS and intent of zoning s~ee this is ausewhioh,waspe~rmitte~by special e~ce~ion application (with the. eX_CePt~on gE'the r~uirin~ a written amendme~'t t? the SPeCiaIException in effect at the time of the filing of .eh~s aPPliCation) plan.); (e) the applicant ha~ had numerous applications ~efo~e the Boards, an~ due tO 'the ~9Iimess during the procedures Was not able to have the sam~ f~alizedl ACcordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Hr.: G~igonis, it was ~RESOLVED_., to GRANT an Amendment to the Special Exception as reqUeSte~ (%ugder Al; li~tion No. ~835) in t~ ~kter of' ~ V. ~E, IN~., S~ ~ T~ ~L~IN~ ~ITiONs: 1. V~hicles store~loutside of ~he building mus~ be iieenS~d, in'~a~t, ~/tocate~ Only in th~s sCreening-in rear~a~ 2. Any e~end~!s~orage a~ea?u~si~e~qf the bui!~g, will requir~ re,aPPlication ~o~ re-eonside~ati0n'bytheBoard'cf Appeals; for the of the' the Vote Of. the Board: AyeS:' ~s~rs...~ge_~r~er, ~ri~oniS~ sawicK~"aha"blniz~'' (~e,%,. as"'~r~fo~ thiss~ial 'Meeting,.was: ~ember .DoyeB 0f Fish'rs Is~d.) ~is resolution was duly a~opted. Page 5 - November 21, 1991 Matter of NYNEX/ARTHUR JUNGE, INC. Decision Rendered November 21, 1991 ACTION OF THE BOARD Appl. NO. 4062. NYNEX MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS/ARTHUR V. JUNGE, INC. Request for Special Exception approval under Article XIV, Section 100-14lB(i) for permission to establish public utility use and construct monopole radio tower and accessory equipment-storage building. Zone District: Light Industrial (LI). Location of Property: 21855 County Road 48, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-96-1-19.1. WIiEREAS, after due notice, a public hearing was held on October 24, 1991, and at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the Surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact and determination: 1. The premises in question is located in the Light Industrial (LI) Zone District in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, and is more particularly identified as County Tax Map District 1000, Section 96, Block 1, Lot 19.1. 2. The subject parcel contains a total area of 1.04 acres (or 45,589 sq. ft.) with a frontage of 168 feet along the north side of County Route 48 and a lot depth of 252+- feet. This parcel is improved with an existing building and uses which were the subject of a conditional approval by the Board of Appeals under Appl. No. 3835 rendered April 27, 1989 and Appl. No. 3705 rendered March 3, 1988 (Arthur L. Junge, Inc.), as well as site plan approval by the Southold Town Planning Board. 3. By this application, a Special Exception is requested for "...construction of an equipment building and monopole for cellular mobile communications...", both of which are public Page6 - November 21~ 1991 Matter of NYNEX/ARTHUR JUNGE, INC. Decision Rendered November 21, 1991 utility structures providing a public telephonecommunications service. 4. Reference is made to the following documents and site plan information submitted for the record: (a) Certificate of Occupancy %Z17295 issued by the Building Inspector on September 13, 1988 has been provided for the existing electric shop of Arthur V. Junge and building. (b) Certificate of Occupancy #Z18981 issued by the Building Inspector on April 23, 1990 has been provided for a wholesale bakery and in the existing light industrial building to Local Talent, Inc. (o) the proposed equipment storage building and tower structure will be unmanned, not requiring active daily parking for on-site personnel or customers related to this use. (d) an existing tree line is shown along or very near the northerly and southerly lines the property; pine-tree screening shall be along the westerly property line. (e) also proposed a stockade fence along the northerly and easterly sections of the proposed radio equipment storage building; (f) other site plan elements will be provided as may be determined by the Planning Board under its simultaneously pending site plan application {see PB letter of 11/7/91}. (g) New York SMSA Limited Partnership and NYNEX have furnished information for the record concerning its licensing as a public utility to provide cellular radio transmission serving to its full extent the public interest, convenience and necessity as per written consent and order authorized by the N.Y.S. Public Service Commission, Federal Communications Commission, which includes limitation on the Effective Radiated Power for mobile transmitters up to 7 watts, and output power for mobile transmitters up to 60 watts. It is also not permitted to be assigned or transferred to any person, firm, company, or corporation without the written consent of the Commission, and it is understood that upon any future proposal of this applicant or owner(s) to transfer or assign this authorization, subsequent application to this Board must be filed for consideration. 5. Also noted are the following data: Page ? - November 21, 1991 Matter of NYNEX/ARTHUR JUNGE, INC. Decision Rendered November 21, 1991 {a) cellular communication systems must operate through a network of cell sites, the first for this applicant in the Town o~ Southold at the subject premises in Cutchogue. (b) this cell site has two principal components, a 12' by 26 ft. structure for computer equipment storage, and transmitting/receiving antenna-tower structure, both of which are incidental and necessary to operate a wire line telephone communications use. The top of the tower is 12 ft. equilateral triangle, 40 inches high, 36 inches at the base and 18 inches at the top. There would be two whip antennas that are 10 ft. above that, and one below. (c) the tower and building are monitored seven days a week, 24 hours per day per FCC mandates, although it is unmanned physically at the site. (d) the tower and antenna are solely for use by this applicant/public utility and will not be rented or leased to any other corporation, person, firm or company. Also, it is expressly understood that no new cell, or expansion will be established, unless further application and approvals by this board and the regulating commissions, on this site in order that appropriate criteria may be evaluated, including engineering data relative to wind pressures, wind loads and other safety considerations for such future utility expansion. (e) the tower and antenna shall not be constructed of steel lattice design, but shall be a monopole structure designed to withstand continuous wind loads in excess of 150 mph and wind peaks of 190 mph or more (sufficiently mounted with wires and brackets capable to support these pressures). 6. Article XIII, Section 100-130 of the Light Industrial (LI) and Light Industrial-Office (LIO) Zoning Provisions authorize this type of telecommunications use by Special Exception. The use of this proposed monopole tower and accessory equipment storage building would include, to some extent, telephone exchanges. Although a telephone exchange is listed as a permitted use in the Light Industrial (LI) Zone District, this application for public utility structures and uses does require a special exception as provided by Article XIV, Section 100-141B(1) and Article XIII, Section 100-131B(4) for "... Public Utility Structures and uses .... " The Special Exception provision is applicable to this proposed project, and has been filed and considered under this provision. 7. In passing upon this application, the Board Members have also considered Sections 100-264, subsections A through P, and have found and determined the following: Page 8 - Appl. No. 4062 Mattel of NYNEX Mobile Communications/Junge Decision Rendered November 21, 1991 (a) That the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts; (b) That the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located or of permitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts; (c) That the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, or order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; Id) That the use will be in harmony with and will promote the general purposes and intent of this chapter; (e) That the use will be compatible with its surroundings, with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regard to visibility, scale and overall appearance and the fact that the property is bounded on the north by the Town Landfill, south by a major dual-lane highway, and bounded by other properties also located in the Light-Industrial Zone District. NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, that the application for a Special Exception for the establishment of a public utility for the construction of a cellular telephone communications tower and accessory equipment-storage building as applied under Appl. No. 4062 in the Matter of NYNEX/ARTHURV. JUNGE, INC., BE AND HEREBY IS APPROVED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. No excessive (disturbing) noise levels; 2. No expansion or additional construction (with the exception of emergency, fire or police necessities which serve the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order to the town), unless further application and approvals are obtained, and for which engineering certifications will be required concerning increased loads, winds pressures and other safety considerations for such expansion; 3. No microwave dishes, as agreed by the applicants (none of which are proposed during the consideration of this Page 9 Matter of NYNEX Mobile Communications/Junge Decision Rendered Nqvember 21,i991 application); 4. No disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, light, vibration or noise, or harmful distribution levels of radiation, as agreed. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MESSRS. GOEHRINGER, GRIGONIS, DOYEN AND VILLA. (MEMBER DINIZIO ABSTAINED FROM DISCUSSIONS AND FROM VOTE). This resolution was duly adopted. OFFICE OF BOARD OF APPEALS Southold Town Hall 63096 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 765-1809 tel. r 766-9064 ZBA fax. REPLY FORM Dated: /o (~) Your application~X ~is incomplete for the reasons noted below. ( ) It is requested that the following be forwarded as soon as possible (within about 7 days, if feasible). The advertising deadline is 22 days before the meeting date and the information is necessary for review and advertising purposes. You may forward the information by fax at 765- 9064, however, please send .the original by mail. Thank you. {-~ The appeal was not~d~within 60 days.~e decision of the Building Inspector. (~-Missing information - please see missing information checked below. Please submit all the documentation, together with information noted below. If you have any questions, please call us at 765-1809. Thank you. Information requested: ( ) Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector after his/her review of this particular project map. ( ) Check payable to the Town of Southold totaling $ ~/--)~Signature and notary public information are needed.-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( ) An original and six prints of the map were not included. (Preparer's name and date of preparation to be shown.) ( ) Setbacks must be shown for the subject building to all property lines, with preparer's name. ( ) Six (6) sets of a diagram showing the doors, number of stories, and average height (from natural grade). ( ) Ownership Search back to April 23, 1957 for the subject parcel and all adjoining parcels, certified by a title insurance company, and insuring the Town for $25,000. ( ) Copies of all current deeds and tax bills of the parcels back to ~ (~Other: /~z~,~ .-,~_~,/.~ ~t.~r_~r-v~ --,0.~_~ i/ /) 1) AREA OF SITE 1.05ACRES or 45,589SQ. FT, 2) AREA OF BUILDING(S) EXIST· BLDND.-5,033 SQ. FT, 5) PERCENT OF LOT OCCUPANCY 11% ~A/¢ 4) AREA OF PAVING 14,85g,4 SQ. FT. (32.6~.) / ¢.~ 5) AREA AND PERCENT OF NATURAL VEGETATION TO REMAIN PERMANENTLY 52.5~ & 23,B99.84 SQ. FT, EXISTING FENCED COMPOUND. B) AREA AND PERCENT OF SITE AREA REVEGETATED 8ACK TO NATURAL N/A '~' I L L ]' ,.A,, ~'~ F, (~ 0 '[- J. ] ]~ ~ A A / 7) AREA AND PERCENT OF TURF AND LANDSCAPING ; 19% & B530,5 SO, FT, A R C H ]' T EXISTING MONOPOLE EXISTING TREE LINE (TYp,) B) AREA AND PERCENT OF NON-FERTILIZER DEPEN[IENT VEGETATION 33.5% & 15.369,34 SQ, FT. .) PARK,NO REQUIRED N/A PARK,NC PROV,DED N/A EXSmND FENCE TO REMAIN=--~ X / ~[k. ~ / / ~.- FUTURE NEXTEL EQUIPMENT BY 10-! TF.C['-INO].,OGY DILR,'E SETA~, NY tr/'~ .~ ~,)~ 11) LOADING ReQuiReD N/A LOADING PROVIDED N/A '~ 12) DATUM U.S.C. & G.S. OR T.O.S. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD / (,3) PROPOSED OMNIPOINT '-~( sLAB. / 1.) DEPTH tO DROUNDWA eR ' N/A RI=PUT/ED OWN/ER i * '* PROPOSED CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH ,4.'-0" WIDE 7'..1~/A ~ ;0")¢-. '/ ~ ~'"'~ ..,~.. ~ ~ / ~ "~,,..""0~.. 305 LEEWARD DRIVE 16) SUFFOLK CO. TAX NUlMBER(S) 'l DIST.'iO0 SECT· 96 /--- PROPERTY LINE REPUTED 0 53095 MAIN RO ~"['~' )/ 0 )8/16/0; ISSUED FOR PRELrMINARY REVIEW SOUTHOLD, NY ~ LIPA PP#423 ---} /// ~ )9/03/0: ISSUED FO[~ FILING ~';"~ ~ ~ / /2% 3~/16/03 REISSUED FOR FILING XISTING RYWELL A) PROPOSED FEATURES LABELED AS SUCH; ALL' ELSE EXISTIND OR FUTURE BY OTHERS. IT IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO GENERATE ADDITIONAL NOISE, FUMES, VIBRATIONS, DUST, ODORS · ~ C) NO ADDITIONAL PA~RKIND IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED USE, AS THIS IS AN / UNMANNED SITE. ~e E) NO WATER OR SEWAGE FACILITIES ARE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED USE. · F) PROPOsEDTHERE WlLLsiTE.BE N.O COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL SIGNS, NOR SPECIAL L~GHTING FOR THE G) FIRE PROTECTION AND SEOURI~ PROVISIONS WILL ~NCLUDE REMOTE MONITORING OF ~ LOCATION OF woRK H) ANTENNAS ARE TO BE PAINTED COLOR DETERMINED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, N~TH EXISTING TREE LINE (~P,, -'*O';' ,~.. '%: ;~ '~;// / -O* / ,) THE ANTENNA AND. ANTENNA MOUNT STRUCTURAL DESIGN By OTHERS SHALL INCORPO~TE CONSIDERATION OF' ICING. FURTHER, THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ~ J) THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS FACILI~ SHALL ALSO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 1030.1F OF THE CODES, RULES AND REDUCTIONS FOR THE STATE OF PROPOSED WORK, FOR COMM~CA~ION~ ~C. _ GROUNDING. es en egen( for EXISTING M~ER CENTER / Omnip0in( Facilities Network 2, LLC, · ~ 4 Sylvan Way, Parsippany, NJ 07054 UPGRAD LD 3 CUTCHOGUE % L URB NOTE: 718~ C~TY ~AD 48 xk , CONCRETE CU~B C~CHOG~., N.Y. kk%%%,. INFORMATION FOR THIS SITE PLAN SHOWN OWNER INFORMATION: U-~-~4-~ k ' ~ HEREON IS BASED UPON A SURVEY PREPARED ~ ~ BY BARRY, BONACCI ~ VAN WEELE, P.C, CONTACT.. ARTHUR JUNGE .~[~ 2 CIVIL/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/P~NNERS, PHONE: (631) 804-7021 / ~,, DATED AUGUST 4,20~ ~TE PLAN A NOTE8 DRAWINGS DEPICT THE INSTAL~TJON OF PROPOSED ANTENNAS, : LONGITUDE; W 72' 29' 821" ~ ~ ~O,~ MOUNTING FRAMES, CABLING, HANDHOLES ~C, THAT ARE TO BE ~ N 41' 01' 768" 08/16/02 02-4900 P~CED ON AN EXISTING MONOPOLE STRUCTURE. A STRUCTU~L ANALYSIS SHALL PERFORMED BY OTHERS. PRIOR TO THE ~ D~G ~0,~ INSTAL~TION OF PROPOSED ANTENNA COMPONENTS, AS REQUIRED ~ AS NOTED TO EVALUATE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR ADEQUACY OF SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSEDLY APPLIED LOADS OF THE PROPOSED O' 10' 20' 40'~ D~ ~ EQUIPMENT. ANALYSIS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A PIROPOSED REPORT AND REMEDIAL DESIGN IF REQUIRED SHALL BE SIGNED AND 1"=20'-0" ~ ~ SITE PLAN SEALED. OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERI~ING STRUCTURAL N.M, SCALE: 1"=20' ADEQUACY OF THE EXISTING MONOPOLE.NORTH ~.~, ~, 1 OF 2 1) AREA OF SITE 1.05ACRES or 45,589SQ. FT, 2) AREA OF BUILDING(S) EXIST· BLDND.-5,033 SQ. FT, 3) PERCENT OF LOT OCCUPANCY 11% 4) AREA OF PAVING 14.859,4. SQ. FT. (32.6~.) 5) AREA AND PERCENT OF NATURAL VEGETATION TO REMAIN PERMANENTLY 52,5~ & 23,899.84 SQ. FT, B) AREA AND PERCENT OF SITE AREA REVEGETATED 8ACK TO NATURAL N/A 7) AREA AND PERCENT OF TURF AND LANDSCAPING ; 19% & 8550,5 SQ, FT, 8) AREA AND PERCENT OF NON-FERTILIZER DEPEN[IENT VEGETATION 33.5% & 1536g,34 SQ, FT. 9) PARKING REQUrRED N/A I PARKING PROVIDED N/A 10) LANDBANKED STALLS N/A 11) LOADING REQUIRED N/A LOADING PROVIDED N/A 12) DATUM U.S.C. & G.S. OR T.O.S. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 13) INTENDED USE OF PR!OPERTY INDUSTRiAL/COMMUNICATION 14) DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER N/A 15) ZONING I L.I. LIGHT INDUSTRY 16) SUFFOLK CO. TAX NU~MBER(S) 'i BLK.DIST'1001 LoTSECT'19.196 LONGITUDE; W 72' 29' 821" ~ N 41' 01' 768" O' 1 O' 2 O' 40' ~ 1 "=20'-0" ~ NORTH T.O. EXISTING MONOPOLE I EXISTING 105'-8" MONOPOLE BY OTHERS. RS, ¢i~ 102'-8":k AGL /J¢ ~F ~ OF EXISTING ANTENNAS T.O. PROPOSED ~g OMN,PO,NT WILLIAM E COLLIN~ AIA ANTENNAS ~ . = ' ~~EX,ST'N~ SECTOR ANTENN~ BYOmERS, A R C H I T E C T ~ LLP OMNIPO[NT . ANTENNAS VOI~ ~ ~ OF PROPOSED II ~ ~ ~ / ~ (3) PROPOSED OMNIPOINT EQUIPMENT CABIN.S -- SET ON CONCRETE PAD, PROPOSED 6' 0" CHAIN LINK ~¢ % / / / SWITCH, ELECTRIC AND TELCO PANELS MOUNTED / / / TO UNISTRUT ~C~ ~f~N~¢%¢J~ ' WITH 4'-0" WIDE LOCKABLE SWING / / / / SWITCH. GH5p GATE TO MATCH EXISTING,  / / / / ~ FUTURE LOCATION FOR NEXTEL EQUIPMENT BY /2% 01/16/03 REBSUED FOR FIL~G ; [ g [ ~ NORTH  PROPOSEB ARBOR~TIES SOUTH ELEVATION .o, SHOWN FOR CLARITY, SCALE: 3/1 6"=1 '-0" (3) CABINETS TO BE NORTEL S12000 EQUIPMENT 4'-5" ~ NORTEL S12000 EQUIPMENT CABINET SUPPUED BY OMNIPOINT, AND iNSTALLED '~ '/ CABINET SUPPLIED BY CARRIER, BY CONTRACTOR, REFER TO CABIN~ MANUFACTURER / INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR, SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS FOR MORE , , INFORMATION,  SPECIFICATIONS: 75" TALL x 5Y' WIDE x 26" DEEP ~ ~ CELL CAPACI~: 12 TRX CALLS PER UNIT ~ I~ WEIGHT: 1212 LBS .~ ELECTRIC REQUIRED: 250V TO 240V I EMS ANTENNA ~ / ~PE RRB5-19-02 / DUAL POL MOUNTING BRACKETS (~P) _¢.¢¢/ Omnipoini PLAN * EQUIPME~ CAB. COMe. CATIONS ~C. as an agent for 4'-5" Omnipoint Fadlities Network 2, LLC, 'F 'F 4 Sylvan Way, Parsippany, NJ 07054 7 7~ C~N~ ~AD 48 ~ I / ~ ~ CUT~GUE., ~Y, ~ ~ / LI-13-~-A ' %/ ~OUNTED TO PROPOSED POURED EQUIPMENT PLAN, ~UTH ELEVATION ~ I M / CONCRETE PAD. ANTENNA DETALS & ?YRCAL ~ , '/ /. ?. ~H EQ~PMENT CABINET DETAILS TOP VIEW BACK FRONT Vl~ SIDE VIEW AS NOTED S.M 2