The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6507 A)? av 4AD /��sTi,u� G%o�n/a v,viG.s i Laos i�'ei Lc MID. to t 3)2,011 C'G-LLccG*4,e /E(, L`e . '0161,4 E7t O S✓yE 151, /OP EL TA({ LA HA r r _VN�/f�-NNEd� /CLE[JOHf1�C/✓/G IST/O�S' 6JU/L,Jit�/o _ LU��/l7TN /O�/� �fO�Uo Pa Lc /9.✓TE.vNA f _p_/ /09-- - 5ri6' Li.?isfLs Ly //3 9Nb � ssv e _ r cc �s Jf l c 4T ' ilex TE�lsb�xTE� /�� AA/7- ztv vLaYZ F` Ak �k BOARD MEMBERS a $QUr Southold Town Hall Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson Q1� tip 53095 Main Road•P.O. Box 1179 �� l0 Southold,NY 11971-0959 James Dinizio, Jr. Office Location: Gerard P. Goehringer G Q Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank George Horning 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Ken Schneider �'�CQUIff hN Southold, NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REC IVE® TOWN OF SOUTHOLD + "� Tel. (631)765-1809 •Fax (631)765-9064 hi, 9 2%% _/jam" � FINDINGS,DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3,2011 Southold Town Clerk ZBA FILE: 6507 NAME OF APPLICANT: Metro PCS New York, LLC (Baxter/Goeller, owners) PROPERTY LOCATION: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck,NY SCTM 1000-108-4-11.3 SEORA 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 further steps under SEQRA. SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application was referred as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections A 14-14 to 23, and the Suffolk County Department of Planning issued its reply dated August 31, 2011, stating that this application is considered a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. LWRP: The relief, permit, or interpretation requested in this application is listed under the Minor Actions exempt list and is not subject to review under Chapter 268. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The Applicants' property is a 80,494.15 sq. ft. parcel in the LB Zone, It has 197.50 ft. along Elijah's Lane, 488.05 ft. on the southerly lot line, 140.93 ft. on the westerly lot line and 475.60 ft. on the northerly lot line. It is improved with a one story commercial building and three wireless shelters as shown on the survey dated 12-16-09 prepared by Arek Surveying Co. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variances from Article XVTI Code Section 280-70J, based on an application for building permit to extend and co-locate on an existing wireless telecommunication facility and the Building Inspector's July 12, 2011 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed antenna support structures at; 1) more than the maximum code required height of 45 feet, 2) less than the code required distance to adjacent residential property lines of 500 feet. RELIEF REQUESTED: The Applicants propose to extend the height of an existing antenna tower to 120 feet, from the present height of 110 feet, for the purpose of the co-location of additional wireless carrier service antennas to be used by Metro PCS. The Applicants request a height variance from the Code required maximum height of 45 feet. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Prior ZBA Appeal 44022SE dated Aug. 18, 1992 granted Special Exception approval for construction of a monopole telecommunications tower for Metro One. ZBA Appeal 44023 also dated Aug. 18, 1992 granted a height variance for a 100 foot tower, located with the lot line setbacks that currently exist. ZBA Appeal #4862 dated Dec. 7, 2000 granted a new height variance of 110 feet for Sprint Spectrum antennas. The file contains a letter from AT&T dated Sept. 21, 2011 which states that"There is no new lease space available between the existing tenants." The file also contains a letter from adjacent neighbor Sonia C. Hunter dated Oct. 5, 2011 stating her objection to the proposed tower extension. The Applicants' proposal is subject to Town Planning Board site plan review and the granting of a Special Exception permit. Page 2 of 3—November 3,2011 ZBA File#6507—Metro PCS CTM: 1000-109-4-113 FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on October 6, 2011, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, an assessment of the character of the neighborhood, and other evidence,the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant and makes the following findings: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Town Law &267-b(3)(b)(1). Grant of the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. A 100 foot telecommunications tower has existed on this site since first allowed by Special Exception and the height variance granted in 1992 by the Board of Appeals. In 2000 another variance was granted for a height of 110 feet. An increase in tower height of an additional 10 feet to 120 feet will not create any new noticeable change to the neighborhood or create any new detriment to neighboring properties. 2. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(2). The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The Applicant has submitted documentation showing that co-location on the tower on this site is the only feasible method available for the Applicant to fill in gaps within the carrier's service area. Construction of a new tower at a different, but nearby, site would also require a height variance, and would not adhere to the Town's stated objective of co-location whenever possible. 3. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(3). Although the proposed height is significantly taller than the 45 feet maximum tower height currently allowed by Town Code,the variance granted herein for a new maximum tower height of 120 feet is not substantial when this height is considered in relation to the actual 110 feet height of the existing tower. 4. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(4) No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this residential community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Applicant has submitted documentation which states, that the maximum low power wireless radio frequency transmission emission level from all antennas including the proposed additional antennas will be 0.9158 percent, or less than one(1) percent of the FCC MPE(Maximum Permissible Exposure) limit. 5. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(Q. The difficulty has not been self-created. It is a result of the fact that there is no other available space on the existing tower. The Town's expressed priority, as stated in Town Code 280-70, is that the preferred method for the installation of new telecommunications antennas is to co-locate such antennas on an existing tower whenever possible, since this method will help serve to reduce the total number of towers erected within the Town. 6. Town Law 4267-b. Grant of the requested relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicants to enjoy the benefit of telecommunications antenna co-located on an existing monopole tower, 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 Horning, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried, to GRANT, the variance as applied for, and shown on the Technical drawings dated 12/30/09 last revised 5/17/11 prepared by MTM Design Group, Inc. as pages T-1, GN- 1, A-I thru A-6, ES-1, RF-1 and E-1 thru E-4. Conditions: 1. The height variance granted in this decision is subject to the Applicants receiving site plan and Special Exception approvals and confirmation of the necessity of the proposed location and height, as per Town code, from the Southold Town Planning Board. Page 3 of 3—November 3,2011 %BA Pile#6507—Metro PCS CTM 1000-108-4-11.3 2. Red warning beacon shall be re-installed at the highest point of the pole below the height granted herein. That the above conditions be written into the Building Inspector's Certificate of Occupancy, when issued. Any deviation from the survey, site plan and/or architectural drawings cited in this decision will result in delays and/or a possible denial by the Building Department of a building permit, and may require a new application and public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Any deviation from the variance given such as extensions, or demolitions which are not shown on the applicant's diagrams or survey site maps, are not authorized under this application when involving nonconformities under the zoning code. 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. The Board reserves the right to substitute a similar design that is de minimis in nature for an alteration that does not increase the degree of nonconformity. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Weisman (Chairperson), Goehringer, Dinizio, Horning. (Absent was: Member Schneider) This Resolution was duly adopted(4-0). C4 - 4 4oL� Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Approved for filing.�� / 1712011 ( QF So/] D MAILING ADDRESS: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ry P.O. Box 1179 MARTIN H.SIDOR �0 �� Southold, NY 11971 Chair l�( T OFFICE LOCATION: ` \ WILLIAM J.CREMERS N *U- Town Hall AnnexV G C / KENNETH L.EDWARDS 54375 State Route 25 JAMES H.DONALD J. RICH C III OIyCQU �� (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.), Southold, NY Telephone: 631765-1938 Fax: 631765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED to MEMORANDUM (p5 OCT 5 2011 To: Leslie Weisman, ZBA Chairperson BOARD OF APPEALS Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals From: Martin H. Sidor, Chairman AS Members of the Planning Board Date: October 4, 2011 Re: Request for Comments for MetroPCS/Elijahs Lane Facility Co-location SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 ZBA#6507 The Planning Board has reviewed the application for a co-location of wireless antennas referenced above and provides the following comments for your consideration. The main considerations when an application requires a Special Exception are that the need for the facility in that location and at that height is documented by the applicant and corroborated by our independent technical consultant, and also that the proposed facility is as unobtrusive as possible. The applicant must provide a site plan application with information to demonstrate that optional locations on the existing monopole are not sufficient and that the additional height is necessary. We respectfully request that the Zoning Board wait to make a decision until after we receive that information. Upon receipt, the Planning Board will confer with its technical consultant and provide to you its conclusion on whether the additional height is necessary. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments, and please feel free to call us with any questions. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK RECEIVED SEP U S 2011 STEVE LEVY BOARD OF APPEALS SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE �\ SARAH LANSDALE,AICP DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING August 31, 2011 Town of Southold ZBA PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Att: Leslie K. Weisman Chairman Dear Ms. Weisman: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 thru A14-25 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code,the following applications submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission are to be a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Applicants Municipal File Numbers Magrino-Dunning, Susan #6506 Metro PCS NY LLC #6507 Stanton, P. &J. #6508 Very truly yours, Sarah Lansdale Director of Planning Theodore R. Klein Senior Planner TRK:ds LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H.LEE DENNISON BLDG.-4TH FLOOR P.O.BOX 6100 (631)853-5191 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788-0099 TELECOPIER(631)853-4044 A TOWN OF SOUTHOLD -0 FORM NO. 3 lY NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: July l2, 2011 i RECEIVED TO: Rej Nielsen, Huber& Coughlin LLC for Metro PCS New York, LLC AUG 12 2011 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, New York 11743 BOARD OF APPEALS Please take notice that your application dated July 7, 2011 For permit for extension of& co-location on an existing wireless comm. tower&related equipment �4;C Location of property: 415 M�rfRoad. Mattituck.NY County Tax Map No. 1000- Section 108 Block 4 Lot 11.3 is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed co-location in the LB District is not permitted pursuant to Article XVII Section 280-70(J), which states: antenna support structures permitted in LB zoning Districts, are subject to the following conditions: (2) Maximum height 45'. The proposed height is indicated as 120'. Per ZBA Decision#4862, height was granted at 110'. (6) Minimum distance of all wireless equipment to adjacent residential property lines or Street shall be not less than 500 ft. The site plan indicates all minimum distances to all four lot lines are not met. The proposed construction requires Planning Board site plan review & special exception approval per Section 280-71 B & C and Section 280-72 & 73 of the Town Code. Authorized-Signature CC: file, ZBA, Planning Board Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. ELIJAH'S (50' WIDE) LANE ASPHALT ROADWAY , E D G E O F A S P H A L T S 25009' 10" E 197.50' 298.50' TREES & BUSHES , z \o r , Q �i 0 ❑ I R T DRI V E W A Y Cs m � W , 23.35 \ Q z E O } F 7.4' 0 N � W a q Q � a � m 772 O.5• � (n a COryMEITE0 BLOCK s4.9' m '\ 4.0'N FRAME J GARAGE +K415 0 Cu C w 2.2•N 1 H1C"' S w O FRAME�Y c, 23.4• (O J 0It O m9� 0 0 Cf' 2.5• 00 a SO CAB NEO U GArE CONc.� ASPHALT Q Wow PLATFORM �Nr— m�W ?/C Ul C l\ SHE�TERT MOS / —CH �_ NOPOLE x—r cc C Z2 0 C H A 11' RM PLATFON — LIN K FENCE ENCE WOOD FEN CE 25.0' �i 1 OWN LEJJ 0 LL- LL AREA: D W 80,494.15 Sq.F. 1 .8478 Acres Pk W O ILL. kn z O 00 _ O a z �/? 0 W 0 0 D E D A R E A 0 r RECEIVED, �J U AUG 12 20111 J BOARD OF APPEALS J W Of (LOT 2) z W i `5 I0 LEGEND: Of LL RD ROOF DRAIN E.O.P. EDGE OF PAVEMENT DC DEPRESSED CURB SIGN 0 CB CATCH BASIN ® SURVEY POINT ® UTILITY POLE Qs SANITARY MANHOLE FIRE HYDRANT ® WATER MANHOLE 0 SPRINKLER CJ ELECTRIC MANHOLE WATER VALVE 0 TELEPHONE MANHOLE 4Y GAS VALVE O DRAINAGE MANHOLE = o GAS BOX GAS MANHOLE 0 FLAG POLE �� © D.O.T. MANHOLE 0 p LIGHT POLE Ou UNKNOWN MANHOLE UTILITYALIGHT POLE Immo INLET 0 MAIL BOX TB TRAFFIC BOX TREE BE STEEL FACE CURB O VENT 0 SHRUB 0 GMa-- GAS MARK OUT z wi WATER MARK OUT -- % a3 FINAL MAP # NO . _ 3S N 23052' 10" W N 23008' 10" W REVIEWEE BY ZBA vez xa 3r SEE DECISI N # —Z dd�Y 1VN1� 101 .47' 39.46' ir�TED� 1 �3 Adair NOW OR FORMERLY OF THE NOTES: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK HE OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON, FROM THE . THEREFORE LINES TO THE NOTI STRUCTURES ARE FORA SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE THEREFORE NEY ARE NOT INTENDED TMONUMENT PROPERTY LINES OR TO GUIDE THE ERECTION OF FENCES,, ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES OR ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. 2. CONSULT WITH THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT BEFORE DESIGNING, INOR MODIFYING ANY NEW OR EXISTING CURBS, WALKS OR ROADWAYS INN THE THE STREET SHOWN HEREON. 3 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT HERE ARE NO VISIBLE STREAMS OR NATURAL' WATER COURSES IN THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY. 4 REFER TO ARTICLE 36 OF THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW AND THE PROVISIONS OF INDUSTRIAL CODE PART (RULE NO. 53) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION OR DEM OLTION IS COMMENCED THESE LAWS REQUIRE EACH EXCAVATOR TO GIVE ADVANCE NOTICE TO ALL OPERATORS OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES OF HIS INTENT TO PERFORM EXCAVATION OR DEMOLITION IN THE SPECIFIED AREAS 5 ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN U S. STANDARD MEASUREMENTS 6. PARCEL SUBJECT TO. a) DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED 12/4/1992 Only copies from the original of this survey marked with IN LIBER/REEL 11583 PAGE 345 an original of the land surveyor's embossed seal shall be b) GRANT OF EASEMENT RECORDED 1/29/2001 IN LIBER/REEL 11621 PAGE 356 considered to be valid true copies SURVEY 0 F PROPER TY LOCATED AT: c) MEMORANDUM OF LEASE RECORDED 1/29/2001 IN LIBER/REEL 12099 PAGE 286 7. EASEMENTS NOT SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY MAP ARE NOT GUARANTEED. hearing a ed nse las or addsurveyor's to ° Ba vii map #41 5 ELIJAH LANE, MATTITUCK bearing a licensed land surveyor's seal is a violation of section 7209, sub—division 2, of the New York State Education Law COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Certification Indicated hereon signify that this surveywas REVISIONS DESCRIPTION R ye DATE FlLE CE r F NE prepared in accordance with the existing Cade of Pactice TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 1 PROPERTY SURVEY AS CO. 12-16-09 ASC09272 VONVSZ JUS�Q9 for Land Surveys adapted by the New York stale STATE 0 F NEW YORK PSP Association of Professional Land Surveyors Said certifications shell run only his the person for whom the SURVEYED BY govern s prepared, y a l ndi g Inst to the lied hereon, DISTRICT . . . . . . . 1000 SECTION . . . . . . . 108 ARKADIHSZ JDBIEGA, P.L.S. * Cr governmental agency and lending ng institution listed hereon, i ,I ,m . O , Cr and to the assignees transferable the lending institution p Certifications are not transferable to additional institutions BLOCK . . . . . . . 4 TAX LOT(S ) . . . . . . . 1 1 . 3 or subse uent owner N.Y.S. L.L.S. 0505fi9 p ° AREK SURVEYING COMPANY Scale: 2SF 05056g',�QJ 58 East Beverl y Parkway 1 = 20' Q LAND S Valley Stream, NY 11580 Job No: ORDERED BY: www.ascny.net ASC-09272 MTM DESIGN TEL: (516) 792-6676 APPROVALS A&4& DESIGN metroGROUPE ® ARCHITECTURE RF ENGINEER ENGINEERING Wireless for All . FINAL MAP �Ls°Z1�J6o07730 FAX: 732.847.4335 coNs /► y 2375 / Lou Moglino,AIA Robert W.Tom&P�E. ,SE`E DECISION }F /n�- NJ�#AI 13345 �#o G362 753 9 415 EL I � A H LAN DAT�.� �_Ll.._ NY-#028992-1 LL-# TT TII \y'� PA-#066141141 2 A 1C/ < / "t l:� 52 L F F LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 2 1155JED OR IL NG DGa PMo B/II�PDAIEp FIX S11dGRRN NVLYY MJT PMO SECTION: 108 BLOCK. 4 LOT, 113 �j OS/O _ B/26A01}AED WRCONSiAKiION JEs LMo PROJEGINFORMATION: SIGN NKD DESCRIPTION BY BY REV. ORATE BUSINESS SITE ADDRESS: T 415 ELL"LANE MATTITL'CK,NY 11952 sEx �'"y- �-y ,. y r f ^t :II STRUCTURE HEIOHT. 122'-IY/-A6L Ll LATITUDE: N 40'5q'58' DATUM u, LONGITUDE: W-12'30'40' ',NAD 83Ir .! GROUND ELEVATION: 10'-0'+/-AMSL MAO 65) t i` ANTENNA(RAD CENTER: 120'-0'/114'-5't/- ALPrIA`EfLiOR 60° neNr � 120'-0'/114'-5Y/- BETA 5FLi0R: IHC° w .xeAl �+,) a y t U G SITE LOCATION ; 120'-O AI4'-5'+/- 6AWA 5ETOR.. 500° ov ipa l 3rd eH �' Y T A Wireless for All. y PROJECT DIRECTORY: ./_:: MAF /�!""tlp. _ 5SKYLINE DRIVE LOCATION MAP: KE I I"IPROPERTY OWNER: MILLI 5AXrW A PATRKIA5WER 4 HAWTHORNE,NY 10532 SCALE: NTS xALE: NTS 61155=154ISTIRNM eaReNEsire oB+ NY-1313 DWG. DWG. TITLE COPIES 4 STANDARDS: STOW,FL 301% MTM.NOB.: OcIMPSTS020 T-1 TITLE SHEET HESE DOOI'RNTS ARE N CO1°LIAIM 4 ALL CONSTRICTION TO IBE N ACCORDANCE IM THE FCLLOUW43 CODES 4 SITE INFORMATION 6N-1 GENERAL NOTES STANDARDS,LATEST EDITIONS AS APPLICABLE: PROPERTY CONTACT: MJJM BAXTW-tM 2254492 A-I SITE PLAN NIERLATIONAL 51 CDDVO06 NY EDITION A-2 EQUIPMENT PLAN I POLE ELEVATION NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODER008 UTILITY CONTACT: LONG ISLAND POWER . INTERNATIONAL 81CONSERWAnON CODE A006(RESIDENTIAL)AND ASWAE WJ-2004(GO11WIA ) AUTHORITY 4 ELI..-I Ai--I L AIV i= A-3 GABLE ROUTING B GABLE PORT DETAILS NIEWATIOLAL MICNWICAL CODEA006APPLICANT: METRO PG5 NEW YORK,L.L.C. MATTI TUCK' NY 11952 A-4 UTILIN FRAME ELEVATIONS 6 GFS MOUNTING DETAIL . INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS OPPWO06 55KYLINE DRIVE A-5 FOUNDATION DETAILS d EOUIFMENT ELEVATIONS INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODEA006 NY EDITION HAWT}40RNE,NY 10532 DESIGN TYPE: RENABLLRA710N sNBCDDE A-b ANTENNA MOUNT DETAILS . 5ARPER49EE SIECODE AND A461 A111J-2003 E5-1 EQUIPMENT 5PEGIFCATIONS ' I+TER �+ATSTANDARD ARD FLLME 00 E 006 RF ENGINEER NICHOLAS-BAL2M10 GO-LOCATION . nA-222-F STA✓DARDS STR=PAL STAMA405 FOR STEEL ANTENNA TOLLERS AND SIIPFORI'M STRIDI JTES' MN" 914395-H544 RF-I RF INFORMATION BASIC wo SPEED OF 05 MLLES/NOII25(50 MLLE$AIoLR N caLu4cnoN WM4 0.15 NOES OF RAPAL ICE). CONSTRUCTION FRANK SANFILIPPO DRAWN BY. GNECKED Br.. DATE.. E-I ELECTRICAL NOTES 8 INFORMATION MANAGER-. E-2 ELECTRICAL PLAN (51H)-45x042 ■ RcCCEIV�DB1io PMo I2r3oioq E-3 GROUNDING DETAILS SAG SUPERVISOR: DO06 HALL E-4 GROUNDING DETAILS . (516)312-1462 SHEET TITLE AUG 127�:'.� BOARD OF APPEALS SHEET NUMBER RED. BEFORE YOU DIG GALL fiNFPE N w NTGLI _ I-BBO-2L-MBO 2 TIME OUfd:IG DATE BBOfE TLV DIG I.ALL C,0145TIRUGTION,LABOR AND MATERI COMPLY WITH ALL LOCAL AND STATE BUI CODES,ORDINANCES AND ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS. ALL SURFACES CONTAMINATION SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO PAINTING �� TO THE RULES AND REbULATION5 OF ALL IES HAVING JIRISD1GnON. THE NEW SURFACES. ALL GALVANIZED SURFACES SHALL HAVE ONE GOAT OF PERMA50ND BONDINI6 AGENT,WHILE STILL NET APPLY ONE COAT OF SHEMIN WILLIAMB FLAT LATEX PAINT,LET DRY TEN A SECOND COAT OF FLAT LATEX PAINT. 2. THE CONTRACTOR MUST VISIT THE 517E AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ALL DIMENSIONS AID CONDITIONS. ANY DISCRE'ANOIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE A/E BEFORE PROD®THUG WITH ANY WORK,PIIRGHIPSE,FABRICATION AND ERECTION 19.TE CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT A CONTINUOUS 4"WIDE SAFETY LIFE,TRAFFIC YELLOW OR APPROVED EQUAL ON THE DESIGN U OF E Mq I,qL WALKING SURFACES ADJACENT TO THE NE1 CR CABINET TO DENOTE THE CLEARANCE LIMITS OF THE CABINET OSHELTER GROUP 5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE AND PAY FOR ALL PERMITS,APPROVALS, INSPECTIONS AND TESTS REQUIRED BY ALL 20.ALL EOUIPMENT SHALL BE INSTALLED LEVEL AND PLUMB. z AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION. 21. MATERIALS AND GONAmONs NOT FABRICATED CORRECT-r,DAMAGED OR NON-cora-ORMING SHALL BE REPORTED TO ARCHITECTURE 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL ITEMS OF LABOR AND MATERIALS,WHETHER OR NOT SPECIFICALLY INDICATED, IF CONSTRUCTION MAN46ER,A/E AND OMER PRIOR TO ANY CORRECTIVE ACTION.ALL ACTIONS REOUIRES APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEERING REQUIRED To COMPLETE THE INSTALLATION. OWNNER. P. 0. BOX 3 S.THE CONTRACTOR SHALT_BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADECUATE BRACING AND PROTECTING OF ALL WORK DURING CONSTRUCTION 22.CONTRACTOR MUST INSTALL RF WARNING 516N5 AT ALL ENTRY POINTS TO EQUIPMENT AREAS. THESE ARE TO INCLUDE,BUT HAZL.ET, NEW JERSEY 07730 TO AVOID DAMA6E,COLLAPSE,DISTORTION,MI5AU&NMENT,VOIDING ROOFING GUARANTEES AND WARRANTIES,ETC.PROTECTION NOT LIMITED TO, INTERIOR FACE5 OF ROOF ACCESS DOORS/HATCHES. AND EXTERIOR FACES AT COMPOUND ACCESS GATES TEL 7 3 2.8 8 8.6 2 10 SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODE5,STANDARDS AND BEST PRACTICES.ROOF SURFACES SHALL BE AND EQUIPMENT ROOM DOORS. SIGNS ARE To BE AS 5PECIFIED AND SUPPLIED BY METRO POS. FAX: 7 3 2.8 4 7.4 3 3 5 RESTORED TO COMPLETE WATER TIGHTNESS WITH THE APPROVED MATERIAL AND AS PRE-APPROVED BY THE CANER IN WRTIN6. POUDAMONS I.SOIL HAS AN ASSU•ED 5EARUNG CAPACITY OF 2 POUNDS PER 5QUARE POOT.ESTIMATED BOTTOM OF FOOTING Lou Mogl no.AIA Robert W.Toms.P.E. b. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER THE MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. NJ-#E SIILU#GE 3 ENGINBEt ELEVATIONS ARE NS ST ON FOUND UPON PLAN.THESE ELEVATIONS SHALL DI ADJUSTED TO SHE ACTUAL THE OF NJ-#Al 13345 Hwy #GE 36209 T DO NOT SCALE DRANN65. APPROVED BEARING STRATA FOUND UPON 13(GAVATON.ANY UNUSUAL CONDITIONS SHALL BE GALLED TO THE NY-#028992-1 CT-#075384 ATTENTION OF THE ARONITECT/EINSd✓EE . CI-#22375 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BEAR FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MEAHS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTING THE WORK 5HOM ON PA-#061412 THESE PLANS. ALL WORK PERFORMED SHALL BE DONE IN A 600D WORKMANSHIP MNNB�i AER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE O 2.NO BACK FILLING OF FOUNDATION WALLS SHALL BE DONE UNTIL SLAB ON GROUND 15 IN PLACE AFA CONCRETE HAS THE CONTRACTOR SHWLL TAKE ALL PRBGAUTIONARY EF=0RT5 TO PROTECT THE HEW EQUIPMENT JR N6 TH15 INSTALLATION AND SET. APPLICATION SUCH AS: S.BOTTOM OF FOOTINGS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4'-0'BELOW FINISH®GRADE FOR FROST PROTECTION. NO -THE TE ANT5 WRE55 TO AND FROM THE BUILDING AND/OR THE 51TE. FO0TIN&5 SHALL BE PLACED ON FROZEN&ROUND OR WATER ALL FOOTINGS SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM FROST,AS -THE BUILDINGS FIRE SAFETY OR SHALL HOT GREAT=ANY FIRE HAZARDS. REQUIRED. -THE STF41CTURAL INTSSRITY AND SAFETY OF THE BUILDING 05/17/11 ISSUED FOR FILING DGa PMo -TARE SHALL NOT BE ANY CREATION OF NOISE OUTSIDE THE NORMAL HOURS OF T AM TO b PM,UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED 4. MAXIMUM SLOPE BEYrEN BOTTOM OF ADJACENT FOOTIN&5 SHALL BE ONE 0)VERTICAL To(2) HORIZONTAL.ALL 2 UPON WITH THE ONfBR. FOUNDATION WALLS SHALL.BE ADEQUATELY BRACED TO WITHSTAND BACK FILLIN6,EARTH PRESSURE,AND -THE BUILDINGS 5EC.URITY SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ORDER TO PREVENT ANY UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS FROM ENTERING THE LOADS UNTIL ALL Ep11PFENT ARE INSTALLED PER THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWIFSS. �j OS/OS/II SMIDIR5IRG➢PJL AWU55 MJT FMO PREMISES. COWRETE -THE BUILDIN&5 UTLITYS(ELEGTRIGITY,BAS,WATER AND OTHER UTILITY'S)SHALL NOT BE INTERRUPTED DURING THIS O O8/26A0 55.131 FOR LOH51iC1:NA1 LES LMo APPLICATION t INSTALLATION. I.CONCRETE HAS BEEN(ACI) BUILDING, AND SHALL-�REINFORCED C IN FTE,LA IEE - WITH WMUIRE�EN75 OF THE AFRICAN -ALL MASONRY PENETRATIONS SHALL BE DONE USING ROTARY ACTION ONLY(NO HAMF£RIN&ACTON). CONCRETE INSTITUTE(ACU BUILDING CODE FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE,LATES -ALL PENETRATIONS SHALL BE FIRE-STOPPED WITH 5M FS 195 WRAP STRIP FIRE-STOP AND CP25 NON-5HRINK PUTTY FIRE REV. P7.1 �b� en, wH cNKo. 2.THE MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS AND REWI' (LATEST EDITIONS): Y BY BARRIER SEALANT. MAINTAIN THE FIRE RATING OF ALL PENETRATED SURFACES. CEMENTPORTLAND A5TM C9.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL,AT ALL TIMES,KEEP THE PREMISES FRS FROM AGGUM CATION OF WASTE,CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL CO MIX NCRETE A5TM C94 /�(n t AGI-5OI FINAL MAP S ��` MO��/ AND RUBBISH. UPON COMPLETION,ALL DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED AND THE PREMISES LEFT IN A'BROOM GLEAN'CONDITION. CONCRETE A66REGATE ASTM COW ALL RUBBISH SHALL BNNER.E DI5PO5ED OF IN A LEGAL MAD�ORMED BILLET STEEL BAR AST,A615 HELPED WIRE FABRIC ASTM AIB5 REVIEWED BY 10.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS OF E CONSTRUCTION(EX.NOISY OPERATIONS, Cy INTERRUPTIONS OF ANY MECHANICAL AND/OR ELECTRICAL SERVICES,MATERIAL DELIVERIES AND/OR STORAT3.PORTLAND GB-1FNT SHALL BE TYPE IA 6 I WITH THE RA � lb BUILDING ONRER OR MANASE-1ENT PRIOR TO THE START OF CENTHE WORK. 4.CEMENT SHALL DEVE OP A OMiPRE551VE STRGTH(FIC.)of 5000 P51 II.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PATCH AND REPAIR EXISTN6 CONDITIONS NaERE DISTURBED BY NEW WORK OR AS REQUIRED BY THE OF B INCHES,AND A MAXIMUM OF 5 INCHES. DATED /a Lz 02 992 P PLANS. ALL EX15nN6 AREAS of THE BUILDING DAMAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESTORED TO ORI&INAL CONDITION 5. PROPORTIONING OF THE CONCRETE MIX SHALL BE BY THE SPECIFIC 6RAV1 METHOD. n,i AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE CANER. 12.ALL ELECTRICAL WORE.SHALL PERFORMED BY A LICENSED ELECTRICIAN AND CONFORM TO ALL 5JILDIN6 CODE AND b.VIBRATORS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM FREQUENCY OF 9000 RPM. o�wucr.na. �� wi �.�niTre, cc«swr cr T::e cam. naicrLr rrswaaren. LOCAL UTILITY'S REQUIREMENTS. -1.MINIMUM A66RESATE 51ZE SHALL BE 5/4' INCH. (11 13.THE 6ENE3AL M07E5 CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PART OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS,AND ARE TO BE COMPLIED WITH IN g CO �SHALL BE STONE CONCRETE HAVING AN ULTIMATE STREN6TH OF 8,000 P51 AT 20 DAYS WITH A MINIMUM metro 1P CVL ALL RESPECTS. THE MOST RSTRICTIVE NOTES SPECIFIED ARE TO TAKE PRECEDENCE. GEMENT CONTENT of 5.'15 BAGS PER CUBIC YARD.CONCRETE EXPOSED TO NEATER SHALL BE AIR ENTRAINED,SLUMP 14.THESE DOCUMENTS ARE IN COMPLIANCE t ALL GONSTRUGTON TO BE IN AGGORDANGE WITH THE FOLLOWING ND CODES 0 FOR ALL 0ONGRETE SHALL BE 5' MINIMUM A 5'MAXIMUM Wireless for All. STANDARDS,LATEST EDITIONS AS APPLICABLE: 9 CONCRETE MIX SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AC.I.CODE. 5 SKYLINE DRIVE 2003 NTER"W4AL BIULDNG CODE HAWTHORNE,NY 10532 -2003 NTERIATIONAL BBS.Y CONSERVATION CODE 10.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL OF THE R15MIREMENT5 PRIOR TO POURING CONCRETE TO ACCOMMODATE 2003 NtER"R NAL EXISTM SULLDNG CODE ANY AND ALL PENETRATIONS FOR ARCHITECTURAL,STRUCTURAL,MECHANICAL ! ELECTRICAL DRAMN&S. 2003 KrERNATIONAL RTE CODE sire.,oma: NY-7515 2003 NTQdNATIONAL RIEL GAS WDE 11.ALL REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE DEFORMED BARS OF NE-9 BILLET STEL CONFORMING TO ASTM SPEC A615,GRADE Mn DB+. 09MP5T5020 -2003 NTERLITIONAL MECHANICAL CODE ESO,COLD DRANK WIRE FOR YELPED WIRE MESH SHALL CONFORM TO REWIRE-ENTS OF"SPECS FOR COLD DRAWN WIRE -2003 NTERNATKNAL FLU15M CODE OR CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT"(ASTM A62-10),OR SPEC FOR WELDED STEEL WIRE FABRIC FOR CONCRETE SITE INFORMATION 2003 NIERLSTIONAL PROPERTY MANTENA4M CODE REINFORCEMENT,(ASIA A185-10).REINFORCING SHALL BE 5ECURELY TED TO PREVENT DISLOCATION AND PER THE AGI 2003 NIERN ANAL RESIDENTL&CODE TLA-=-F STANDARDS "STRUCTURAL 5TAN12ARDS FOR STEEL ANTENNA TONERS AND S PPORTIN&5TRUG7/RE5' MINIMUM BA51C DE7AILIN6 MANUAL. WIND SPEED OF 85 MILES/HOURS(50 MILES/HOUR IN CONJUNCTION WITH 0.95 INGFE5 OF RADIAL ICE). 12.ALL BARS MARKED CONTINUOUS (CONT)SHALL BE LAPPED 40 X BAR DIAMETt3R AT SPLICES AND CORNERS AND 15.ALL PROPOSED STRUCTURAL STS SHALL BE FABRICATED AND ERECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALSO CODE AND ASTM HOOKED AT NON CADNTINOUS ENDS.LAP TOP BARS AT CENTER BETHMN SUPPORTS AND LAP CONTINUOUS BOTTOM 5PEC1FICAnONS,LATEST EDITION BARS AT SUPPORTS. MATTITUGIG, NY 11-152 -WIDE FLANGE SECTIONS SHALL CONFORM TO A57M A-I92 15.ALL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS SHALL BE THOROUGHLY GLEANED,rCRRED AND SLUSHED NTH GEMENT&ROUT JUST -MISC.5TIEL SHALL CONFORM TO A5TM ANT-56 -ALL STEEL PIPES SHALL CONFORM TO TO ASIA ANT-501 OR ANT-S3,&RADE B. TRADES AMPLEPLAr-ING MENU CONCRETE THE CONCRETE AND MOUSY LATE5, L OR SHALL INSTALL(OR GIVE S,SLI DESIGN fONFECilON5=SHALL MADE-USIN6 SPECIFIED NELDS AND-NHELDIN6.,ELECTRODES E-9oXX OR SPECIFIED H16H 5TREN&TH.BOLTS TRADES AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO INSTAW_ALL ANCHOR BOLT'S,PLATES,SLOTS.GFL45ES,NAILEtZ,.INSERT'S SLffVES, _. .SHALL BE ASTM A325. THREADS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE SHEAR PLANE. ETC.AS REQUIRED 5Y OTHER TRADES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY All DIMENSIONS BEFORE SETTING SCREWS rO-LOCATION AND FORMS. 16.-ALL SHOP AND FIELD 10EIDIN6 SHALL BE DONE BY NELDER5 QUAUPIED AS DESCRIBED IN THE "AMERICAN YBDIN& DRAWN BY I CHECKED BY: DATE. S GIETYS STANDARD QUALIFICATION PROCEDURE" TO PERFORM THE PROPOSED WORK. 14.PROVIDE MINIMUM CONCRETE COVER FOR REINFORCING BARS AS FOLLOWS: EXPOSED To&RADE FOOTINGS "), -BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED AFTER FABRICATION(ONLY EXPOSED TO MOISTURE APPLIGATONS)PER ASTM A-125. ALL INTERIOR FACES of WALLS(I"),EXTERIOR FACES OF WALLS(I-I/2'),SLAB TOP AND BOTTOM BARS(5/4'),BEAMS(1-1/2'), l�H4 PMO Izw/01 DAMAGES SURFACES,MELDED AREAS AND AUTHORIZED NON-&ALVANIZED MEMIHER5 OR PARTS MEW OR OLD)SHALL BE PAINTED SLAB ON 6ROU D BOTTOM(59,COLUMNS,AND PADS AND(2)TO VERTICAL BARS. WITH TWO(2) COATS OF MRC COLD&ALVANIZIN&COMPOUND MANFACTURED BY ARC CHEMICAL PRODUCTS. IS WFIEREVER CONCRETE FACES ABUT OR ARE VENEERED WITH MASONRY,PROVIDE VERTICAL DOVETAIL INSERTS SHEET TITLE -ALL PIPE SIZES INDICATED HEREIN ARE NOMINAL. DIAMETER ONSIDE DIAMETER). FOR MA50KW ANCHORS SPACED AT 2'-0'O.G.MAXIMUM. IT.ALL NEW ANTENNA APPLICATIONS MOUNTED TO EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL BE SEALED AT THE TOP AND SIDES WITH DOW 16.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY A NON-SLIP BROOM FIN15H IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRONEL FINSHIN6 TVED GENEF2AL NOTES CORNING CLEAR SILICONE SEALANT OR APPROVED EQLUAL. THE SILICONE APPLICATIONS SHALL BE TOOLED To MAINTAIN A E1 ,/ FINISHED APPEARANCE. 19.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE CONCRETE FROM 15.WHERE INDICATED ON THE PLANS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT ALL NEW ANTENNAS,SHROUD AND RELATED MOUNTING PREMATURE CURING AS SOON AS THE FORMS ARE REMOVED,ESPECIALLY DURING THE FIRST 24 HOURS. SHEET NUMBER REV. HARDWARE TO MATCH THE EXI5TIN&ADJACENT SURFACES. ALL PAINT SHALL BE 5HERWIN WILLIAMS OR APPROVED EQUAL. THE EILL. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT USE A METAL BASED PAINT ON THE ANTENNAS. ANTENNAS SHALL HAVE ONE PRIMER COAT OF POLANE I.ALL FILL UNDER CONCRETE SLA55 TO BE 95%COMPACTED EARTH,NEIL TAMPED AND 4" COMPACTED G 2.5 PLUS IFIL D61H'IS PRIMER IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFAGTUREN5 IN5TR1GTION5 AND THEN APPLY ONE TOP GOAT IN &RAVEL. ALL BACK FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE FREE OF ANY OR6ANIG MATTER. I GENERAL NOTES 2 CONCRETE 5PECIFICATION5 (IF REQUIRED) OFA O `�I I- 1 2 -BOMAIRY INFOFUNTIoN 15 TAXEN FROM THE " Ir Lm WCx INFORMATION ME OTFSETs OR AR ENO A SHOWN FOREIGN Al ME PaPRO THEREFORE OL ro E =FROFO`-'FD BF-LiRIL FROM UfLLJTY PdP M�YTS 18'l.MiE BbllP`�. FOLLppµS; r'AR NOTINT REs•aE roI. F.T IF PURPOSE ANO USE. HEME. PROPOSED E NOT INTENDED TO MONUMENT aawEarr LINES OR r0 GUIDE GU M. ITEM RECURRED EJC15TN6 EQUIFT�NT ERECT ON OF TExccs. ADDrnorvu smHCTuacs ON ANY DMEa IuaaoREMUNHs U FROFERrY SLVZ&Y FREPARM FOR THE MITH 3.C,WOULT W M ME HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT SEEORE DESIGNING.INSTALLING ON ©_FROP055ED( aW wWj BO,000 S.F. 80.494.15 SF. NO CHANGE D E S I G N aDPnNO ANY NEW ON EXEING GLRES, ID OR ROADWAYS IN Tare MIN.LOT AREA DESIGN MOW INC.W.ARM=JRx/EY STMEET SHOWN HEREON. COMPANY NY LIG 0`•'0589 ON 12-16-04 E. s IS TO GUILTY MAT MERE ARE NO uSIELE SHR XIC OR NAMIAL MIN.LOT WIDTH I15 FT 19150 FT. NO CHANGE G R O U P^- WATCR COURSES IN ME PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON MIs SROSY TO=FROposm TELCO FROM EXISnw GSC+CABINET 4.EUTER TO ARTICLE TH a ME ccNEau BUSINESS t,.w AND THE PGOWSoxs MIN. LOT DEPTH 250 FT 4'15b0 FT. NO CHANGE Of NousmuL CODE PART(RULE NO. ss)eE*a+E NNIS ExcAvnnary w DEIIOLnCN Is G..ENGEo. MESE L.Aws aEau HE Una ExcAVATw ro aRE MIN.FRONT YARD SETBACK(ANTENNA) TOO FT. 14b FT. © 2.24.43 FT. A R C H I T E C T -SITE IEA. aNXIS TAIL!BY MM DE516N ADVANCE NOTICE TO ALL MU RATORI Or NNOEIORx UNCI FACILITIES CIT TDs E N G I N E E R I N G 6ROW,INC.AT A SITE x/1517 ON 09-1149 IN HE O PERFORM E%CARAnON OR DEMWHON ME SPECIFIED REAS. MIN.FRONT YARD SETBACK(EGMIIPI--RENT) 100 F'T. l4b FT. 0 235.43 FT. s. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE m u.s.STANDARD MEASUREMENTS. NOTE: c.PMC¢sVBJON m ONE 20'FT. 50 FT. 1133 FT. P. O. BOX 3 nl oEaWRAnox a corEN•Nrs ANO IUSMIcnDNs REcaaosO.z/./H9Bz INSTALIAnON I5 IN GOhPI.IANLE Wml: MIN.SIDE YARD SETBACK HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 N LIBER/REEL HHSBB PAGE T4s (ANTENNA) TOTAL 45'FT. 54.9 FT. W224 FT. e7 GRANT OF EASEMENT RECORDED 1/29/2001 N UEERMEEL lHc2l PACE]Sa -�LOCAL ARD STATE BALDING LOGES. I .)MEMORANDUM OF LEASE RECORDED 1/39/2OM N LRER/REEI 13099 PAGE lac -THE ENR6Y OPIEER/A11ON CONSTRICTION ONE 20'FT. 50 FT. 4133 FT. TEL: 7 3 2.8 88.6210 2.EASEMENTS NOT SHOWN ON MIs SLAWY UAP ARE NOT GUARANTEED. MIN.SIDE YARD SETBACK FAX' 7 3 2.8 4 7.4 3 3 5 CODE OF NYS. (EG%11P'M1ENi) TOTAL 45'FT. 54.9 FT. 150.'3 FT. MIN.REAR YARD SETBACK(ANTENNA) 15'FT. 293.91 FT. BOA FT. LORE Mogro,AIA Robert W.Tom�,P.E ARCHIn STRUCTURAL ENGINES![ MIN.REAR YARD SETBACK(E9UIPMENT) -f5'FT. 293.91 FT. 2290 FT. #Al13345 IMI� #GE 36209 N 0 W 0 R Sr NJ -# l 1334-1 NY,#075384 F 0 R M E R L Y N T Y CLEAR EX1sTIN6 BR)15N AS FEWIRED INSIDE MIN LANDSCAPE AREA 25% 53.0% 53.4% CT-#22375 S U F F O L F(, C U N G U A O C H O I O F EM INSLOITALLATIIOPONR �'E�PGS MAX. LOT COVERAGE 55 F 15.1% 15.9% MAX.B1ILDIN6 HEISHf/STCARIES 35 FT./2 I/2 105 FT- 10 FT-TOYER EXTBKION PA-#061412 I C 0 R N E L I U S L)p EXISnN5 TOWER 1186 FT-TOP OF MTEIM M A S T 0 N AwmoNv 52MCH 115 FOR casuNwA T011%Pea TMIr#1P Moe ARRn X 9I,BiMre 760 61-260.8, An As FOLIOI'Tn MAX. HEIGHT 8O FT. 108 FT. 126'-0' MAX.EG UIPMENT AREA 500 SGL FT. WA 160`Sa FT' 05/11/11 ISSUED FOR FILING DOD PMO N 70°30'50" E WA NON APPLICABLE 2 — KEY, p EXISnN6 NON-CONFORMITY —_— �OS/OS/1149AIH1 AASRGIR4NR1% MJT PMO N — _ 475.601 p�06/26/10 raU FOR LOR5V ICN JI LMO O — O EXISTING METER a z— pExR�PnON BY BY V B L V E S T O ry E CURD G1KD_ BALKBOARD(BY OTHERS) Rev. DATE AREA 80.494.15 Sq.F. E%ISTING VERIZON SEAQ 4'. �Aq�, 1.8478 Acres e¢9 T�•�. J O I SHELTER 5 •1 u74 UZI REVIEWED B 42B A >f SEE DECISI N WOOD E D A R E A .A� DATED / NSP 58' ° WON.. 246REAR YARD 5MBALK $ '--1 TRc P Z (PROPOSED ANTBNAS ON TOYER TO PROPHRTY UNE) 141$ woNIlEuev.N IN 1 mFR STORY //� W 0 EXISTING EaWMENT FRAME J me 06P S i10 C) 724.43'FRONT YARD:TOBK.K EMM L`J "- �./ (BY OTHERS) I AMB+4A5 ON TOYER TO PROPHLTY UNE)>;:' Color) � � ) m � Wireless for All. : 235.43'FRONT YARD sETBN.K 4 W O > C) 5 SKYLINE DRIVE O 22q'SIDE YARD SETEACK 1 (; MPDP05W E29114 T TO PRDII MM LINE) >? - HAVFTHORNE,NY 10532 PROPOSE;EaRrarr ro PRopecrY LtF > TwX p NY 1313D® G Ex1S11N6 POLE NYT-3 To MTM.,DB+: O9MPSTSO2O ez 9�•;, ,,N.: . EXISTRK M WATE PoIF SITE INFORMATION N i N EXISTING CSL CABINET PROPORD B.EGTRW EXISTING 10'WIDE ACCESS I011W FROM POLE SATE TOCOHND tIA ELI_.K, LPN N EXISTING PRIVA E MATTITUGK, NY 11952 O 61 EX15 IMG EQUIPMENT _ UTILITY POLE 0 w O R F ORM S 7 0 00rr 17> o SHELTER DESIGN TYPE: J YY y EDGE D T g s p GO-LOCATION LEGEND _ O S E p H � k RO [� H q RD .1 SUBT C ECCE DF PAVEMENT N ` �)/- X H M, T E L O PRAWN BY: GNEGKED BY: DATE. DC DEPRESSED CURB E SG I L L E (� J 48 C A TH ON) CR CATCH BLE. ® Po Only copal r.om me Dig t ...y mane^rHn k 8 O`r _ ® ur:uTRD�LM m sAxHr.n u•xxoLE aN o,IDm rvr m.mm ..e o;s N+:n�•::e:em :IGD o. J BHO PMO 1213009 IX DRE T ® WATER MANHOLE O-N.,Y,ee I- e mile Due Wes �B O y)�• 8 w.ER v.wE o TELEPHONE MANHOLE OLE TOP,C I.-nRe,u6an ou uaamnn -u u„K11p,IT u YDE ~ q � _NS VO e WATER RALRE nenH I:- A. SSS SHEET TITLE ® ORN„AGE MANHOE :ec m9 1309, zue'alalu:.z orsmeuu.R ro.k Same o e•S EGA ® GAS MANROU EaVembn Lov. p O v rue POLE ® O.D.H. MANHOLE Pe SURVEY OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT EXISTIN6 UTUTY EIVED 5 `= ITE. T=1_P�1�I ® UNKNOWN MANHOLE CITIN mmn IoamoHee n eo sl ON tnnH LEIS s ~ LIGHT PO APP a RC I.na`.an m. eslm9 epee of ayN�uee #415 ELIJAH LANE, MATTITUCK o HHLIL3A lu SUGM ROLE � PPI Pale sF..eye MOXI ny me Ne.vein Ster. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK z N MAILBOXTa TR6Fe eox e�mro:,OH P.or.:.IOnnl Lono sw.<w e. smen n S_ EXISTING VTILITY POLE © TREE ST STEEL TALE CDRR cnliri<alion5 moll ,un only to H'A person NO v om Ill TOWN DF SQU HOLD RNYT3 AUG I o RENT s,.ey L^,.pN... P„a M I. KPF.”m me CIU.a P,ly. STATE OF NEW YORK xo 2i C.�1 SHEET NUMBER REV. e s.ED. go..mm. al oq ncy one NATO, :MHIM6 o rnm ee.e H. —�—ws M.Rx OUT ° 9„u.O1 me I.ML 9 "NO"M, DISTRICT ._ 1000, SECTION ._.._ 108 a m I1NNN�. MMD—WATER MARX om GeNbSecIe n..net r..Mm. m oamUon<I BLOCK ....... 4, TAX LOT(S) .__.. 11.3 TI — o..eRe:.aMenr n.n... I x LS �= I SITE ALAN IN” SCALE: I' = 40'-0" 1 24x36 SCALE: IA = 20'-0' O=PROPOSE ELECTRIC FROM!84 MEfHt 4 DI T AT� ©=PROPOSED 6RCAID RN6EXISTING LIGHTNING ROD(APPROXIMATELY 5'HIGH)TO 5, O=PROPOSED TELCA FROM EXISTN6 6MHMA BE RELOCATED TO TOP OF MONOPOLE EXTENSION ABOVE PROPOSED ANTENNAS D E S I G N CSC CABINET TO NGV EWPH34T SECTOR EXISTING BEACON L16HT TO BE RELOCATED TO TOP OF MONOPOLE G R O U P z EXTENSION ABOVE PROPOSED ANTENNAS EXI5TIN6 106'H614 MONOPOLE TO A R C H I T E C T U R E BE EXTENDED TO IS'.PROPOSED E N G I N E E R I N G MONOPOLE EXTENSION TO BE TOP OF EXI5TIN6 RELOCATED L16HTNIN6 ROD P. Q, BOX 3 INSTALLED BY METRO PC5 PRDP05M METRO PCA ANTENNAS(".OF 2 12645"N-ABOVE&RADE MR SECTOR,6 TOTAL)MCMiED TO PROPOSE _TOP OF PPZP05W ANIBNAS _ TEL 7 3 I`8 8 8JERSEY 07730 PROPOSED METRIC POS bO MONOPOLE EXTEWICR ON PROPOSED T-ARM TEL 7 3 2.8 B 8.6 2 10 COAXIAL CABLES ROUTED ALPHA BRALI�T5(SEE DETAIL VA-6) 118'-6•±ABOVE GRADE FAX: 7 3 2.8 4 7.4 3 3 5 1 ALONG HER CABLE BRIDGE SECTOR �— _TOP OF PROPOSED MONOPOLE EXTENSION TO EAS71N6 POLE TYPICAL —�— 116'0±ABOVE 6RADE OF 2(TO BE RI N ON - PROPOC�IO MONOPOLE EXTENSION C&M OF PROPOSED METRO P05 AM --k- Lou Mogrl AIA RobettUR Toms,P.E. (18•DIMEl6<)BY METRIC PC5 Z— - - - - NJ-#A ST -#GE 36209 EIIi . 01151DE OF POLE)(SEE , 116'-3•±ABOVE GRADE NJ,#AI 13345 tN� #GE 36209 DETAIL I-4/A3) NY-#028992-1 -#075384 i CENTER OF EXI5TIN6 SPRINT ANTENNA$ CrCI-#22375 180' E - 109'-0'±ABOVE 6RADE PA-#061412 BETA PROPOSED METRO PC5 ANTENNAS � �PG5 SECTOR (TYP.OF 2 PER SECTOR,6 TOTAL) n I TOP OF EXI5TIN6 MONOPOLE _ 6P5 UNIT D METROLINTED ON MOU7f®TO PROP�OFED MONOPOLE � 108'-O'±ABOVE GRADE PROPOSED CABLE BRSIO IDGE / EXTE N ON PROPOSED T-ARM TOP OF EXI5TIN6 TOWER I5 _ CENTER of EXI-02'-O'±ABOVE ATdT DIS ANTENNA 51PPORT POST"CAL BRALI.'ETS(SEE DETAIL VA-6) 2024'DIAMETER 1GRADE OF 2XSEE DETAIL 2/A-4) ------- CENTER OF EXISTING AT&T ANTENNAS 05/I1/II I55UED FOR FILING DCa PMo EXI5TIN6 CHAIN LINK 48'-0'±ABOVE GRADE 2 /05/1 PA &SRVMJT PMOFENCE / I _ CENTER OF EXISTING NEXTEL ANTENNAS 05/26/101550 Ti,R CO&T ON JE. LMo B8'-0'±ABOVE GRADE O A SSON N I DATE REVI510N WN GHKD EX$TN&G . (ABANDON) A STRLGTURM-ANALYSIS OF THE E14571NO"OPOIF R£V N Br BY WAS PERPoRED ON 0117.10 HRE/F.ED APRIL 25,2010 ' BY 6PO 6ROUP THY F.E.DAVID B.6RAN6EK UCENW CENTER OF EXI5TIN6 ANTENNAS seA� 5 C / ROVf®UIbER6ROIIND TO ��7-0 IN COIFORMWICE WTN T1AiHA-222-F MID - T8'-O'±ABOVE GRADE - Q 10. CONY.RETE SLAB NY STATE BULDINS CODES. THE ANALYSIS CONCUM C, �S G!i F / PTC CABINET THAT THE MONOPOLE MID FOUIDATION HILL BE i ¢1 0� - / RES IGStf TO SUPPORT ALL PROPOSED,E PRPP ASID R[5HN®LOADING.E PRO MODIFICATION EXTENSION AFIE Y{ 0\/ / ASID IDED FOR TE PROPOSED COMLE Arg I * } PROVIDED ATM SEPARATE covet FI COMPLETED 6 O BY - GPD A55CYAA7g, THAT KAS _ 64'_0 R OF EXI5TIN6 T-MOBILE ANTENNAS l _ -PROPOSED METRO POS SEGS TO PTC ON ALYR2010 REPORT 1 APPB7DIX COMPLETED CENTER AVE GRADECABWT N 0 2 PRDPOSED G01YAiETE SLAB _ 3-0' - ON LM57FX FRMS MOUNTED I PROPOSED METRO 6P5 UNIT MOUNTEDON . •�^" A-2 - C'L TO GALVANIZED POSTS WITH R05T h�OPOSED GABIE 511PPyp(X,tT cor�wr A A+�oHiaiev. WORK LIGHT ABOVE MIX / -L MAP 0 DETAIL VA-4) i MEMO etro PCSL s GRM)SET EAS SEWED BY BI210GE 70 EXI5TIN6 reless for All. 0Q f0(5TN6 PORE)(SEE AIL IrT/A-3 W'5 SKYLINE DRIH/EE 5d/�+q��j PROPOSED METRO PGS COAXIAL PROPOSED METRIC UI DECISION #`C HAWTHORNE,NY'IOS32 LJ° PROPOSED PETRO PGS Etl11PMENT CABLES ROUTED LP OUTSIDE OF CABINET''(TYP.OF 4)MCLNTED ON MONOPOLE TO ANTENNAS(SEE CAJLS A MP.OF 4) PROPOSED STEEL RAILS DETAILS 243/A-6) RAILS ANa+DRm To SITE-9- NY-I315 1 ANCHORED TO SSV CONCRETE SLAB (SEE DRAN A-5 t ES-1) SLAB (SEE DRAWINGS A-5/ ES-I) i r^TT^ B.. 09MPST5020 Ex1$T1N&EOJIPMENT INSTALL Lbx4x�( 5-0'LONS h1.rU i (BY OTHER$) INFORMATION p� FASTENED TO 5 HS.B LT a 1 [/l�,sTAjj FAT DIA A325 H5.S ft O Ib' PROPOSED METRO FG5 PTC CABINET O/C AS FESSIARM(SEE 3/A-2 FOR SECURED TO PROPOSED CONCRETE SLAB DETAILS) EXISTING BUILDING(BEYOND) ON LNSTRT FRAME MOIMT®TO 6ALVAM2®POSTS NTH WORK LEW TOP OF PROPOSED 415 E=L 1 JA+F-1 LANE 0 ABOVE(SEE DETAIL VA,4) GPS ANTBNA }t MATTI TUCK, NY 111152 �(/��+-'q�J',]j EXI5TIN6 EOUIPMENT(BY OTHERS) II'-0'±ABODE GRADE 't,..d EXI5TIN6 NEXTEL TOP OF PROPOSED DESIGN TYPE: SHELTER CABLE BRI06E AL 9'�±-ABODE TOP OF PROP05ED GO-LOCATION ECUIPMBRT WaNETS 1-2'±ABOVE —� DRAWN BY. GHE6KED ell DATE. BHo PMo 12/30/09 k SHEET TITLEMENEM Ii -�-- _ APPROXIMATE GRADE .. .. /� � / EQU I PMEIVT P'LA1V PROPOSED LMIDFiCAPIN6 SCF�IIN6 AROAID METRO (� PROPOE 4 MONOPOLE ELEVATION PGO P SED ANDSCEMMSIT C.OMPOENIN 10'H-HIGH EXISTING CA155ON _.. 7 �T SCREENN6 ARON7 METRO PC5 ARBORVITAES OR APPROVED EXAL, AUG 1 2 01 F04CED BTiAPM51T COFPOUND, 10'+/-HI614 ARBORMTAES OR SHEET NUMBER REV. (SEE DETAIL 3/A-42 APPROVED EQUAL, BOARD OF APPEALS ($ff DETAIL 3/A-4) EQUIPMENT PLAN 2 WEST ELEVATION 2 2 1,1 Ilxl-! SCALE: 3/16"=1'-O" 24x36 SCALE: 3/8"=1'-O' IIxlT SCALE: 1/16"=I'-0" 24x36 SCALE: 1/6•=1'-0" III►TI11► PROPOSED METRO POS 6P5 LWT ON CABLE BRM D E S I G Nu (SEE DETAIL 2/A-4) ZNT �- -------� PROPOSED VALMOCABLE G R O U P�• Aa ARC HITE CTU RE BRIDLE PROVIDE U OR APPROVE) EQUAL PRROVIDE SUPPORT P05T5 e ENGINEERING B'-0'ON OBITER MAXHUM P. O. B036 `rte—COAXIAL GABLES ROUIB] HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 I ALONG CABLE BRIDGE TEL: 732-888.6210 l 6RATM6 ON TRAPEZE HANSER5(SEE DETAIL 2/A-3) FAX: 7 3 2.8 4 7.4 3 3 5 ----- I!2'0 ANCIFIOR SET 4 V4'INTO HLTF+BT 3 V2'#5CIEDULE 40 PROPOSED VALMONT O O SPEOIFILATION5 FOR MSTA-LAHY-150 SYSTEM ISM TTIOOH 5 ARCM � 4 AIA I IALIN>fJEFA X 36209 POST,AT B'-0' CABLEgwp6E p55@.�Y PROCEDURE)"CAL OF 4 PER PLATE) NJ-#Al 13345 NNT Y #GE 384 4� MAAM1M ON OBIIHt OR APPROVE)EQUAL.`SEE � _ NY-#028992-1 �-#223754 4 MA4UPACTUFERS - 112'41 VEEP HOLE PA-#061412 'c COAXIAL GABLES ROUT®UP CABLE 5PEG TOTS FOR BRID6E POST ON VALMONT DOUBLE INSTALLATION 6IlID0_INE5 a Bk0kV2'BASE PLATE T-LW BRACKETS OR APPROVED e. Q E[d1AL(SEE DETAILS 5/ 6/A-3) a ': PRoPo-Ep TE x� m PROP05M VALMONT 'I "U 4 u u' . (SEE DETAIL 5/A-5) WASOR o APPROVE)EQUAL a 3-0' q—p \\ a de. d INTERFACE BED'EM CONCRETE SLAB ON CEIVER /�., .a AND BASE PLATE OS/IT/II ISJUED FOR FILING DGo PMo MJT PMO PROPOSED 31170 �OS/OS/11119A1®I&SiRGPPAL4NL155 SCAEDU-E 40 PPE \\\ /�/' ;\\.\�\��\//\i: FXISTIN6 SOIL (TYPICAL) �08l26/10 IY�PD FOR CG61PoKtIlN! JEs -Mo PROPOSED��CABLES 2EVISION (TYN GHKD. ,} EXI5TIN6501L (fYPGAJ SECURED TO PICAU REv' DArE OEBI RIPrION BY BY v I'-010 CONCRETE FOOTING(SEE DETAILS H ��TANDARD FINAL MAP 344/A-a FOR MOIMTM6 TO SLAB) PROP05M(,'n#CX CIREVIEWED BY B� Q�� 0G`' 3/4DI ;e ' A. RI151ED STOW BATE SEE DECISION # A9 DATED /-�2_ 'TIE MM O I Al ANf 1fEN 5 IBITm. GABLE BRIDGE ELEVATION 2 GABLE MOUNT DETAIL ® GABLE BRIDGE 3 GABLE BRIDGE DETAIL AT CONCRETE SLAB me CS� 11x1'1 SCALE: 114'=1'-0' 24x36 SCALE: 1/2' = I'-O" Ilxl'1 SCALE: 3/4"=1'-O" 24x36 SCALE: I/2"=1'-O" IIx IT SCALE: 3/4°=1'-O' 24x36 SCALE: I/2'=1'-O' Wireless for All. 5 SKYLINE DRIVE HAYVTHORNE,NY 10532 slre.ael•_ NY-013 MTM bB" 09MPSTSO20 517-E INFORMATION PROPOSED CONCRETE 5L.AB 6'x8NV2'BASE PLATE PROPOSED COA7UA.CABLES 415 �L I JA A "CAUSEaUR®TO MATTITUGK, NY 11952 0 O PROPOSE 3 1/2'0 5C#ERLE 40 GABLE SM06E CABLE BRIDGE DOUBLE S SNAP IN 'n m SUPPORT POST YIELDED ONTO 8'xB'xV2'BASE SUPPORT PO5T Ci 2j (Sff DETAIL I/A-3), DESIGN TYPE: O PLATE"CAL or PROPOSED COAXIAL CABLES - r - DOUBLE TT-UNE RK�T NTH . . _ PROPOSED VNJAOW DOUBLE GO-LOCATION e� CAL'LE STANDARD SW1P-IN CLIPS T�EQUAL SPACED e DRAWN BY, CHECKED BY: DATE. SUPPORT POST PROPOSED VALMONT DOUBLE V-o-ON CEMTER(AS I ' 5' I — 1/2'0 ANCHOR SET 41/4'INTO HLTI-HIT HY-150 (SE DETAIL I/A-3) T-IJNE BRACKET OR R@@E4WED BHO PMO 12/30/09 SYSTEM(SEE MANIFAOTIREtS APPROVED EQUAL SPACED s 6' 6' 5PECIFICATION5 FOR INSTALLATION 3'-0'ON CBM R(A5 �� SHEET TITLE MIN. PROCEDURFI(TYPICAL OF 4 PER PLATE) REQUIRED) AUG 12 2011 GAE3LE ROUTING � GA13LE PORT DETAILS BOARD OF APPEALS SHEET NUMBER REV. 4 BASE PLATE DETAIL AT CONCRETE SLAB 5 BRACKET PLAN 6 BRACKET ELEVATION A-5 2 I lxl-I SCALE: 3/4"=1'-O' 24x36 SCALE: I/2"=1'-0° Ilxl-1 SGALE:N.TS. 24x36 5,-ALE:N.T.5. Ilxl-I SGALE:NTS. 24x36 SCALE:N.T.S. FROPO`#D RASECOND W HOLISM IM AT� Ham' : 5818-5(OR APPROVED E(i1AL)WITH ONLY 11 I. &AL MATERIAL TO BE HOf-DIFF® FIXTU E MST.BELOID m HnmT ON R 6ECURE E®. PASS7E LOST BEE VISOR INSTALLED E TOYER T 2. ARE EDNPMBNT U ETRUT C PAR LAMP.CAATH OLDEROAAWED OVER THE U DESIGN BRACKETS UNL6ING,UNSTRR aw.a PAR LAMP.LAMP HOLDER WRLI 5HE7.D SHALL 5'{,• FREVIEV, L �' ? GROUP z NUTS. BE POSITIONED N A DOWIYJD DIRECTOR N A 5. EgJR+ENT SHALL BE MOUNTED TO MANNER THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A PLN.CN-CFF CODE UT FRAME AS PER 60VHRNIN6 LUINAIIE MO LIOfE TLLW 104 OF THE LO'EN BY ZBACODE REtiARB-8175. QlIR1T IS AT MYiES BETOEB!9B'R 80'BELGUI2' 2 R C H I T E C T U R E TLE LOUEST LIGM-BIITTNG PARI EP THEENGINEERING LIlIR1AIREL HAZLEI,XNEWJERSEY07730 EAP MD ALL ARCUHD) EC JN # //1\ p/ ; TEL 732.888.6210 "CAL OF 2) 502EE5m lo'-O'+/-RUGA LANDSOMIN6 DA FAX: 732.847.4335 -eQN 6ALVANI2ED UNSTRUT PI000 `x w` ��'t- �� (TYPICAL)aWn-ITY AND LOOATbN Lou Mo9no,ALA Robert W.Toms,P.E. v AS REWREP TO MOUNT E(iAPMEM � i��cT71'3345 �I�IO#G 6 N9w� 1/1.0 IYBOLT(TYPICAL OF 2 PER NY-#028992-1 NY-#075384 CT-#22175 PA-#061412 PROPO`ED PTC,CABINET ON SUPPORT PO5T5 SET OF(5)STNa5 NTH &X ARES BETWEEN 1/2 AND 23 MAY UP TREE � �SNTCNI 4'N6H MULCH MOM TO 05/11/11155UED FOR FILING DGa PMD To FORM SAUCER AROUND TFEE �OS/OS/II IRAI®FUi SiRGRiA NW.Y56 MJT PMO REMOVE flMLAP FROM v TOP 13 OF ROOT BALL GRADE 08126A0 IYJ.MD FOR GOIbiRA;tILN JEs _Mc o PROPOSED 21/2' NOMINAL �\ \.. \� / REV. DATE � �� WN cHKD. DIAMETER SEHE 4E PIPE M T H /A i //j _ N Y BY GAP"CAL OF 2) NBN RANT GRADE RLL. A \V/ mo z �0 SCARIFY BELON BALL RBCCMP• ACTED T % \ \% \/\/\\ \\/ %�\ O �rn�w4 V4 EMBEDMENT IONTO n V4 Tyr. 5�TREE XT IN CONGIgTE SLAB(SEE DETAIL 4/A-5) —. — — — IIICISTURBED 6ROIUD. ATLN itEM OP TR L FROMIBI+ED. SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION metroPCS I IUTILITY MOUNT DETAIL 3 TREE PLANTING DETAIL Wireless for All. IIxIT SGALE:I/2'=1'-O" 24x36 SCALE.3/4"=1'-0" IIx IT 5GALE:NXTS. 24x36 SCALE:N.T.S. 5SKYLINE DRIVE HAWTHORNE,NY 10532 1.THE ELEVATION AND LOCATION OF THE 6P5 AN ENA SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE NTH THE FINAL W RMFORT. sere.iDBx: NY'73 3 2.THE 6P5 ANT5M MOUNT 5 DE516NEV TO FA67N TO A STANDARD 1-1/4'NOMINAL DIMETM Sl1HTAP 40, GALVANIZED 5T®.OR MTM JDB`• OgMP5TS020 STMN BS STEM PIPE THE RPE MUST NOT BE THREAD®AT THE ANTENNA MOUNT END. THE RPE SHALL BE OUT TO THE RE IMP LENGTH ( INMJM OF 18 IWAN W USING A HMD OR ROTARY RPE QUREt TO ASSURE A SMOOTH AND PERPENDIGAAR OJT. A HACK SM SHALL NOT BE SITE INFORMATION USED.THE OUT PIPE END SHALL BE DEMVW AND SMOOTH N ORAER TO SEAL ASAMT THE NEOPRENE 6A=#T ATTAaED TO THE ANTENNA MOUNT. S.THE MOUNTING PLATE SHALL BE FABRICATED AS SHORN AND ATTACHED TO THE APPROPRIATE SUPPORT STfwTURE USING U-BOL115. THE SUPPORT RPE SHALL THEN BE ATTACHED TO THE MOIMTIN6 RATE USING,THE OJHiilg U-EMTS PROVIDED TO ALLIUM AD-151M8NT. IT IS 4-15 ELI_^-I LANE CRITICAL THAT THE 6M ANTENNA 15 MOUNTED SLOE THAT IT 15 WITHIN 2 OESRMS OF VAMC AL AND THE BASE OF THE ANTENNA 15 Nil-ON 2 DESRMS OF LEVEL 6P6AXTENA MATTITUGIG, NY 11952 4' __ (��) BILL OF MATERIALS Va'7HICK RATE 1 DESIGN TYPE: '. Typ 5' _2'_ I' (TYP 2 RCS) I I CABLE TO PIPE CONECTOR. 91F40Y TYPE GAR(TYP 2 RLS) ITEM DESCRIPTION (,MIANTITY (eacHJ GO-LEGATION Tn6•z"Uro•SLOTTED HOLE 2 FOR I-U4'NOMINAL TILT HOLES FOR MJ STM51T O 1-1/4'NOMNAL DIAMETER 6L 40 x I8'L6.NN 55 OR 6ALV.RPE - _— - DIAMETER RPE MOUNTING o I I DRAWN Br: cHEcr.EO By GATE: BRACKET PLATE 3 e 4 6ROLW NG,KR PLANE 33x4-I/4 x 21'LG,.6ALV/Aa6) E-10 PMO 12/30/Oq PROPOSED CABLE B UPSE V2'0 COAX GABLE MINIMUM BENDINfi O3 STD.UH30LT FOR B In'NOMINAL DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 RPE 2 SHEET TITLE SU'PORT F05T RADIUS FUR MAN.FACTURER5 STANDARD DOUBLE fE)C N1I5 AND MA Bt,6ALV. 2 HOLE W5(TYP) xD AYHG,6RQ.NDIN6 KIT C,ABLE O 5ro.L'-BOLT FOR 1 v4•NOMINAL DIAMETER R�W�EIVE 2 DOUBLE HEX UTILITY FRAME ELEVATIONS �2 �1 AY16 BOY/ (PROVIDED NTH NS NIPS AND MAS ER,6ALV.(5ff NCR MOUNTING ENiPLKET PLATE 616M 6RpND BAIT TO MI6B 16L TO VERIFY ALL MATERIALS,GUANITT(Ei AND MODUL NUMBERS TO VERIFIED NTH $ GPS MOUNTING, SETA I L Tn6 x 2-T3 SLOTTED n AMG,ecM HOLE FOR 3 UT NOMINAL NOTE, 6P5 ANTENNA MOUNTIN6 BRAC4aT METRO PCS PRIOR TO OTS8tIN6. SHEET NUMBER REV. DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 OVERSIZE"OUT PROVIDED TO PIPE,UMOLT NTH DOUBLE ALLOW+/-2'TLT/ADJUSTMENT TO NUTS AND MASHERS.(TYPJ AC 4EVE TOLERANCE. __ 2 GPS MOUNTING DETAIL 2 IIxIT SCALE: 1 1/2"=1'-O" 24x36 56ALE: 1I L �9 g ,,9 �9 ,,3 �� I'Tb' 2,-6. I'-08' 2'-`;' 1_2 l a9. I,_M,3. I.e3, - 396'1 x 2'SIDITID -"fb I NDI.E FOR 1n'm BOLT 4 m (REAR OF OABMETS (TMP.OF 16) D E S I G N U -- - _ _ GROUP- y d W6x5 Ip MM R C H I T E C T U RE 0 PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED 1e PROPOSED --�,-- .- - ; ., -_. - >_-. r- -- - _ e _._ -- E N G I N E E R I N G Y y _ " BATTERY / - LLYaxb -�_ _ P. O. BOX 3 4 _ LTE .. , _ MCDCIIl - _ BATTERY < f uvea -am ;� PROPOSED a POSED HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 1116x8 r- r -'- -- - T' -r __ _._ ___ ._.. - ry Q �. PROPOSEDMOI gATTERr + BATTERY = TEL 732.888-6210 o - --- y - - .- -- 1-- -- _ - --T - - -- /�/� FAX: 732.847-4335 1 w4-6' - _ -9 L ________�,J L-- J 4761 �'�- , - ''. .T_ -. - _.� — .......... - __—_ L.-M-9Ear AIA me°u�crvWx vT>3ia�cw E rtm xw r NJ-#AI 13345 N��. #GE 36209 07538 a -_-- NY-#028992-1 CT-#223754 PA-#061412 FRONT OF CAERNET5 FROJi of GARRETS Vl-0 HILTI HIT HT-60 V.6.4 g U1114 6'MN EMBFDhIEM. 10'-0k16'-0'xB'iHKK STAGGER BOLTS AT F,pW-RETE PAD(gg A3 A3 Ai 3'-0'OC.EACH SIDE OF -...' DETAIL 3/A-5) I� ��.x��.�.�� 05/17/11 ISSUED FOR FLING DGa PMo LT iOP OF 51EEL ELEVATION 10'N-ABOrE GRADE LEVEL. CONGRE7E PAD(SEE 3.FCR MOIMNG HOLE LOCATIONS SEE DETAIL VA-5. DETAIL 3/A-5) Z 05/05/11 IFDAI®FR$IRGRRN.Mky% MJT PMO I EQUIPMENT 5UPPORT FRAME PLAN 2 MOUNTING HOLE LOCATION PLAN IIxi7 SCALE: 31 1 24x36 SCALE:311'-0' IIxI-T SCALE: 3/6'=1'-0' 24x36 SCALE:3/4'=r-o' Zp 08/26/IO SEUED FOR CMTRGPCN JEs LMo PROPOSED S'THILNG 4000 651(.ONCTZtTE SLAB NTH L4x4xV4(BEYOND) EXISTRIG GRADE REv. DA N cBKD. (TYPI IGT( N BY BY 2 LAYERS OF 6xl-6/6 MELDED N�FABRIC.SEE n. STEEL TO BE PLUMB ft.AHS FOR PAD SIZE hOP TO SE LIGHTLY ) (Tn=J ARID LEVEL,SKA se NON-SHRRK GIIII AS PROPOSED CHAFFHmv EDGE b RE2ARED7 W6pqj• 0 v a Wr ¢' APPROtI % a 'J L 4' N FINISH GRADE X xsi-% X s x µ '.,.. _ T h y I �.�1 �I- I .-3C�=�I �� E- Y � (� o g9°J P x 4 ' L4x4xV4 co °ov ic.�r ie�«"s"i .ev. 3/4.0 fEE-X(TYP) 4'THICK LATER OF 5/4'DIA 3/6'GHSGET PLATE metro PCS CAI STONE BASE (BEYOND)(TYPJ V!'1 WILT HR 14Y-50 UA14 6'MN m'-®'x�'-0'�.?HICK CONCRETE ' EIUSTIN5 UNDISTURBED EMBEDMENT.STAGGER BOLTS AT PAD(SEE DETAIL 3/A-6) Wireless for All. VIRGIN SOIL V-0'OC.EACH SIDE OF UES5 SKYLINE DRIVE 3 DETAIL 4 DETAIL 5 DETAIL HAWTHORNE,NY 70532 I IxIT SCALE: 3/4"=1'-O' 24x36 SCALE:3/8"=1'-0" IIXIT SCALE: I/2"=1'-0° 24x36 SCALE:I"=1'-O" IIxl-I SCALE: 3/4"=1'-0" 24x36 51-ALE: 1/2"=1'-O sLE.1Dex: NY75I3 00IMPST5020 M'IODLELI 517E INFORMATION (131 FINAL MAP a REVIEWED BY ZBA MATTI UIGK, NY I-15.2 BATTERY GARRET SEE DECISION # DESIGN TYPE: rJ CABINETQ. _. CABINET�. _. _ _ N . .DATED /./ I-I GO-LOCATION n —er TOP OF CONCRETE PAD MODGELL 0'-4'.!-AM MAX DRAW 5YI CHECKED BY: DATE: CABINET TOF OF w6 _ _--- 5Ho PMo IZW/09 LONgZF1E PPD FMISN GRADE 0'-4'./-AGL MAX SHEET TITLE ECEIV FNSHGRADE y .,... -� �.._- € RECEIVED ED FOUNDATION DETAILS AND EQUIPMENT ELEVATION5 1I.T14IQC.., �_�..__.�."� m-6'xK-®'x6'T CK AUG 12 2011 GONG�fE PAD(SEE T WWII PAD(SEESHEET NUMBER REV. DETAIL 3/A-5) q DETAIL 3/A3) RD OF APPEALS �_� 2 6 EQUIPMENT ELEVATION (FRONT VIEW) 7 EQUIPMENT ELEVATION (SIDE VIEW) IIxI7 51-ALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 24x36 SCALE: 1/2"=I'-O" INIT SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 24x3b SCALE: EXISTING MONOPOLE - A�A A DESIGNu NOTE: G R O U P- -617E FRO I PM R"B5-263(OR AFFWVED EaLAL)FOR POLE DIAMETERS D'-30',611E PRO I PM RLS-263(OR A R C H I T E C T U R E APPROVED EaIAL)FOR POLE DIAMIM 30'-60' ENGINEERING -Con-LEE Krt NCUlce& P. O. BOX 3 (3)36'SHPPORT ARTS HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 j (3)3�'X 60•LONG HORIZONTAL PIPES TEL 7 3 2.8 8 8.6 210 (6)2 3)8'X 63'MHEMA MOLKTM PIPES (1)WmER5ALRI�MOWT FAX: 732.847.4335 ALL HLSRDULA E R_WREP FOR WTALLATION Lou Mogw,AIA Robert W.Toms,P.E. -MOWTS ARE D*NEERED N ACCOFIDANCE OATH TTE ARCEIl"TE STRUCTURAL G1NEEIl 36209 LATEST AN61/RAMA-222 STANDARDS NJ-#Al 8992 I�TI #GE 384 INV-#026992-1 ICY-#075384 Q (7-# 6141 2375 PA-#061412 m 6 EE PROPOSED TRIPLE T-FRMS KIT (FINAL MA 0 FOR(6)M TEW"4(SITE PRO I PM Rs5-263 OR APPROVEDEaIAL) REVIEWED BY BA 2 /IT/11155UED TMVXA N6 DCO PMO 6'-0•MPk'W �L �j OS/OS/II WARD P&SIdG1WILNVd.RG MJT PMO SEEDECISION # � �03/26AO -9a FOR RW711, JEs -Mo REV. DAZE REVISION y.lry -RKD. I ANTENNA MOUNT DETAILS DES RIP IDN er or I IxIT SCALE:5/6'z I'-O' 124x56 SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" SEAL NOTE: �`� A STIZZMAL MALY915 OF THE BX15nNS MONOPOLE �� 20 A YLA5 FBHPoW�ON 02J-110(REVISED APRIL 25,2010 Q BY 6M sR ow(NY F.E.DAVID B.6RANSM LICBM *M15BT-U N OOHFOFPHANOE NTH TAHA-222-F AND * } NY STATE MWINS LODES. THE ANALYSIS WICIWED THAT THE MONOPOLE AND POWATION ALL BE %P19 IT TO SI PPORT ALL PROPOSED,EXISnNS AND o REED LOADRI6.TOrEfe MODIFICAnON DRAWINGS A l AND DETAILS FOR TIE PROPOSED EMEOON ARE 111 ,. .. PROVIDED LJIM`SEPARATE COVER COR'ETED BY a 1B1E° 6M A5SOCIAn�,ReFeREWED IN APF'WX 6 OF TFE 5TRIIGIURAL ANALY515 R3'ORT THAT WA5 OOFRET® me CS� .._._ ___.. ...._-. ON 11Y 2,2010 .. Wireless for All. 5 SKYLINE DRIVE �ANDREM EurmwLY GABLE aim OR HAVYTHORNE,NY 40532 APPROVED ELAAL eITE.ae., NY-1313 COAXIAL CARS(TMCAU MTM.Toe.: 09MP5T5020 SITE INFORMATION FX6nNS VERTICAL ROW FENL82 BwsnN6 YB2TICAL Raw M&M � � m 415 ELIJAI-f LANE I ANOREL'6 �6.gROW 18 ADAPTER. MATTITUGiG, NY I q52 CONTRACTOR TO FIELD Vl RRY CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VHi1P1' i d PAW-rEt OF EXISTINS ROIMD M59M DIAMTER OF EX15TM RO"NEPEBt BEFORE ORDERINS EaAPMBTT BEFORE ORZERINS Rx IR434T. DESIGN TYPE: GO-LOCATION DRAv er: cHECKev BY: vnrE: A-6 DIPPED� AIS FABRICAnBRICAI2»aI. BHo PMo 12/30/09/ ANDREWS P)TR36'LY GAME CLIPS OR SHEET TITLE APPROVED EMAL p GA&EDIMEER RECEIVED ANTENNA MOUNT DETAILS COAXIAL GABLES(TTPIGAL) /B. �AL ��b AUG2�� SHEET NUMBER REV. Y7� ISM' 206' A //�� ` BOARD OF 2 GABLE MOUNTING PLAN AT ROUND MEMBER 3 GABLE MOUNTING DETAIL ALS A--6 2 11.17 SCALE: 3"=1'-O" 24x36 SCALE:6"=1'-O" Ilii-1 5GALE: 3"=1'-O" 24x36 SCALE:W=1'-O" • • AN"V OL 511 I/16• DESIGNu 2 4 FINAL Mh P - GROUPz Lti._' m6 REVIEWE `` 3YZBA ARCHITECTURE E N G I N E E R I N G n m SEE DECISik ry p BOX HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 MOlMTINb T@PLATE �®„ / TEL 732.888.6210 �' FAX: 732.847.4335 AC SLIR SE'-IFM u�50R Lou Mo¢]ino,AIA Rob=W.Toms P.E `:. FLOOR CONTACT AREA — j -- ARC= SIRUCIURAL ENGI(�]EEt a RAN EUIPMEIT LABINEr ' NJ-#Al 13345 Ty-#07 384 9 n NY-#028992-1 CT-#22375 2" -y y� PA-#061412 LAT9 �{ IOM CENTER Z\ Gi EdAFMEHT CABINET O + ETR FWEIGHT 5140D POUIP-. RAN VIEW ,j �p METRSTM��I6ABR ®®8® III_ DF 7 05/11/11 I55UED FOR FILING DCa PMO O PLS LTE CABINET TO I ZL NAN.FALTlF8i5 0 ®��® sFECIFIcnnors fTwlcAl) ®®®® Q �j 05/05/11 IAMT®RR5TRGVA#ALT55 MJT PMO m j, T- � _ �. 6PG CgNBIIBIGE OUTLET �06l26/b FILED FOR C0161RCTION JEs LMo T Yf P05InON TBRHNAL BLOGC(OPfbNAL) Re V. GATE REVISION 2nwv GHKo. (i IPiION BY BY 'I ,i PUNCH DOYN BLOCK B " . PE �Hi I O O aFPRcSsla+(oPnoNAU CO p Tco TOMB'/ n31-NEM�6RATINN66 AW CABINETPMERr FRONT VIEW NHD STOF iµnPOINT 6RDW BAR fc v MAMPAGTUREZ5 5FMPICATIM"J ... NOT 70 SCALE... H21E � II LTE LA&NET WEIGHT IS 695 FOUNDS. T ` q Q I EQUIPMENT CABINET SPECIFICATIONS 2LTE CABINET DETAIL5 IlxlT SCALE: N.T.5 24x36 SCALE: N.T.5 IIxl9 SGALE:I/4'=1'-O" 24x56 SCALE: Vk e R wuTre s T.Y fFONI&l£O. EZBFO BATTERY CABINET Wit- 4'-4' metro PCS6 AT-2452 L55 Fi,LLY BUIPPED WITH BATTERIES °" Wireless for All. ^� e 5 SKYLINE DRIVE 4 5/I6' 4 O HAWTHORNE,NY 10532 2. {.q 6^ y �I'-6 3/Ib"�4 5/I6' RPN a PfG BOX m n ,I 4 wlb SECURE NE1 METRO PLS � � slTz. : NYT3IB BATTERY CABINET TO NEW 57EEL GRATIS AND VV*A6e nrn JOBtl' Q9MP5T502Q m a m A6 FIR MANRACTLRMNEW ROPER TELCO CABINET 4 HOLES ) SITE INFORMATION SIRMFICATIONS(TYP) PTO 2-Be N fi m ? o o ve 0 n 4415 E LIJ.4i-+ LANE v = ee �' S MATTITUGK, NY IIz15.2 � ee Y \ e e MOUNnN6 BRACKET TEMPLATE MOMNS TEMILATE DESIGN TYPE: t"f CO-LOCATION RAN•BATTERY CABINET DRArnv Br: aHEcxea Br: OATE.. M EVA71ON NOTE 5ECLRE NEN METRO FC5 PTC EIDFO BATTERY CABINET ME*HT K 2472 CABINET TO NEW LMSTRUT BHo PMO 12/30/09 POUNDS(rILLY EWIPPED WITH BATTERIES). FR�AREA, FRAME AS PER MANIFAGTURERS AREA FOR(I)MOOCEU CABINET-55395'x 52'= 15.94 SO.FT. 5FECIFICA11ONS(SEE DETAIL SHEET TITLE I/A-4) RECEIVED AREA FOR(U LTE CABINET-_55.5125'x 36'=6.95 50.FT ^/T AREA FOR(2)BATTERY CABINET-2659'x 28.94'. 11.42 50.Fr. EQUIPMENT 5PEGI FI GATION5 AREA FOR(0 FTG CABINET-70'x 12'2 25 50.FT. AUG 12 2011 TOTAL AREA OF CARNETS-1534'.11.42'♦25'•6.95=296b 50.FT. SHEET NUMBER REV. BOARD OF APPEALS 5 BATTERY CABINET DETAILS 4 PTG CABINET 5PEGIPIGATION5 ES— I 2 I1xl'I SCALE: N.T.5 24x36 SCALE: N.T.5 Ix19 SCALE: N.T.5. 24x56 SCALE: N.T.S. IIRrAk ANTENNA SCHEDULE - GABLE SCHEDULE D E S I G Nu, --SECTOR RX/rX MANUFAGTIIRER HOVEL* GABLE LENGTH DIA. LABEL G R O U P.-I 41000" DT RX Tx MDRBV-HBx-6516D5-VTM RX 150 FT} 'f/H' 1 RED ARCHITEC 'T' URE T Rx/rx Tx Iso Fr.t 7/8• 2 RED E N G I N E E R I N G OT RX/rX RX 150 Fr.t 7/6' 5 RED P. O. BOX 3 DT RX/rX TX j 150 Fr.i 1/8° 4 RED HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 TEL 732.888.6210 DT RX/rX AN REAL-H 5X-6N&DSVTM RX F50 PT.t 7/H' 1 ELM FAX: 7 3 2.8 4 7.4 3 3 5 T ' RX/Tx TX M Fu 7/8• 2 BLUE Lou Mogi o,AIA Rolxst W.Toms P.E. DT RX/TX RX 150 Fr.t 7/5' 9 BLUE rg #ASI rx13345 i�.�#,U#E 36209�RDT RX/Tx TX 150 Fr.t 7/8' 4 BLUE NY-#028992-1 " -#075384 CT-#22375 PA-#061412 RX/TX ANDRM-HEX-6516D5-VTM RX M PT.t -I/8' 1 GREEN T RX/TX TX ISO FT'.t 1/8' 2 GREEN 0° MDT Rx.rx RX ISO rT.t 7/8' 5 GRffM O' MDT7 EEYT RX/TX TX So Fra 7/6' 4 61REEN 05/17/11 155JED FOR RUNG DGa PMo 05/05/111MOF95WL➢ MVLY% MJT PMO 06/264015W FOR CXTRXTION JEs LMo ftEV. DATE REVISIOPTION le BY N "y GHKBYD. DESGI2I SEAL BILL OF MATERIALS A RCy��. NO.CITY. DE�GRIPTION MPNIFPL7URHt � Q F I I MODC 3-L LLCEMT 0 NO 2 1 LTE CABINET LUCENT ALPHA ALPHA BETA BETA 6ANMA 6AMMA 9 2 EZEFO BATTERY CABUET LUCBRT ANTENNA ANTENNAANTENNA ANTENNA ANTENNA ANIENA 4 E60' AT07d50 7/6'0 AIRCELL COAXIAL CABLES TRILOGY COhtANIGAT06,INC 6C TO VERIFY ALL MATERIALS, 5 24 DFAOMS0 7/6'0 1/16 DIN(F)COWIELTOR TRLL06Y C,014"GATIONNTH 5,NC, THMIES AND��'NR�EHCS TM METRO PGS PRIOR TO Ib 6 24 6K-576AG 7/8'6ROI11D KIT TRILOGY WHHHCATIOM,INC ORDERING. 1 24 C54112T8 7/8'YEATHEtPROORN6 W TRILOGY COM INCATIOS,INC 6 - ATI58,M 1 5M'0 AIRCML COAXIAL GABLES TNL06Y C'"WICATION9,NC, OF Y� 9 - DFAIMS0 W'01/16 DIN(F)COWSOTOR TRILOGY COH4NCATIONS,INC, CAaZ 2 CABLE 5 CABLE 4 CABLE 5 GABLE 6 10 - 6K-SMAC 15/6'GROIND KIT TRILO6Y COM4INCATV6,INC M4 i II - 65-UM i 5/a•MEATHERPROOFIN6 KIT TRN06Y CO44IN CAT10N5,INC ��—yj Wireless for All. 12 24 6'JNIOI2DMDT46 V70 JAMPHL 7/16 DIN(M)CO4EGTORS TRIIOSY Ca"HICATICIE,INC ` ITEM PART Nan•13ER OTY 5 SKYLINE DRIVE 15 6 RE40TE MarTRICAL TILT KATfREIN HAWrHORNE,NY 10532 GABLE 1 860 10035 00,4 FTJ 2 14 6 ANTENNA-MODE.•ANIVRBI-HBX-6N6D5-VTM KAIHREN RED GABLE 2 a60 1O0o9(15 PTJ 2 NY-7513 GABLE 9 660 10009(15 FT) 2 GRA GABLE 4 860 10009 15 Fr 2 ""T"'.iDB=. O9MP5T5020 GABLE 5 660 10009(IB FTJ 2 517E INFORMATION ANTENNA CABLIN6 NOTES GABLE 6 660 10009(I5 FT) 2 I.COLORED HPLTRICAL TAPE%W1 MARK EALH END OF EVERY CABLE AS CLOSE TO EACH ED ASF[--P ANEL ANTENNA POSSIBLE TERMINATE IN 6 41 S EL_I JA.i–I LANE 21N ADDI710N TO TAPE MAMNSA EACH END OF G SARD JJMPERS RIC CABWT Bi5 MATTI TUCK, NY I G52 EVHRY GABLE SHALL ALSO BE LAMM NTH BRASS TAGS(WPPLIED BY OY08v INSCRIBED NTH N16E8i b'-0'STANDARD XMPERS FINAL MAP AAD COLOR OF TAPE MARKN65 AS INDICATED IN DE51GN TYPE: TIE AMVE SCHEMATIC. 145 SYSTEM IS TO BE LBED FOR ALL COLORS. BT5 REWEWW BY �A 5.ALL TAPE MARYJNSS 5HHOLID BE DONE IN GO–LOCATION SrSi.BJCE FROM TIE NORTH FIORKM CLOCKWSE AS TYPICAL SECTOR CABLE RODUN5 5HONH IN THE SC NIATIC ABOVE. m oRArw By I CHECKED BY, DATE. 4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ANTEMA AND MINIMIM GABLE BENDING RADIUS JArm CABLES NTH DRIP LOOPS TO PREVENT BHO PMo 12/30/09 UDESIRABLE WATER RN-OFF. CABLE 5.THE CONIRAGTOR SKAL INSTALL ADDITIONAL SHEET TITLE GABLE 9A-PORTS AS N®ED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMIMEIVED 5PACIN6 OF 5'-O.ON CENTM 1/2",1) (AT012-50) 6• 6.CONTRACTOR NLL RECORD THE LOCATION AM 7/a'm (ATO75.50) 10• CL's SERIAL N1MEEItS OF ALL ANTENNA,ANTENNA I-5/H'm(An5&J50) 20• AUG 1 2 2011 CONTROLLER MOTORS,AND THEIR COMRMFMIN6 IN5TA 1M LOCATION AT THE TIME OF CONSTR ZTIOH SHEET NUMBER REV. 1.ALL AIDRB'5 MOTORS ARE SEDER SPEGFIG,AND WILL BE WIRED STARTINS NTH THE MALE BD OF THEBOARD OF APPEALS 6 GABLE AT TWT5 AND CO MME MRLN ONS THE FOL.LONNS THE TBMALE LP ROLE. ANTENNA GABLE 5CHEMATIG F — 2 IIxl7 5CALE:NOTTO SCALE 24x96 SCALE: DESIGN CRITERIA ABBREVIATIONS AND LABELS I. ELECTRIC: PROVIDE AND INSTALL A :2081/OR 24OV,2P,5 WIRE CIRCUIT FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE TO THE COMMUNICATION CABINET. THIS AFF ABOVE FIN15HED FLOOR MGB MASTER GROUND BAR SOURCE SHALL BE LOCKED ON WITH A GB LOCK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE(3)SPARE FU5ES WHEREVER A FUSED DIS ONNEGT 15 AF6 ABOVE FIN15HED GRADE SGB SECTOR GROUND BAR DESIGN u _ REG7UIRED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY(BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION 15 STARTED) THAT THE POM�R SOURCE 15 BETNEEN 206V AND 240V AWG AMERICAN WIRE GAUGE NLO MAIC ONLY z LINE TO LINE. IF IT 15 NOT BETYEEN THE SPECIFIED VOLTAGE,THEN GALL THE ARCHITECT. ALL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE LABELED WITH GROUP., A BLACK PLASTIC TAG WITH WHITE LETTERS -METRO PGS' ENGRAVED IN IT. GB CIRCUIT BREAKER NEC NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE EMT ELEGTRIGAL METALLIC PNL PANEL AR C H I T E C T U R E 2.UTILITY METER: IF A UTILITY METER 15 SPECIFIED ON THE DRAWIN65, IT 15 THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY TUBING PP POYER PANEL ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS,GUT-IN CARDS,ETC.,THAT ARE REOUIRED TO SET THE METER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MEET WITH THE UTILITY COMPANY TO VERIFY GND 64ZOUND PPG POWER PROTECTION CABINET METER AND TAP LOCATION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. THE ARCHITECT 5E61N5 THE PAPERWORK WITH THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND CAN MG METAL GLAD GABLE PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE P. O. BOX 3 PROVIDE THE ELECTRICAL DETAILER5 NAME AND PHONE NUMBER. CONTACT THE ARCHITECT FOR UTILITY RELATED OUE5TION5. IF TEMPORARY MCB MAIN CIRCUIT BREAKER RA RIGID ALUMINUM HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 POYER 15 REGIUIRED, ALL NEC AND/OR LOCAL ELECTRIC CODES SHALL BE ADHERED TO, CONTACT METRO PGS YA RELES5 PRIOR TO MAKING MDP MAIN DISTRIBUTION PANEL RG5 RIGID GALVANIZED STEEL TEL: 732.888.6210 TEMPORARY POYER CONNECTIONS. YP WEATHER PROOF FAX: 732-847.4335 3,TFI FPHONF;PROVIDE A 2'CONDUIT WITH A 25 FAIR•22 AWG TAPPAN WIRE AND GABLE P 2250BB25/YET/DB/5K/B1-ACK OR EQUAL BY COMM5GOPE FROM THE COMMUNICATIONS CABINET TO THE MAIN DEMARCATION POINT. FROM THE PPG CABINET TO THE BT5,PROVIDE Jumper: Lou Mg.,AIA Robert W.Toms,P.E. SUPPLIER: STONY POINT PN: SPSMT01-40(40 FT 13T65'ISPE)40 FOOT LENGTH WITH 4-"S CONNECTORS CRIMPED ON ONE END. ��Tt'' s IJCTUI ALENGINEER THE MAIN DEMARCATION POINT ALLOW5 FOR THE LEAST AMOUNT OF NOISE AND THE MOST AMOUNT OF PROTECTION. FOR COST SAVINGS,A c#SAI 13345 ��I #GE 36209 CLOSER DEMARCATION POINT MAY BNY-#028992-1 E SPECIFIED IN MULTIPLE STORY BUILDINGS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE TELEPHONE COMPANY. FOR NEW a-#075384 TELEPHONE SERVICES IN NJ,NY 6 CT,PROVIDE A 4- CONDUIT WITH A DRA&LINE FROM THE SPECIFIED UTILITY POLE TO THE LOCATION OF THE NEW CI_#22375 DEMARCATION POINT. PA-#061412 4.CONDUIT ROUTING: THE ROUTING OF THE CONDUIT SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE EASIEST AND M05T PRACTICAL METHODS ARE USED WITHOUT IMPACTING THE BUILDING OWNER AND THE AESTHETIC APPEAL OF THE BUILDING. BECAUSE THE WORK BEING DOHS 15 IN EXISTING STRUCTTIRES, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOW EVERY JUNCTION BOX,LB,CONDUIT BEND,ETC. IN A TWO DIMENSIONAL PLAN. IT 15 FOR THIS REASON THAT THE CONTRACTOR MUST VISIT THE SITE BEFORE ACCEPTING THE OFFER AND UNDERSTAND THE TRUE INSTALLATION OBSTACLES THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THAT BUILDING. 5.E2 PMENT.ALL PANELS,DISCONNECTS,AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SGNUARE 'D'UNLE-55 DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE ARCHITECT OR METRO PGS 2 05/17/11 I55UED FOR FILING DGa PMO WIRELESS PROJECT MANAGER. 2 �OS/OS/II WAI®HE S1RGiFAt A'WYYS MJt PMO WIRING METHODS LEGENDZL 06/26/10 FaF.D FOR Cal512K11TAY JEs LMO I.GENERAL: ALL WIRING IN FINISHED AREAS SHALL BE CONCEALED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. IN UNFINISHED AREAS SUCH A5 BASEMENTS, IDENTIFIEDESCRIPTION IDENTIFIL3R DESCRIPTIO aBVlslov MECHANICAL ROOMS,ELECTRICAL CLOSETS,ETC.WIRING SHALL BE ROUTED ON THE INTERIOR SURFACE. NO WIRING SHALL BE ROUTED ON THE R o n BY �e�' OUTSIDE SURFACES OF THE BUILDING UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED. ALL NEC AND LOCAL ELECTRIC CODES SHALL BE ADHERED TO. ALL -m- EXISTING ELECTRIC NT NEW TELEPHONEsEx (y CONDUCTORS SHALL BE COPPER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7 UNDERGROUND 2.BF OW GRADE ( RGROUND UNDEIN EARTH OR FlLL): ALL CONDUITS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM BURIAL DEPTH OF 24'. BRANCH GIDUITS. RGUITS SHALL NE- MEW ELECTRIC -NT- ` CONSIST OF PULLED CONDUCTORS IN DIRECT BURIED SCHEDULE 40 PVC CONCONDUITS THAT ARE BURIED UNDER EARTH THAT HAVE HEAVY TELEPHONE yO VEHICLE TRAFFIC OVER IT SHALL BE ENCASED IN CONCRETE. CONCRETE ENCASEMENT SHALL BE 3'MINIMUM ALL AROUND AND BETWEEN NE NEW UNDERGROUND CONDUITS. ALL ELBOWS USED WITH PVC CONDUIT SHALL Be SCHEDULE 50 PVC. ALL CONDUIT INSTALLED ABOVE FINISHED GRADE SHALL BE ELECTRIC —T — EXISTING UNDERGROUND SCHEDULE 60 PVC. PRIOR TO EXCAVATION,A UTILITY MARK OUT SHALL BE DONE TO LOCATE EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. PICTURES SHALL TELEPHONE BE TAKEN OF ALL UNDERGROUND WORK TO BE VIEWED AT THE PUNGHLIST. — E— EXI5TIN6 UNDERGROUND 5. INDOORS UNCLASSIFIED AREAS): ALL FEEDERS SHALL CONSIST OF FULLED CONDIUGTOR5 IN EMT. ALL BRANCH CIRCUITS SHALL CON515T OF ELECTRIC —PL— PROPERTY LINE PULLED CONDUCTORS IN EMT.,EXCEPT 15 AND 20 AMPERE I POLE LIGHTING RECEPTACLE,OR MISCELLANEOUS BRANCH CIRCUITS CONGEALED Q' ABOVE SUSPENDED CEILINGS OR WITHIN DRY WALLS SHALL CONSIST OF TYPE MC METAL GLAD GABLE IF ALLOYED BY GORE. CONNECTIONS TO — T — EXISTING TELEPHONE ,s COMMUNICATION CABINETS AND VIBRATING EQUIPMENT SHALL CONSIST OF PULLED CONDUCTORS IN FLEXIBLE METALLIC CONDUIT,MAXIMUM 6' IN yx� w E LENGTH. "v McF" is ma«ieirev. 4.OUTDOORS OR INDOORS CLASSIFIED VAMP'OR WET' LOCATION: ALL FEEDERS AND BRANCH CIRCUITS SHALL CONSIST OF PULLED FINAL MAP CONDUCTORS IN RU 65 CONDUIT CONNECTIONS TO COMMUNICATION CABINET AND VIBRATING EQUIPMENT SHALL CONSIST OF PLED CONDUCTORS IN metroPCS� LIQUID TI6W FLEXIBLE STEEL CONDUIT,MAXIMUM V IN LENGTH. REVIEWED BY ZBA Wireless for All. SEE DECISION # 5 SKYLINE DRIVE NAWTHORNE,NY 70532 DATED l-E? 120II IsI E. EW NY7313 MTM.IOe., 09MP5TS020 SITE INFORMATION SPECIAL EMPHASIS, CONCERNS, AND LIMITATIONS SYMBOLS -415 EL-I MATTITUGK,KLANE NY 11152 COMMUNICATION IDENTIFIERDfSCRIPTION IDEWIFIERDE5GRIPTION DESIGN TYPE: I. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY UPON DISCOVERY OF A PROBLEM OR CONFLICT. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROMPTLY a SAFETY 5WITCH RECEPTACLE IDENTIFY ONE OR MORE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS BUT SHALL NOT PROCEED UNTIL 50 AUTHORIZED. - CO-LOCATION PANEL BOARD NEW UTILITY POLE LIMITATION5 ON DOWNTIME - OO ELEOTRIG METER �'j EXISTING UTILITY POLE DRAWN BYI CHECKED BY'. DATE: I. COORDINATE ALL DISCONNECTIONS AND INTERRUPTIONS OF ELECTRICAL SERVICE AND GROUNDING SYSTEM WITH THE OWNER. A SCHEDULE BHO PMO 12/30/0q OF INTERRUPTIONS AMID SHUTDOYU5 SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER FOR APPROVAL. THE SCHEDULE OF INTERRUPTIONS SHALL BE S ELECTRICAL WIRING SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER A MINIMUM OF TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO ANY ANTICIPATED INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE AND SHALL BE APPROVED (TURNING UP) SHEET TITLE BY THE OWAIER BEFORE ANY INTERRUPTION 15 PERMITTED. ELECTRICAL WIRING RECEIVE F—LEGTRIGAL N07E5 (TURNING Dop" GONTRAGTORS ® GOMMJNIGATIONS CABINET AUG 12 2011 AND INFORMATION 1. ACH CONTR.A,'-TOR SHALL SECURE AND OR 2. EAF QUIRED EACH CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE HIA WORK WIT ( MI H THEWORK OFRED OTHER CONTRACTORS AND TS AND SHALL ARRANGE ALL REXX15TTIIN15 INSPECTIONS. SHEET NUMBER REV. FIELD CONDITIONS. o BACKBOARD BOARD OF APPEALS E- 1 — 2 _-- -�_ • • � \ KEY NOTES (Symbols (D, @), Etc.) A& AA I. EXISTING Car, CABINET. DESIGN" 13 Y Q 2. EXISTING UTILITPOLE NYT3 Z� GROUP.. H I 3. PROPOSED ELECTRIC ROUTED A R C H I T E C T U R E OVERHEAD ENGINEERING \ 4. PROVIDE NEW 200A BYPASS UTILITY P. O. BOX 3 / APPROVED METER SOCKET. PROVIDE HAZLET, NEWJEPSEYOT730 \ \ UNISTRUT FOR HALL MOUNT TEL. 73 2.8 8 8.6 210 5. PROVIDE NEW 200A,25OV, NEMA 3 FUSED FAX: 7 3 2.8 4 7.4 3 3 5 LOCKABLE DISCONNECT MOUNTED ON BACK Lou Moglino,AIA Robert W.Tonus,P.E. OF PTC CABINET RACK. PROVIDE (2) 20CA, AxcTrzrEcr y-rR��T�TaAr IN�ur�Ek 250V FUSES. NJ-#Al 13345 #GE 36209 \ NY-#028992-1 "#075384 �I 6. NEW PTC CABINET FOR ELECTRIC AND A-#061412 TELCO. SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR \ MOUNTING. '1. GROUND TO EXI5TING TOWER GROUND. \ 5. MASTER GROUND BAR. CONNECT 2#2 SOLID TINNED GROUND WIRES TO NEW GROUND RING. Z�05/11/11155UEP FOR FILING DC. FMo II 6 \ 9. PROVIDE NEA #2 SOLID TINTED COPPER Z�\05/O5/111PAIEDU5TRGDRV.NVUY MJt FMo Ir GROUND RIN6 IB" BELOW GRADE. 05/26/10 I59"FOR W67IM71M JEs LMo - 10. PROVIDE 5/8"X10' COPPER GROUND ROD _ AND GAD WELD TO GROUND RING. FZV_ DAre �vi51oN rvN C+ p PE RIFT N BY BY 1 i II. PROVIDE NEA TEST WELL FOR GROUND POD. 12. #2 SOLID TINNED CONDUCTOR(TYF) TO BE G�//ti CMS CONNECTED TO POSTS AND OTHER METAL J e I 05-EGT5. ir 9 13. PROP05ED TELCO CONDUITS ROUTED UNDERGROUND. Q` ry 14. PROPOSED ELECTRICAL CONDUITS ROUTED r . UNDER6ROUND. F�vxicA T coNso+r ov c siren. L \ — a s 5. TO REAR CONDUIT ROUTED ALONG BUILDING metroPCS� _ TO R Wireless for All. S 5 SKYLINE DRIVE \ HAYVTHORNE,NY 10532 14 s1re "- NY-1313 09MP5T5020 \ CONCEPTU L,ACIT TUIN S ON PLANS 15 ALROU INC TO E BASED SITE INFORMATION �- TO UTILMYPOLE NYT3 ON FIELD CONDITIONS. � I I ROOF PLAN WIRE AND CONDUIT LEGEND 4415 EL I JAF-I LANE MATTITUGK, NY 11-152 W-751-ALE: I/6"=1'-0' 24x56 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-O" DE5CIRIPTION WIRE CONDUIT FROPOSEO of(BELL FLOOD T SECONO LiIiNT NO"�:9 DE516N TYPE:EQUAL WITH !I AMP FEEDER 3#3/0 d 1#562" FIXTURE MAT BE PI FD'IIFE TO NAVE PAR%IELD GLARE (JJ#12 x126-9/a'CONWIT 'i VR KWTALLED CI TIE PAR LAW LAMP MOLDER UM 8HIELD 100 MP FEEDER 3#2 d 1#66 2" GO-LOCATION NULL BE FONKiffD N A DWNUAFA DI N A N4NER MAT JOLLD G01[TTTE A RLL OR-OFF LI'"eJAdE W PiDRE THM0%OF FINAL MAP TME LIMEN OUTFUT IS AT ATY.1.0 0SUEEN 8O'1 B0'11101 TME BO MP CIRCUIT 3#4 d #gG -I/4" GRAWN BY: GHELKED BY'. DATE: LOYEBT LITS T-MITTMO PART OF THE LIFW/4REI. f MECHANICAL TIMER SWITCH IN 11 ,ASKE ENCLOSURE REVIEWED BY Z MP CIRCUIT 2#10 d 1#106 3/4" BHO PMO 12/30/09 3.3/0 AWG,046-2'C01✓DUIT 2 E O AMP CIRCUIT 2#12 d 1#126 3/4' SHE a s 3#a#B6- 1-va•c0NDu1r SEE DECISION # ELEGT5 IGAL PLAN EP frrevrm rI DEMARG TO SEE E-I 2" DATED /J / j6UpN'E ENT AUG 12 201tJ UTILITY FTC BTS HIRE 1#4/0 2"POLE GROUND) SHEET NUMBER REV. NYT3 _ n GROUND WIRE 2#2 TINNED NONE ARD OF APPEALS -�J (BELOA GROUND) E -2_2 2 2 ONE LINE RISER SCHEMATIC G �I W-1 SCALE: N.T5. 24x36 SCALE: N.T.S. GENERAL NOTES At i. WHERE ICE BRIDGES AND IGE SHIELDS ARE D ES I G N" USED, BOND ALL P05T5 VIA #2 SOLID TINNED G R O U P z WIRE TO THE &ROUND RING. 1, ARCHITECTURE rl 2. FOR NEW FENCE INSTALLATIONS BOND ALL ENGINEERING CORNER FENCE POSTS FROM &ROUND RING TOA P O. BOX 3 bR ID COAX 6Ra1ND 'Y' TYPE 4 BETTS TO FENCE POST VIA CLAMP. KIT AT KIT AT (THOMAS 6 BETTS 0 S APPROVED FRAMES TEL,HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 ANTEw+o. ANTENNA4AL BOND ALL GATE P05T5 AND GATE FRAMES WITH TEL, 7 3 2.8 6 8.6 210 A MINIMUM OF I/O COPPER FLEX AND ERICO FAX: 7 3 2.8 4 7.4 3 3 5 Wa 6ROUND KI #6&ROUND KIT :16 MM!! FENCE &ROUND ASSEMBLIES OR APPROVED EQUAL. Lou Wo no,AIA Robeft�UCTuWa.Tom, o wga �� 3. ALL COAXIAL GABLES SHALL BE &ROUNDED TO ��Al113345 i��7#r, #GE 36209 A UNINSULATED &ROUND BAR VIA GABLE NY-#028992-1 "•"#075384 &ROUND KITS. NEWTON INSTRUMENT COMPANY OR CI-#22375 `7'C!1 3 EQUAL.THIS &ROUND BAR SHALL BE LOCATED PA-#061412 UNINSULATED `�G� JUST BELOW THE POINT WHERE ALL GABLES 6ROIRdJ BAR COME TOGETHER AND DESCEND DOWN THE i 2 TONER.THI5 GROUND BAR SHALL BE ATTACHED L- - DIRECTLY TO THE TOMER VIA BEAM CLAMP. L 4. ALL COAXIAL GABLES LEAVING THE 05/I7/1115WED FOR FILING DGa PMo COMMUNICATION CABINET SHALL BE &ROUNDED 2 a TO A UNINSULATED &ROUND BAR VIA GABLE GROUND KITS. NEWTON INSTRUMENT COMPANY �i /o5/n WAI®P&511dG11PAl AWtWa5 MJt FMO OR EQUAL. THIS GROUND BAR SHALL BE s s LOCATED AT THE POINT WHERE THE GABLES 06/2611015.1:0FXcoN5TFWIM JE5 LMO o—coAx CABLE MAKE A NINETY DEGREE BEND OFF THE TONER. REVISION C.Kp. 5. 2#2 50LID TINNED COPPER CONDUCTOR FROM �"- °AiE pEscRiPnon Br Br PER 00"KIT 10 s TRHE&INSULATED, &ROUND BAR TO THE &ROUND (U COAX c PES ARp�yi 10 O b. S1a'%X10'&ROUND ROD GAD NELDED TO #2 O G j 50LID TINNED COPPER INSTALLED IN 8" PVC 13 12 TEST YELL5. J\ UNINSLLATED T. 02 AN16 SOLID CONTINUOUS TINNED COPPER 6ROUJD BAR 71 s WIRE EXTERIOR GROUND RING TO BE PLACED 2'-0" AWAY FROM ALL FOUNDATIONS.SEE } 2 ANTENNA GROUNDING DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS. ` IIxI 1 SCALE: NTS. 24x36 SCALE: NTS. 8. 5/8'% X 10' COPPER-GLAD STEEL &ROUND ROD. MORE THAN 2/5 OF THE ROD LENGTH MUST BE BELOW THE LOCAL FROST LINE. carx:• n TOR iss iren. ELA)IPMENT SECTOR U PER COAX GABLE �� — } cs CABIPE-r GRauPro BAR 2>2 souv — _ 6, PROVIDE NOTES (Symb Is QQ , Q, Etc.) me r - - FOR T' INAL ATTACIEv TO EXISTING PINK GRADE Wireless for All. RUN& i - 5 SKYLINE DRIVE 1= REVUE EU . , 1 REPRESENTATION,SEE HAWTHORNE NY 10532 ARGHITEC IN65 FOR MOUNTIN6) PVC INSPECTION ''�• SEE DE ISI(5";'O 511E,IDBv: NY,3I3 TESTING YELL — •Db 09MPST5020 •��,,�J,' ATTACH TO DATED 3./ A&4A SITE INFORMATION &ROUND RING\ 4. COAX &ROUND KIT. NOT INSTALL ON 6 7 BENDS. ROD CAD VELD FINISFED&ROUND . CADNELD TYPE N5". 415 EL-I JA}-i LANE TESTP�1L TEST 1g 3 TEST WELL DETAIL 6. ANTENNA COAXIAL CABLE. MATTITUGiG, NY IG52 IIxiT SCALE: NTS. 24x36 51-ALE: NTS. T . TO COMMUNICATION CABINET. DESIGN TYPE: NN1514&RADe 8. 2 BARREL HYDRAULICALLY COMPRESSED &�UNv ROD CONNECTION PANDUIT CATAL06 #CTAP 00-LOCATION 30 -`� = 2-2X. Min 4. #(, INTEGRAL &ROUND CONDUCTOR FROM _ - &ROUNDING KIT TO 56B. pRA1W oY: cNECKEp er: pATE. s•-0• r - BHo PMo 12/30/09 FRI 10 #2 SOLID TINNED COPPER &ROUNDING AvrELD CONDUCTOR 8" MINIMUM RADIUS. J 10-0' — CONNECTION Min. II. 2 BARREL HYDRAULICALLY COMPRESSED 6O U l�li� 116 CONNECTION PANDUIT CATALOG # CTAP ASSURED FROST LIPS 2-40. '— L_ c BE VERIFIED) 12. TO NEXT ANTENNA."" SHEET NUMBER REV. 13. TO MASTER GROUND BAR BOA D OF APPEALS I GROUNDING ONE LINE DIAGRAM 4 GROUND ROD DETAIL E -5 2 IIxiT 51-ALE: NT5. 24x36 51-ALE: NT5. IIx IT SCALE: NTS. 24x56 SCALE: NT5. ALGA 12'APPRDX. ANTENNA (SUPPLIED BY LUCENT) 1-1/4'DIA' D E S I G N U MAX. ANTENNA CABLE GROUP z ' WEATVIERPROOFIN6 KIT / A R C H I T E C T U R E ANDREW.221213 ENGINEERING FTC, PANEL SCHEDULE P. O. BOX 3 'rb AW STRANDED COPPER GROUND 200 AMP MAIN 24 CIRCUIT 120/240V HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 WIRE(6RONJDED To 6ROIRID BAR) TEL 7 3 2.8 8 8.6 210 GABLE TO PIPE CONNECTOR (5TANDARD ANDREW&ROUNDING KIT) 1 2 loo MODCELL POWER FAX: 732.647.4335 #2 AN&BCW (EURNDY TYPE GAR CONNECTION OF GABLE GROUND KIT SPARE 80 3 4 (TYF 2 PLCS TO 6P5 ANTENNA GABLE Lou 1VI 0,AIA SiBUC1_U INGIfi*EER .. RECEPTACLE IS 5 6 20 LIGHT N #GE 36209 NJ-#Al 13345 � H SPACE NY-#028992-1 -#075384 ACOA - EBRE AG UNIT IS 9 IO PA-#061412 2 1/2'DIA. b' SPACE SPACE MAX- ANTENNA AX II 12 3 14 CABLE 15 16 SPACE WSATERPROOFIN6 KIT ABLE&WO KIT Il Ib ANDREW 0221213 SPACE 05/11/11155UED FOR FLING DCa PMo SPACE "12 6ROIINDIN6 KIT x6 AW6 STRANDED COPPER GROUND 21 22 05/05/11 IFJA1®1&SidGMJI AWLr3'S MJt PMo SPADE SPADE WIRE(sROMIDED To GROUND BART I/2.%COAX GABLE (STANDARD ANDREIN&ROLNDIN6 KIT) ZL OBY16I10 155�ED FOR COISiRIIGnON JE. LMo MINIMUM BENDING RADIUS PER MAIN G IT BREAKER RATIN& - 22,000 AIG MANUFACTURERS STANDARDREVISIO GHKD. NOTE: Co NOT INSTALL CABLE GROUND KIT AT A BEND REV. DATE v P 10 BY ANS&ROUNDING KIT AND ALWAYS DIRECT 6ROLHO WIRE DOWN FINAL MAP bl�D gpR GABLE(PROVIDED WITH KIT) To GROUND BAR SEAL x2 AWG BCW TO MI&B REVIEWED BY ZB `may MocciN Fo,A SEE DECISION # GPS ANTENNA GROUNDING DETAIL 2 CONNECTION OF GABLE GROUND KIT 3 PT ry IIx1T SCALE: NTS. 24x36 SCALE: NTS. IIA-7 SCALE: NTS. 24x36 SCALE: NTS. IIx IT SCALE: N.T.S. 24x36 SCALE: N.T.S. s NIII 'A s KEY NOTES (Symbols 0, @, Etc) 0vv�wnn0n corvswr of.ve is snzw ieireo. I. COAXIAL GABLES LEAVING THE CO metroPCSL COMMUNICATION CABINET SHALL BE GROUNDED AT THIS POINT VIA GABLE GROUND KITS. NEWTON INSTRUMENT COMPANY Wireless for All. LTE aFyL BATTERY BATTERY OR EOUAL. xB-6142 (&ROUND BAR 20" X 4" X 5 SKYLINE DRIVE CABINET CABINET CABINET CABINET 1/4"), #5061-4 (INSULATORS),x3015-8 (5/6• LOCKWASHERS), xA-6056 (WALL MOUNTIN& HAWTHORNE,NY 70532 .2/o STRANDED COPPER BRACKETS), AND x3012-1 (5/8•-II X I" H.H.G.5. slTe.pB+. NY-7513 6ROUNDIN6 OOPIDI.'OTOI BOLTS)' B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -� `- 09MP5T5020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PAN 6 5 Q 2. 2H�R IE 6ROUNDINCOMPRESSED& L&ROUNDING BARREL SITE INFORMATION `A n 11 0 CONDUCTORS BETWEEN GABLE AND THE 7 MASTER GROUND BAR TERMINAL. THOMAS 4 . 0 0 0 0 1 4 BETTS x54emBE OR EQUAL. 41 S EL-I J^-4 L_^NE G5ROL ED AT ° 0 8 0 8 0 8 o MATTIT'UGK, NY 11-152 REAR of CABINET �,� �,A,° 3. HYDRAULICALLY COMPRESSED LON& (TYPICAL TO&ROUND PLATE) 2 BARREL 2-HOLE &ROUNDING LUIS FOR THE MAIN GROUNDING DOWN CONDUCTOR DESIGN TYPE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 5 2 BETWEEN THE MASTER GROUND BAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o x2 SOLID TINNED COPPER T 6 TERMINAL AND THE MAIN &ROUNDING FROM CABINET TO M6P ELS ECTRODE. THOMAS, 6 BETTS#54562MGO-LOCATION 0 o (TYPICAL OF 2 PER CABINET) MAIN GROUNDING DOWN CONDUCT OR EQUAL. MASTER GROUND BAR 4. 3/8" STAINLESS STEEL DIAMETER BOLTS TO DRAM 5YI CHECKED BY: DATE. CONNECT GROUNDING LU6 TO THE &ROUND BHO PMO 12/30/09 BAR (TYPICAL). SHEET TITLE 5. 3/6" STAINLESS S FLAT WA5HER(TYPIGAL.RCCI, I/`✓�./--� f �� OU1`lD l T-4 c� 6. 3/8" STAINLESS STEEL DIAMETER T -YL'r06KK 1� AI L TO To WA5HER(TYPICAL.�UG 1G 2011 6RCVAro 6RauND SHEET NUMBER REV. RING RING I. 3/8" HEX HEAD STAINLESS STEEL NUT (TYPICAL). OGBARD OF APPEALS 8. PROVIDE LTITE THREAD LOCKER RED TO E -4 2 4 EQUIPMENT GABINET SINGLE LINE GROUND DIAGRAM 5 MASTER GROUND BAR TERMINATION DETAIL PREVENT THEFT. IIxIT SCALE: NTS. 24x36 SCALE: NTS. IIxl'T SCALE: NTS. 24x36 SCALE= NTS. APPLICATION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD Oif AppERKEIV EDS y Aor OJJIoe Use only Fa:gJAL Filed By: Date Aadgned/Asalgnment No. AUG 12 21111 OmceNotes: A PEALS Inose No.415 Street Elijah's Lane Hamlet Mattituck SCTM 1000 Section 108 Block 4 Lots) 11.3 Lot Size 80,494.15 sq.ft. Zone Limited Business(LB) I(WE)APPEAL THE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED July 12,2011 BASED ON MAP DATED May 17,2011 Appticant(s)/QKNAt:(a): MettoPCS New York,LLC MailiagAddress• 5 Skyline Drive,Hawthorne,NY 10532 Telephone: 914-593-8500 Fa:#: Email: NOTE: to addlaon to the shove.please complete below if application le signed by applicant's attemen agwS arcbuet4 builder,contract voodoo,etc.and name of person who Most reprumts: Name of Representative: Re,Nielsen,Huber&Coughlin,LLP for( )Owner,or ()t)Other: Applicant Agent's Address: 36 North New York Avenue,Huntington,New York 11743 Telephone 631-4254100 Fax#: 631-425-4104 Email: Irou9hlln@mhclaw.cwm Please check bax to spec fy whoyou wish correspondence to be malled to,from the above names: O Appllcant/Owner(s),or iSAuthorized Representative, or 0 Other Name/Address below: WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR REVIEWED MAP DATED May 17,2011 and DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED July 7,2011 FOR: N Building Permit 0 Certificate of Occupancy 0 Pre-Certificate of Occupancy 0 Change of Use 0 Permit for As-Built Construction DOther: Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (Indicate Article,Section,Subsection of Zoning Ordinance by numbers. Do not quote the code.) Article XVII Section 280- 70 Subsection (J)(2)and(6) Type of Appeal. An Appeal Is made for: NA Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map. 0 A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law-Section 280-A. 0 Interpretation of the Town Code,Article Section 0 Reversal or Other A prior appeal H has, 0 has not been made at any time with respect to this orooerty.UNDER Appeal N0.3801 Year 1989• , (Please be sun to research before completing this question or cad our office for assistance.) -Appy No.4022- 1992;Appeal No.4023-1992;Appeal No.4862-2000;and Appeal No.4573-WITHDRAWN r , r ' • • Name of Owner: ZBA File# `b l /y � / REASONS FOR APPEAL(adAlonal sheer8 maybe used with atraarer's slenature): AREA VARIANCE REASONS: (1) An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if granted,because: See Attached (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: See Attached (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: See Attached (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: See Attached (S) Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( )Yes,or (XNo. Are there Covenants and Restrictions concerning this land: 0 No. 01 Yes(nteme tarnish const. 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. Check this box ( ) IF A USE VARIANCE IS BEl QUE �ED, AND PLEASE COMPLETE THE ATTACHED USE VARIANCE SHEET: (Please be su to ro sr�f (r attorney) M I, le ork,LLC B : Signature of Appellant or Authorized Agent (. (Agent mast oubmit written Authorkaoon from Owoer) Swornt a re meth -( �q o�NE-t'Ci J lc.E`�P�s,ot:�T ' (s�1J�I.Lti-IANAfsE� day of 211 1) N N 1 CAhOElURUSEUA RECEIVED Notary Pubic,Stell of Nes York oin1s21V95 AUG 12 2011 Quailed in we*hester County My COML,31on Fakes January 25.2014 BOARD OF APPEALS Town of Southold RECEIVED Zoning Board of Appeals Application —06 MetroPCS New York, LLC (`MetroPCS') AUG 12 2011 Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY SCTM# 1000— 108 —4— 11.3 BOARD OF APPEALS Reasons for Appeal: 1. An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties ifgranted, because: There is an existing 108+/- foot tall monopole at the premises. The monopole contains public utility wireless telecommunications antennas affixed thereto. Related equipment is located on the ground adjacent to the existing monopole. The proposal seeks only a 10-foot extension to the existing monopole to provide public utility wireless telecommunications services to MetroPCS users and to add its own equipment at grade. Accordingly, the applicant submits that no undesirable change will be produced in the area as this is only a minor addition to an existing use and structure. Furthermore, the applicant submits that it has chosen the least intrusive means possible to address its service deficiency issues in the vicinity of the subject site. 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: The applicant has a substantial service gap in the area that cannot be achieved by some other feasible means because its antennas must be affixed at least as high as proposed in order to ensure that reliable service can be afforded to MetroPCS users in the vicinity of the site. 3. The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: • As noted above, the proposal seeks only a 10-foot extension to an existing 108+/- foot tall monopole and the addition of supporting equipment at the premises. 4. The variance will NOT have an adverse effector impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: The proposed facility would be unoccupied and would not result in an assembly of persons or excessive traffic. Operation of the proposed facility would not result in disturbance to nearby residential dwellings by reason of lights or vibration. Finally, as the applicant is a public utility under applicable case law (Cellular Telephone Company v. Rosenberg, 82 N.Y.2d 364, 624 N.E.2d 990, 604 N.Y.S.2d 895 and its progeny) it must only demonstrate that there is a need for the proposed facility and that the proposed facility is a more feasible means of providing reliable service than other options. The applicant submits that there is a substantial need for the facility and that this minor extension and addition of equipment is a more feasible means to serve this need than other options. RECEIVED 00 AUG 12 2011 BOARD OF APPEALS i i APPLICANT'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION (For ZBA Reference) Applicant: MetroPCS New York,LLC Date Prepared: (0 4 t, I. For Demolition of Existing Building Areas RECEIVED Please describe areas being removed: N/A AUG 12 7011 II. New Construction Areas(New Dwelling or New Additions/Extensions): N/A BOARD OF APPEALS Dimensions of first floor extension: Dimensions of new second floor: Dimensions of floor above second level: Height(from finished ground to top of ridge): Is basement or lowest floor area being constructed? If yes,please provide height(above ground) measured from natural existing grade to first floor: 111. Proposed Construction Description(Alterations or Structural Changes) (attach extra sheet if necessary)- Please describe building areas: Number of Floors and General Characteristics BEFORE Alterations: Existing 108'+/-monopole Number of Floors and Changes WITH Alterations: Proposed 10'+/-extension to existing 108'+/-monopole and proposed 160 square foot equipment area IV. Calculations of building areas and lot coverage(from surveyor): Existing square footage of buildings on your property: t O ,-I w S Proposed increase of building coverage: \6 D S C Square footage of your lot: 80,494.15 square feet Percentage of coverage of your lot by building area: t3• 54'/o * Vw,a 0-zs ;s slt!5&t.\t �;CCrr r r1 v\ V. Purpose of New Construction: MetroPCS New York, LLC proposes to affix its public utility wireless telecommunications antennas to proposed 10'+/-extension on existing pole and install its related equipment so as to provide reliable service to the area in the vicinity of the subject property. VI. Please describe the land contours (flat, slope %, heavily wooded, marsh area,etc.) on your land and how it relates to the difficulty in meeting the code requirement(s): �t\at•;vc\.� F\tom t e.�t+.\,1_ed.ad.cJ. \oi-. Please submit seven (7)photos,labeled to show different angles of yard areas after staking corners for new construction), and photos of building area to be altered with yard view. 7/2002; 2/2005; 1/2007 RECEIVED,0 / a QUESTIONNAIRE AUG 12 2011 FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A.APPLICATION BOARD OF APPEALS A. Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for sale? .' Yes XNo B. Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours? )'No S Yes,please explain on attached sheet. C. 1)Are there areas that contain sand or wetland grasses? N/A 2)Are these areas shown on the map submitted with this application? N/A 3) Is the property bulkheaded between the wetlands area and the upland building area? N/A 4)If property contains wetlands or pond areas,have you contacted the office of the Town Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? N/A Please confirm status of your inquiry or application with the Trustees: and if issued,please attach copies of permit with conditions and approved map. D. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea level? No E. Are there any patios,concrete barriers,bulkheads or fences that exist and are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting? NoNE' (Please show area of these structures on a diagram if any exist. Or state"none"on the above line,if applicable.) the F. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning premises? NO If yes,please submit a copy of your building permit and map as approved by the Building Department and describe: or the owner G. Do you ot/any co-owner also own other land close to this parcel? /✓o If yes,please label the proximity of your lands on your map with this application. H. Please list present use or operations conducted at this parcel Commercial building and public utility wireless teJ22ETinunicafi u facili and proposed use Same as existing use ��eeicample single-family; proposed: aame with garage or pool,or other description.) Me fiCS N N Y LC s : / / Authorized Rgdature and Date p 2M5; IM 1�a� O�.�tY+;�Y+tt Qres��tn4 r Vl.�tra� Mc.��tr RECEIVED iD� AGRICULTURAL DATA STATEMENT �(pb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUG 12 2011 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF APPEALS WHEN TO USE THIS FORM. The form must be completed by the applicant for any special use permit,site plan approval, use variance, or subdivision approval on property within an agricultural district OR within 500 feet of a farm operation located in agricultural district All applications requiring an agricultural data statement must be referred to the Sgf'olit County Department of Planning in accordance with Sections 239- m and 239-a of the General Munic#W Law. 1)Name of Applicant: MetroPCS New York,LLC 2)Address of Applicant: 5 Skyline Drive,Hawthorne,NY 10532 3)Name of Land Owner(if other than applicant) :J1111aarn Mer,Jr.,Patricia Baxter,and Robert A Goeller.Jr.and 4)Address of Land Owner: cJo 415 Hiah's Lane_MattlfurJt.NY N952 5)Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to extend the existing monopole and colocate its public tdilfty wireless telecommunications antennas on the extension,and Install related equipment at the ground,as depicted in the plans submitted herewith. 6)Location of Property(road and tax map number): 415 EOlah's Lane.Mattituck(1000-108-4-11.3) 7)Is the parcel within an agricultural district? X❑No ❑Yes If yes,Agricultural District Number 8)Is this parcel actively farmed? ®No ❑Yes 9) Name and address of any owner(s) of land within the agricultural district containing active farm operation(s) located 500 feet of the boundary of the proposed project. (Information may be available through the Town Assessors Office, Town Hall location (765-1937) or from any public computer at the Town Hall locations by viewing the parcel numbers on the Town of Southold Real Property Tax System. Name and Address 1. 1000-108-3-5.44: Joseph Shipman&Cathleen Shipman,985 Elgah's Lane Mattltuck NY 11952 2. 1000-108-3-5A6: Joseph Shipman&Cathleen Shipman 985 ElQah's Lane MaBituck NY 11952 3. 1000-116-7-13.2: Frededck Koehler,Attn:Osprey Dominion Co PO Box 198 Peconic NY 11958 4. 5. 6. (Please use back side of page if more than six property owners are identified.) The lot numbers may obtained,in advance,when requested from either the Office of the Planning Board at 765-1938 or the Board of Appeals at 765-1809. MetroPCS Ne Y - - e : Signature of Applicant Date fvmt + Note: 1.The local board will solicit comments from the owners of land identified above in order to consider rhe effect of the proposed action on their farm operation.Solicitation will be made by supplying a copy of this statement. 2.Comments returned to the local board will be taken into consideration as part of the overall review of this application. 3.Copies of the completed Agricultural Data Statement shall be sent by applicant and/or the clerk of the board to the property owners identified above.The cost for mailing shall be paid by the applicant at the time the application is submitted for review.Failure to pay at such time means the application is not complete and cannot be acted upon by the board. 1-1409 14164(9/95)—Text 12 PROJECT I.D. NUMBER 617.20 SEAR Appendix C State Environmental Ousllty Revlew SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only -PART I—PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME MetroPCS New York LLC 7. PROJECT LOCATION: RECEIVED Municipality Town of Southold County Suffolk 4. PRECISE LOCATION(Street address and road Intersections, prominent landmarks,etc.,or provide Map) ()'/n I'� 12 �O'� 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck,NY hit SCTM# 1000- 108 -4- 11.3 BOARD OF APPEALS 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: - ❑New ❑Expansion ®Modlflcationisiteratlon " 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: MetroPCS proposes to affix its public utility wireless telecommunications antennas to proposed extension on existing monopole and install related equipment on the ground as depicted in the plans submitted herewith. 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: approx. 160 square feet Initially acres Ultimately acres 6. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? M Yes ❑No It No, desodbe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ®Residential 0Industrial ®Commercial ®Agriculture ❑PerWForatlOven space El critter Describe: 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL,OR FUNDING,NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY(FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAQ? ❑yes M No If yes,list agency(s)and PermlUapprwala 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VAUD PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ❑Yes ®No If yes, list agency name and permluopproval 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT1APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ❑Yes ®No I Rae THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IB TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE APplicanUspo r name: New York LLC Date: Signature: If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER PART II—ENVIRONMENTAL ASAMENT (To be completed by Agency) • A DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR. PART 617.47 If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF _i.Yes 1 No C. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No.a negative ceciaratiort may be superseded by another involvec agency. Yes r No C COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Ar•wers may as handwritten. I7 Iegiolel Cs Exerting ah quarly. surface or groundwater quality or quantity. noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: C2_ Aesthetic, agricultural. archaeological, historic,or other natural Or cultural resources; or Community Or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: C7. Vegetation or fauna. fish, shellfish Or wildlife species.significant habitats. Or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly' C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted,or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?Explain briefly. CS. Gtowln, subsequent development, or relaled activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in CI-05? Explain briefly. C7. Other impacts(including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly. D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CEA? Yes Cl No E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO SE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? �j Yes ❑No It Yes, explain briefly PART III—DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect Identified above,determine whether it substantial,large,important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with iia (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (Q magnitude. It necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If" question D of Part 11 was checked yes, the determination and significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. ❑ Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. ❑ Check this box if you have determined, based on the Information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination: Name Of Lead Aaencv Pnm or iyne Name or Re wnsi a Off ice,in Lead Agency Title of Responsible 011icer Signature of Respooli le Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Prepare,(it different from responsible oiiicerl Date 2 APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM (FOR SUBMISSION BY OWNER and OWNER'S AGENT) The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the nart of Town officers and employees The monose of this form is to provide information which can alert the Town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is nece sm to avoid same YOUR NAME: I-'—(,I- y e (Last name,fust name,middle initial,unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity,such as a company. If so,indicate the other person or company name.) NATURE OF APPLICATION:(Check all that apply.) Tax Grievance Variance X � Special Exception RECEIVED If"Other", 2j name the activity: Change of Zone AUG 12 2011 Approval of Plat Exemption from Plat BOARD OF APPEALS or Official Map Other Do you personally,(or through your company, spouse,sibling,parent, or child)have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the Town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the Town officer oremployeeowns more than 5%of the shares. YES NO Complete the balance of this form and date and sign below where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold: Title or position of that person: Describe that relationship between yourself (the applicant) and the Town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A through D(below)and/or describe the relationship in the space provided. The Town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply) A)the owner of greater than 5%of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant(when the applicant is a corporation); B)the legal or beneficial owher of any interest in a non=corporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); C)an officer,director,partner,or employee of the applicant; or D)the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted this Signature: �� GG/ • APPLICANT • TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM (FOR SUBMISSION BY OWNER and OWNER'S AGENT) The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of Town officers and employees. The purpose of this form is to provide information, which can alert the Town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. MetroPCS New York,LLC YOUR NAME: By: (Last name, first name,middle initial,unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity,such as a company. If so,indicate the other person or company name.) i NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax Grievance RECEIVED Variance X Special Exception If"Other", AUG 12 2011 name the activity: Change of Zone BOARD OF APPEALS Approval of Plat Exemption from Plat or Official Map Other Do you personally, (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the Town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the Town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares. YES NO X Complete the balance of this form and date and sign below where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold: Title or position of that person: Describe that relationship between yourself (the applicant) and the Town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A through D (below) and/or describe the relationship in the space provided. The Town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A)the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant(when the applicant is a corporation); B)the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); C)an officer,director,partner, or employee of the applicant; or D) the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submittedt / ay of /�/?4�Y z U 1Q�t Signature: Print Name: ' AUG 15 2011 TRANSACTIONAL D APPLICANUAGENT/REPRESENTATIVESCLOSURE FORMBogROOFgpPfq� The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of town officers and employees.The purpose of this fomr is to provide information which can alert the town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. Re,Nielsen,Huber&Coughlin, LLP YOUR NAME: By: Lawrence C Re (Last name,first name,middle initial,unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity,such as a company.If so,indicate the other person's or company's name.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance Building Variance X Trustee Change of Zone Coastal Erosion Approval of plat Mooring Exemption from plat or official map Planning Other (If"Other",name the activity.) Do you personally(or through your company,spouse,sibling,parent,or child)have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship"includes by blood,marriage,or business interest."Business interest"means a business, including a partnership,in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of(or employment by)a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5%of the shares. YES NO X If you answered"YES",complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant/agent/representative)and the town officer or employee.Either check the appropriate line A)through D)and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse,sibling,parent,or child is(check all that apply): A)the owner of greater than 5%of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); B)the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity(when the applicant is not a corporation); C)an officer,director,partner,or employee of the applicant;or D)the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted this day of 20q 1 Signature B Print Name _Lawfjnce C. Re Form TS I Re, Nielsen,Huber&Coughlin, LLP Attorneys for Applicant 0 0 RE, NIELSEN, HUBER & COUGHLIN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 36 NORTH NEW YORK AVENUE HUNTINGTON, NEW YORK 11743 TELEPHONE: (031) 425-4100 V FACSIMILE: (631) 425-4104 OF COUNSEL WILLIAM J. NIELSEN August 12, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Annex Building 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Attn.: Vicki Toth RE: MetroPCS New York, LLC ("MetroPCS") Zoning Board of Appeals Application Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY SCTM#: 1000— 108 —4— 11.3 Dear Vicki: As discussed, our office represents MetroPCS with respect to its Zoning Board of Appeals Application for the subject premises, filed with your office earlier today. Pursuant to your direction, enclosed please find an original Transactional Disclosure Form, executed by Lawrence C. Re, to supplement the application on file with your office. Should you have any questions with regard to the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, RE, NIELSEN, HUBER & COUGHI IN, LLP I By: Marisa Knoth, Paralegal /mk Enclosure • 0 RE, NIELSEN, HUBER & COUGHLIN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 36 NORTH NEW YORK AVENUE HUNTINGTON, NEW YORE 11743 TELEPHONE: (631) 425-4100 August 12, 2011 FACSIMILE: (631) 425-4104 b OF COUNSEL WILLIAM J. NIELSEN BY HAND RECEIVE Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Annex Building AUG 12 2011 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 BOARD OF APPEALS RE: MetroPCS New York,LLC (Site No. NY7313) Zoning Board of Appeals Application Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck,NY SCTM#: 1000— 108—4— 11.3 Dear Sir or Madam: We represent MetroPCS New York, LLC (`MetroPCS') with regard to its application to colocate at the existing public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the subject property. Accordingly, we submit herewith nine(9) sets of the following documents: I. Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval, dated July 12, 2011, and corresponding Building Permit Application, dated July 7, 2011; 2. Application to the Southold Town Board of Appeals; 3. Applicant's Project Description Form; 4. Questionnaire; 5. Photos of the property depicting the proposed construction area, prepared by MTM Design Group,Inc., taken July 29, 2011; 6. Owner's Authorization Affidavit; 7. Owner's Transactional Disclosure Form; 8. Applicant's Transactional Disclosure Form; 9. Property Survey, prepared by Arek Surveying Company, dated December 16, 2009; 10. Construction Drawings with Site Plans and Elevations, prepared by MTM Design Group, Inc., revision 2, dated May 17,2011; 11. Agricultural Data Statement; 12. Copies of the following Covenants and Restrictions: a. Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, dated November 13, 1992; and b. Grant of Easement, dated February 1, 1993; 13. Town Property Card; and 14. Environmental Assessment Form. In addition, we submit MetroPCS check number 7476 in the sum of $1,250.00, payable to the Town of Southold, which sum represents the fee for the relief sought. Town of Southold Zoning Board Appeals • MetroPCS Board of Appeals Application August 12, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Please note that MetroPCS is presently working on preparing materials for filing its Site Plan and Special Exception Permit applications to the Planning Board. Should you have any questions with regard to the foregoing, please do not hesitate to communicate with the undersigned. Very truly yours, RE,NIELSEN, R& COUGH By: Lawrence C. Re LCWmk Enclosures 0 )OW1V OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST BIIII.DING DEPARTMENT Do you have or need do Mewing.bdom applying? Board ofHerlth TOWN HALL 4 sets ofBuiWhrg Plms SOUTHOLD,NY 11971 pain Board approval TEL: (631)765-1802y FAX: (631)765A502 Check SoutholdTown.NordiFork,net. PERMIT NO. sepficporm N.Y.S.DILC. Trustaea Flood Permit 20_ Storm-Waior Assmsmaot Porn Bxarnined RECE rneyf"ApPlicant: . Mail 4. Re,Nielsen,Huber&Coughlin,LLP Approved 20-- AUG 1 2 2O 186 N.Jew York Ave.,Huntington,NY 11743 Disapproved ak Phoma 631425-1100 BOARD OF APPEALS Expiration - 20 Building Inspector APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date •20� INSTRUCTIONS a.This application MUST be completely tilled in by typawriter or in ink and submitted to the BWWng Inspector with 4 sets of plans,accurate plot plIm to scala Fee according to schedule• adJo'T�B or Pubes streets or b.Plot plan showing WCWM of lot and of WddiW on F==CN Mlationsb+p areas,and waterways may not be commenced befota issuance of Building Permit. c.The work covered by this application Bowing Inspector will WW a Building d.Upon approval of this applicPermit to the applicant Such a permit ation, shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the Wo& what ever until the Buildiag Inspoaot C.No building shall be occupied or used in whole or input for any purpose issues a Certificate of Occupancy. Of E Evary building permit shall expire if the work authorized has not commenced 12 nrontis aftetr the data ct issuance or has not been completed within IS mamths from such date.If no zoning amendmetds err other regulations affecting the property have been enacted in the interim,the Building Inspector may authorize,M WOM&Ow atpostao of toe pint for an addition six moods.Thereafter,a mew'permit shall be required. fnr the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the APPLICATION IS HERBBY MADE to the Building Dcpanineot k,and,other WhOMWO L"W16 Ordloanoes or Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold,Stdl elk or fwow mremoval demolitim as Lemon 4 bad The Regulations,for the construction of buildings,addition& and MPAOUN96 sad to admit applicant agrees to comply with all appiicable laws,ordinances,building code,lousing cede, authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections, MetroPCS New York,LLC (Stgnatum of applicant or name,if a corporation) 5 Skyline Drive,Hawthorne.NY 10532 (Ivtailiog ad4ress of appbmt) State whether applicant is owner,lessee,agent,architect,engineer,general contractor,electnma°'plumber or builder Applicant is Lessee Le of owner of premises William J.Baxt r,Jr.,Patricia Baxter,and Robert A.Goeller,]r., Jane P. Uer . . (As on the tax roll or loons-deed) , a�Cp[pp� l authorized officer�A Yorlt;i.r. (Name and title of rpm"officer) Builders License No. Plumbers License No. NIA Electricians License No. Other Trade's License No. 1. Location of land on which proposal work will be done: - 415 Elijah's Lane MattMuck House Number Street No. 1000 Section 108.Bklck 4 County Tax MapFiled Map No, Lot Subdivision ••Applicant also proposes related WWI modification work as depicted in the plansalmitted herewith. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. EXisting use and occupancy Commercial building and public utility wireless telecommunications facility b Intended on and Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility 3. Nature of work(check which applicable):New Bullding Addition Alteration Repair Redmoval�`DeMolition Other Work A licant propose to extend the existing monopole - co ovate its public utility.yn'relew telecommunications antennas on the extension,an install (Description) tela ed Vqui text n the ground,all depicted in the plans submitttoherewith. Est ted(: (To be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling,number of dW elling trails N/A Number of dwelling units on each floor. If garage,number of cats Commercial building and public utility wireless telecommunication 6. 1f business,commercial or mixed ooaupanoy,spEC1{y nature and extent of each type of usekd6iy- 7. Dimensions of existing structures,if gray:Finat Rear Depth Height Number of Stories 'Existing 108'+/-monopole with existing lightning tod thereon Dimensions of same structure with alteratlons or addlHons?Front Rear Depth FleightNumber of Stories• 1 l8'+/-monopole with relocated lightning rod thereon S. Dimensions of entirenew conshvction:Front Rear Depth Height Number of Stories'Proposed 10'+/-extension to existing monopole and proposed 160 square / 80,494.15 square feet Rear foot equipment 9. Sift of lot'.Front 10. Date of Purchase 4/2/1971 . Name of Former Owner William.1.Baxter Jr. 11.Zone or use district in which promises are situated Limited Business(LB) 12.Does proposed constmction violate say zoning law,ordnance or regulation?YES_No X 13. Will lot be re-graded? YES x NO_Will excess 511 be removed f M premism?YES x NO William J.'Baxter,Jr.,Patricia Baxter,and'Robert A.Geelter,Jr., prGmise�and Jane P.Goeller c/o 415 Elijah's Lane No. 14.Names of owner.Of 732-8886210 Name of Architect MTM lksizaGrgaw lam-AddMM P.O.Box 3 Hail NJ No Name of Cormtractor Address Phone No. 15 a. Is this property within 100 fed of a tidal wetland or a 5reahwater wetland?*YES NO x *IF YES,SOU MOLD TOWN TRUSTEES&D.E.C.PERbM MAY BE REQUIRED. b.Is this property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland?* YES NO x * IF YES,D.E.C.PBRMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. 16.Provide survey,to scale,with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines. 17. If elevation at any point on property is at I0 feet or below,must provide topographical data on survey. 18. Are them any covenants and restrictions with respect m this property?*YES x NO * IF YES,PROVIDE A COPY. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY O 12 ckn mnne- , being duly sworn.deposes and says that Whe is the applicant contrac (Name of individual signing t)above tumcd, (S)He is the Lem/Applicant (Contractor,Agent,Corporate Officer,etc.) of said owner or oan eM and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all smiemirts cowtained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief;and that the work will be performed in the mariner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before methis �. f 20� Metr CS New Y By: CAW gnatu a of Applicant N c PdksodNsar mltrsrts>ss QudhdhWsd* cnrOaaat' ' MyCom�SsimExtlmaJansP25.2014 • • a ur,�. .� va .. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK -------- -------- --------------- ---------- ------------------ ---- -X In the Matter of the Application of MetroPCS New York,LLC AUTHORIZATION OF OWNER At the premises: 415 Elijah's Lane Northwest comer of intersection of Elijah's Lane and State Route 25 RECEIVED Mattituck,New York Section 108,Block 4,Lot 11.3 AUG 12 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X STATE OF NEW YORK ) BOARD OF APPEALS )SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) lye c c-i,5 T 6 /-9,j -r C2 , being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the rcj t'� of_ t6ZC5,� ,owner in fee of the premises known as District 1000,Section 108,Block 4,Lot 11.3 (the"Premises"hereafter),and do hereby authorize MetroPCS New York, LLC ('MetroPCS' hereafter), and its representatives to bring such applications for municipal approvals as maybe ncecssary for constructing or installing on the Premises such antennas,support structures,and related equipment as MetroPCS may require for the establishment of its public utility wireless telecommunication facility. As such, I will fully cooperate with MetroPCS and its agents in obtaining any required Approvals. By: Sworn to before me this 13 a yof 20 t1 GAILA.GyH�QOSIO Nolary Pubo 61tatsof New York TARY PUB Commis70 sion Expied res March u https://uwc.webmaii.optimum.net/rnsg_fs_Ir.html?&security--false&lang=en&popupLevel... 10/5/2010 Direction:Photo taken from the North to South Direction Description:All four comers for the proposed concrete slab within existing fenced equipment compound. Date taken:July ' 2011 Owner. _ 1 i BOARD OF APPEALS e � f Direction: Photo taken from the North East to South West Direction Description: Comers for the proposed concrete slab%Nrithin existing fenced equipment compound. RECEIVED Date taken:July 29,2011 r ,° � 1 1•1111 1 {' 1 1 � ,{ 1 � • l' rl 1 11 ` 1 •I ,{ { • � ,1 _ 1111 1 - w 1 1 1 . Direction: Photo taken from the North to South Direction Along the existing chain link fence Description: Comers for the proposed concrete slab within existing fenced equipment compound. RECEIVED I + 1 2011 / Company AUG 12 2011 BOARD O APPEALS / , y • ° / Photo taken from a North East Direction Description:North West Comer of proposed concrete slab the equipment compound. /aalong existing existing R / • •. AUGI BOARD OF APPEALS Obbb a A n C O � N •o y .' 'Mw , r ki. w S;° uq• -INOO f ' ' � � ', 0 C � O7 -- D ' k O Ul) V r • i d R z � Direction: Photo taken from the East Direction Description: South West Corner of proposed concrete slab along the existing fence inside the existing equipment compound. Date taken:July 29, 2011 Owner.Arek Surveying Company RECEIVED i AUG 12 BOARD OF APPEALS DECLARATION OF COVBNANU AND RBSTRIMONS 7% Dodaratlon made do 13* diy of NWIpRR- , 1990, by WW m J. Bute,Jr.and Forkle Saw tnWl l at 1000 B Putnam Avenue,Oneawteh,Com udatt, t and Roburt0 00dWr Aad JWAP. Oodler raiding u 30 RWp Crest, S ftgWW* m �(ber�Oafte oo%Nty ar mto AA Madame) (� " AUG 12 2011 V WPPNBSSBTN BOARD OF APPEALS WNUR8A& Dularm as the owners In fie Wmple of male premia WNW u MAtdtmk Tows of Soutbold, WlWk Coaaq,New Yak,dnuMW us tier&&a CouaW Tu Map Y MUM 100%Seadoa 10M Mock 04.00.Lot 11.3 and a4 mon tally d wftd la tier atta W "Sebedule M dad, Dist. *MRM dW Southoid Town Zoabg Boatel,In Appeal No./0n tendered*,Via 1000 14 1992 pained a beiPltt veriamce oa tier property daaU»d In SdwdWo A to permit Stec. 108.00 eomrbuNloa of a 100 foot monopoh rA& tower sad, 81k. WHEREAS, tin pandas d tte griartoe Was eeadMoWd the 04.00 upon UUa=of oettalo Lot eomum sad rawdloas, Qi i.fdP j NOW, THBRBPORB, is With too mWudoa of uld SoaUwld Town 74W%Board, Dealarmts herein dodee drat she lend deeedbod In Sebedule A W beki sad song be eomeyed mW m to the bootdas Comma And rwrkdooe wbiah WWI run with nit81 dw kind sad stall be bladiq on W owners, gnamb, beire and/or usiprs. I. The hW01 of floe p wand now"moeopob radio flower SM not exceed SSO + l*fj00 hisk u requested• 2. The bibdowa radius of the taws stall be as submitted, wM tier Mmirg satbeek dMgmas; a) 9S bet hom eros pn poud tower to the mordwo y Property Use; b) 70 Ibet +. from dw prttp%W tomer to the soutbvrb,pW"y N"; Q 69 het from the rw wall of tlw wewory osaetorY bW* J. Airy tutun s*rAw for thv gWW of ft . .- v toads oas vquow to crew ouWde of dw***0004"Mm*kdW1 bated to ft mu Yard*9 again &rdwr applioW= for Sp" Baapft oonidaadon; ad 1, in the Oval this m mm a toww mmm obaohw or its uN la dbooadnwd tar the bleaomaWdat�Oe pgcpoaee iN�Wt»rA in"AppUnft%ft tower shall be removed within three momlu of bA obaoleeee M Aad It ftU be do mWoa*ft of dw owwr,svbeequent owrwrs,pm"M%N*%and/or NN%V&"heals to am* whb thb eAtwtitba, at their on eapenui And I No other rtnieluM buildh% or um " aowpl, or be loaaad oa tbv pna>bw ualere further appnea*m b made to*A Owd under tbie%w" lsaoepdo%w wen w the ftnniq hoard under the dts plw npuWdM in order to m4om*r W voain0 staedardr, inab,dtrq"bq, bedtk Aad WIMM aaadards ad a omM orad 6. Uphft Wban be pbtad Am thv top of the town for Wmnit mhq purpoaee MW IN woordAm with appnoabb Fidad Avladort AdmWkftdn repulattoa and IN WrMEU WNM=F, the hmp * Dedar dw bore ban canned by tW DeWsmis on dw day and yea Mt above wduoL WiWaAt J. whiers Jr. RECEIVED 8axaer AUG 12 2011,jjr6�,� s BOARD OF APPEALS 1151 6 7 � . .. .. r a P, Gal SPATE Or fow„ie L eu� Oa the /21+4 day of NotXmk64/R , 1911,beton tat per o=4 am WQlbm J. Bator,Jr.to me know.to be the hmft W dnwPnd in end wbo aetetad the bepby laurumenk mid nkaowbdpd IMS he amused the tw, " blk naa►tt aruM.icM MM M/1IIIMwW.. .w1h 11.1e4J . STATEOF COIJM Or Iaiir �re.yel On *a /3K day of INmmr40 , 1992. before uw pemotal ame Fmriob Boar to me known to be the IadWtdual deeertbed to sad wbo snood dw forepft hoftmo% aad aekoowb*d that ebe wowed da tw. NaloPobleWW t GOMM" y, MA°wpr�N°*tr.1M1 RECEIVED AUG 12 2011 BOARD OF APPEALS . lid 1 348 COUNTY OvIsAlllia A soj!r On the 3f bday of Abvcm&w# . , 1992, beton aM pmm0d am Rabat AL 0000e►to= known to be the bWiv" d"bed in and whe t mej da tonp4 ce �J Notary PubW etocatts STATE OF CW M OF 00 the 30"0' Of AvR,"*dl c , 1992, beton me pmwtejh am Mute P. 000114?to me know0 to be the htdividttd dmribed i0 Attd who aft"d tiw krega 0p WMn m w* Aad aduowktdped that tan t *MW the nems. Notary 1'ublk t+rwar�aa.n�. RECEIVED AUG 12 2011 BOARD OF APPEALS Allthet•arbtl i of lend,with the b lldlnp end Im avetMants 4yppN tt M knnwn sa And by lot 2 on A certala mop emilled w Mop of AlWalon of Itnundery�leb� �. tat William !. l 141, it, MMlele saw, Robert R Groh* end form P. 0"ller' 4rruni.d 1qj MAltbuck, Town of floolhnM, Suffolk County, New Yak, end RIO In the (Nfiee of M+t t'Irok of the Volonty of Su/IMh on May is, 1990 a File No.t9J7 end bNeg mrne Mrtioular Iv MneA.•1 .:end deeerihed a follows: BRQINNINO of a point an the westerly I&of WQeh'S Lope,said polnf bebop 21M.!4o bort northerly hem the intersection of the mdhsrly line of the Main Road (New Yak Note Itmoo 29)end the westerly line of RIQAh'+ tans, odd polnt also behN the om bessterly corrNr of I .I 2 AA shown on the Afarementioned map; Ruining thence $oath W oll'or Wea Mena rhf smtthorly line of 1,01,2, 401.05 I'M to land now nr famerly of Joseph Neville; Runoing thrnre North 2t' 0$'in* West Alan$said land 39.46 het to a pn" Running thents North 22. 52'it," West still Alon$ sold kind And pw,tially Along lend now or "etly of the Canny of Sttflolk, 101.97 feet to it point; Rwatin$thane North 70'20'!0" Fttef elnn(f land now or fotmerty w ibe t:'aunty of Ntffalk,taad new or h"aly Okun$)o Choi Anil,;farm now or formerly c'ornelhii 1. Moston, 479.60 toot to oke weelerly line of RVjsh'e IAulr,Rtdptln$tltenee South=!'oo'l0' hs•t 197,V feq to the poli or plees n1 AROINNIN(i. c. RECEIVED AUG I (IAM p W-1 F; CfF, F; X.'.O BOARD OF APPEALS C2vit int.lwVr?':rA 9C)IEDOLE A . . lei � ,:•, . .r .., . _ . . 2(117 • H rr r n,. tea... c • • n• s M RECEIVED R400td end Return tot moomamoom AUG 12 2011 nb pr .O.sox"Mm BOARD OF APPEALS MATMUCKWINN 1162lrc ' Y10S674 NON S-SS GIANTOP SASppT,awe this_L_ day of-rt/gyp_� 1ppS, between 6=C L_ ' ae94 r4V havlag its principal office at .�:��.: ��_...P✓7!')-. -4,.C--!Lr (hereinafter roferred to an "Grantor") to NSM YONIi TgLL1'fONt 0011PANY, a ".e0"MraLioa of the State of New York, having its principal plriLe at 10118 Avenue ; .of the American, Naw YoK. Nes York and i (hereinafter referred to me "Grantme•). NNSSW, tta Grantor Gema in fan a certain parcel of land sit"aLnd =,DIST. 1000 SNCr. 10100 BL-• 0100 +rr ! + in the county or Suffolk , I I State of Mas York, am shows on Sahlbit "__ A____•, attached hereto and hereby aade part of this Grant. NOW, THtknm, NITMSSSSTN: /i//�j FIRST: That for and In 0000ideratlm of the and of One Dollar (61.00) In hand paid by the grant" to Orantor the receipt .,r which in hereby acknowledged the Grantor grant# into the grantee, its successors and Yelps, the right, privilege and authority to construct, ptace, operate, replace, remevey repair and maletaln "?vice limo, imeludlmil buried cable, pedestal@, conduits, controlled environmental rmlts (CRY,*), aanboln, polsm and such cresmorme, guys, @tube, anchors, cables, wires and Antuna an the Oroatee my from time to time dent naeammarY upon, over, under and alung the said land and the highways I"* 'adjoining or upon maid land, approaisato17 an sheen on Inhibit ".._.._�.___„_•,: together with the right or IRS"** and agrees to eserclmn all of the rights !'herein granted and with the right to trim soy trans and roots along maid Imes, reasonably n@oaasary, to keep the mid cables end virus free and clear from 0/.00 an Interference on mid le-A m:d maid highways. 00?.00j SRODND: The exclusive and parasaent right-of-way and wanemeat above , described and herein conveyed Is Intended to prohibit the longitudinal or parallel Occupancy of maid easement strip by others, including Grantor and to prohibit surface or muheurfane structures or othervlse of otherap iseludlog Grantor, which tight damage or Interfero with the Operation and malatenann of Orant",s fanllltlm without the prior written comment of Orestes, but Is not Intended to prohibit cromeing of mid easameat strip me long an such crossings do not lntorfere with or prohibit the full use or thr onoveent herein granted. Grantor agnus with the Grantor, an behalf of himself, his mucro*men std analgne, and \J, . l� an a cotenant ruuning with the land, that the grade ealstlng at the time of \, ? 1 +(f1 asse.utimi of this grant of eaoeeant will remain undistributed and unchanged. THIRD: The Grantor hereby grant* unto the oreates, Its sueceswon . and anmigne the right to permit the attachment of LM 00amunination and electric mervim wire” and facilities of other utility companies and to movy to such other companies and interest to tan rights under this grant. ' FOURTH: It is a eondltlan of this grant that each corporation receiving this Grant shall pay the cost of guarding adequately all excavations sada by that corporation under this Grant and pay the coat to restore or repair ay doe%&dose by that conToretiOs to tan property of the grantor while placing, [pal j replacing, ralacatlng, Operating, repairing, malntaloing, removing or removing Its rove facilities, and shall harmlema and indemnify the Orator from any injury r to its property, its employees or the public which may at any time occur through the negligence of that corporstlon. Ht'.I.I1tU Y 1TM 3 WN F, Grantor has caused this Instrument to be duly E as r t7 thedy year first above written. � MAR 11 t (' t` e '( �'° t. B DARD OF APPEALS tHSUFfOL Nltosss I N111140"J. Saxt@T, President V106874 i i Cow NI-crit.r r �.BTM[ OP*7104688 1 aWf7 09C I[CK�D) On this � '1 dew of before ny can W LI6I qn Y. L4KTIOL to yornoneliy known, who being 1y w duly wars, did deyow end ear IL. noldn of wlH3i95L�i"Y RI_��} i c� In thw 'ilp_Y._ of _:pyx.._ end that k�_ ifP.,e, r of uot11 ' Nd -- ps stioul %he& theOaN.aPtywd i I i ith►oyday. is i I Notary Public ' Y,Cu+mn•mn l.pn., 401130,,w 1 I I I I: I i I I I 1 i i ' I I I 1 I I �lPa ECEIVED .I j A G 12 7911 13OARE OF APPEALS r • Lq IU7� N viose» I � IIfif �I 1 I to^wCAEA%+ AaA H J MAP OF: L'ellulAQQaE KEY do-cmic LOCALITY: PROPOSED r-�a6�SoeCicE TOWN OF: S,b;�Molel _..' M►s6m.�+ ' SAUTE OFZFF RK 13 EXHIBIT hS '. [ly ii i:;: ECEIVED GV UOv ' Kw"Arttplll 70:WW roam"WL CO. act N0.OCUN�vf. ►WOWW.N.r.,lrn UG 12 2011 sm.mmsun �_uc��3•`J aooM los BOA D OF APPEALS • j • c,0FF0L��0� 0 Southold Town Board of Appeals MAIN ROAD • STATE ROAD 25 SOUTMOLO, L.1., N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P.GOEHRINGER,CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGONIS.JR. .SERGE DOYEN,JR. JOSEPH H.SAWICKI JAMES DINIZIO,JR. ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No. 3801: Matter of WILLIAM BAXTER, JR. for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XIII, Section 100-80B(l) for permission to utilize existing building and premises for assembly and manufacture of classic cars in this "C-Light Industrial" Zone District. Location of Property: North Side of Main Road and the west Side of Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 108, Block 4, Lot 10. At a Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on January 12, 1989, the following action was taken: WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 12, 1989, under File No. 3801, filed November 14, 1988; and 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. By this application, applicant requests a Special Exception pursuant to the requirements of Article VIII, Section 100-80(B) for permission to assemble and manufacture classic cars in the existing building, all as shown on the Map prepared by Young 6 Young, L.S. revised October 12, 1988, under consideration. Page 2 - Appl. No. 461 • Matter of WILLIAM BAXTER, JR. Decision Rendered January 12, 1989 2. The property in question: (a) is located in the "C-Light Industrial" Zone District; (b) will contain an area of 1.7748 acres (or 77,312 square feet) , and more particularly referred to as proposed "Lot No. 1" on the "Map of Alteration of Boundary Lines" and/or Minor Subdivision; (c) is improved with a 79.4 ft. by 119.9 ft. one-story concrete-block building, set back 67.9 feet from the easterly (front) property line along Elijah's Lane and 102.1 feet from the southerly (front) property line along the Main Road, at its closest points. (d) is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 108, Block 4, part of Lot No. 10. 3. For the record it is noted that communications have been made a part of the record from Assistant Town Attorney Robert H. Berntsson dated November 4, 1988, from William J. Baxter dated November 2, 1988, from the Planning Board dated December 6, 1988 and from Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C. dated November 17, 1988. 4. It is also noted for the record that applications are pending with the Southold Town Planning Board at this time not only for site plan approval but also for an "Alteration of Lot Lines in a three-lot Minor Subdivision." The parcel under consideration by this Board for a Special Exception use is referred to as Lot No. 1 on the pending Minor Subdivision Map proposal. 5. In considering this application, the Board has: (a) considered items (a) through (1) of the zoning code; (b) determined the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent-use districts; (c) determined the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, and order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location; (d) determined that the use is in harmony with and will promote the general purposes and intent of zoning since this is a use permitted by legislative action and will meet the requirements of same under the zoning code, subject to actions by the Planning Board. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Grigonis, seconded by Mr. Dinizio, it was Page 3 - Appl. No. M1 • Matter of WILLIAM BAXTER, JR. Decision Rendered January 12, 1989 RESOLVED, to GRANT a Special Exception as applied and referenced above, in the Matter of the Application of WILLIAM J. BAXTER, JR. under File No. 3801, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. No outside storage (as regulated by Section 100-62 of the Zoning Code) ; 2. Actions by the Southold Town Planning Board. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis and Dinizio. (Absent were: Member Sawicki (out-of-state} and Member Doyen of Fishers Island (due to poor flying conditions) ) . This resolution was duly adopted. 1,E(TIED AND FILED BY TIi SOUTfiOLD TOVvZi CLSMM DATE I Ia`I (%1 HOUR D: rop.n", Town Cletk, Town of SouPaold lk GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN M p7� IITT • �� APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS v��.-* l'®�,� SCOTT L.HARRIS Gerard P.Goehrin er,Chairman Supervisor Serge Doyen,Jr. O J' Town Hall,53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 James Dinizio,Jr. �1,�, �! Robert A.Villa Ol �a Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 Telephone(516)765.1809 Telephone(516)765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ACTION OF THE BOARD z Ij Appl. No. 4022SE. CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY d/b/a METRO ONE. Request for Special Exception approval under Article VIII, Section 100-81B(l) , and Article III, Section 100-31B(6) for an unmanned telecommunications building in an existing concrete block building and construction of a monopole radio tower with antenna for transmitting and receiving radio signals to provide cellular telephone services. Location of Property: 415 Westerly side of Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY; also shown on Planning Board Map of May 15, 1990, Map 8937; Parcel #1000-108-4-11.1 (part of 11) . WHEREAS, action was taken, after proper notice and public hearing, by the Board of Appeals on July 25, 1991 denying the applicant's request for a Special Exception under the "public right-of-way" provision of the residential zone district, and due to impropriety of the selection of the zone district as it relates to residential uses; WHEREAS, an Article 78 proceeding was commenced seeking to reverse and annul the Board's denial of the Special Exception; and on May 28, 1992, a true copy of the court judgment decided by Justice Robert W. Doyle reversing the Board's decision was delivered; and WHEREAS, the time for the Town to appeal this Court decision, as requested, has passed; and WHEREAS, the public utility installations are essential for providing services to the public interest devoting its property and its right-of-way to such public use and service and stands ready to serve all the public; WHEREAS, the public utility company has guaranteed the Town and the unrestricted public of its telecommunications services to the public, NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that a Special Exception for telecommunication use for utility services directly for public use, as applied under Appl. No. 4022 , and re-confirmed at the Board's July 29, 1992 meeting, be and hereby is GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Page 2 - Appl. No. 40• • ; - -Cellular Telephone (Metro One) - August 18, 1992 1. The height of the proposed accessory monopole radio tower shall not exceed 100 feet, as requested; 2. The fall-down radius of the tower shall be as submitted, with the following setback distances: a) 95 feet from the proposed tower to the northerly property line; b) 70 feet+- from the proposed tower to the southerly property line; c) 69 feet from the rear wall of the accessory one-story block building. 3. Any future expansion for the storage of the telecommunications equipment to areas outside of the existing one-story block building located in the rear yard will require further application for Special Exception consideration; and 4. In the event this transmission tower becomes obsolete or its use is discontinued for the telecommunications purposes requested in this application, the tower shall be removed within three months of its obsolescence, and it shall be the responsibility of the owner, subsequent owners, successors, assigns, and/or the applicant herein to comply with this condition, at their own expense; and 5. 'No other structures, buildings, or uses shall occupy or be located on the premises unless further application is made to this Board under this Special Exception, as well as the Planning Board under the site plan regulations, in order to re-consider all zoning standards, including safety, health, and welfare standards and concerns; and 6. Lighting shall be placed near 'the top of the tower for aircraft safety purposes; and 7. Appropriate screening and site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board for this Limited Business (LB) Zone District; 8. Written covenants and restrictions shall be submitted in recordable form; and after acceptance by the Town, the original shall be recorded by the applicant in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk and a copy of same furnished with the .Office of the Board of Appeals. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and ,bage 3 -Appl. No. 4022 - Cellular Telephone (Metro One) Decision Rendered August 18, 1992 Villa. (Member Dinizio abstained. ) This resolution was duly adopted with a quorum vote of the Board. x x x lk GERARD P. GOEH$3NGER, C IRMAN i APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS �� d�j� SCOTTL.HARRIS Gerard P.Goehringer,Chairmanc ..;" °z, Supervisor Town Hall,53095 Main Road Serge Doyen,Jr. Om t'- James Dinizio,Jr, P.O.Box 1179 Robert A. Villa �Ql :` `.a Southold,New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 Telephone(516)765-1809 Telephone(516)765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ACTION OF THE BOARD Appl. No. 4023. CELLULAR TELEPHONE CO. d/b/a METRO ONE. This is an Appeal of the March 14, 1991 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for an Interpretation under Article XXIII, Section 100-230 concerning a proposed 104 ft. height of a monopole structure for radio transmission, and in the alternative, appellant requests a variance from the height restriction. Location of Property: (#415) westerly side of Elijah's Lane and the Northerly Side of the Main Road (NYS Route 25) , Mattituck, NY; also shown on Planning Board subdivision-approved map of May 15, 1990; property now or formerly of William J. Baxter and Others; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-108-4-part of 11. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 29, 1992, at which time all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; WHEREAS, 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. This is an application for an Interpretation as authorized by Section 100-271(d) fl) of the zoning code appealing the March 14, 1991 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector which states as follows: " . . .PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated March 14, 1991 for permit to construct radio tower and structure . . . is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: Article VII, Section 100-81B site plan approval required by Planning Board & Special Exception required by zoning Board of Appeals, Page 2 - Appl. No. 4023 • Decision Rendered August 18, 1992 Matter of CELLULAR TELEPHONE (METRO ONE) Section 100-230 on height exceptions may require interpretation by Zoning Board of Appeals. . . . " 2. Proposed in this project is the placement of an accessory telecommunications (radio transmission) tower in the rear yard area at premises known as 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 108, Block 4, Lot 011.3 consisting of 1.85 acres. 3. The subject premises is owned by William Baxter, Jr. and others, and the applicant is the tenant, Cellular Telephone Company, a New York General Partnership (d/b/a Metro One) . 4. The use of the proposed accessory tower and the rear concrete building for public telecommunications purposes has also been conditionally approved by Special Exception Appl. No. 4022, and the following information is noted for the record: (a) Cellular One is a public utility under the Laws of the State of New York and holds a franchise from the Federal Communications Commission to serve the public within the Town of Southold; (b) Cellular One's FCC Franchise requires that Cellular One provide cellular telephone service within the geographic boundaries of the Town of Southold, providing a quality service consistent with the requirements of the Public Service commission; (c) Cellular Telephone Co. will conduct mobile communications by radio consisting of mobile units either mounted in vehicles or hand-carried sending to and receiving signals from fixed base sites. Different frequencies are set between cells, and good overlap between cells will permit a better grade of service. Movement to outside of the range of the cell, would cause weaker coverage, and when a cell is missing, coverage is not uniform and service can drop. (See the sworn affidavit of Scott Fox, Director of Engineering for the applicant/company dated July 29, 1992 in which the steps in determining the necessary height of the antenna for a cell site are provided in detail) ; 5. The structure which is the subject of this application is a 100 ft. high pole-type structure (96 ft. pole plus attached four-ft. high, 12-ft. wide antenna at the top) as shown on the construction diagram prepared by Juengert/Grutzmacher Architects, submitted July 27, 1992. This structure is free-standing (separate and detached from any other buildings ) . Page 3 - Appl. No. 4023 • Decision Rendered August 18, 1992 V�� Matter of CELLULAR TELEPHONE (METRO ONE) 6. Section 100-33 of the Zoning Code specifically provides a height limitation at 18 feet for accessory structures. This restriction is applicable to the Limited Business and Agricultural-Conservation Zone Districts. 7. Height restrictions have always been less than 35 feet for principal structures, and 18 feet or less for accessory structures since the inception of zoning in April 1957. S. During January 1989, a subsection was added for certain height exceptions under Section 100-230D, for: (1) Spires, belfries, cupolas and domes not for human occupancy; and monuments, transmission towers, chimneys, derricks, conveyors, flagpoles, radio towers, television towers and television aerials, provided that any television or radio aerial shall not be located nearer than a distance equal to its height above the roof or other permanent structure to which it is attached to any overhead electric transmission line carrying more than two hundred twenty ( 220) volts. (2) Bulkheads, observation towers, monitors, fire towers, hose towers, cooling towers, water towers, grain elevators or other structures where a manufacturing process requires greater height, provided that any such structures that are located on any roof and that exceed in height the limits in the particular district shall not in the aggregate occupy more than twenty percent (20%) . 9. It is, and has been the opinion of this Board, since the inception of zoning in 1957, that a structure which is free-standing and is not attached to the top of a building such as those excepted in Section 100-230D are clearly governed by the 18 ft. height provision of Section 100-33. See the Limited Business Zone District, Article VIII, Section 100-81(Cl) , which reads as follows: C. (Amended 5-9-89 by L.L. No. 6-1989) . Accessory Uses. The following uses are permitted as accessory uses and, except for the residential accessory uses and signs, which are governed by Article XX, are subject to site plan review: Page 4 - Appl. No. 4023 • Decision Rendered August 18, 1992 Matter of CELLULAR TELEPHONE (METRO ONE) Ilnn V� (1) Any accessory use as set forth in and regulated by Section 100-31C(1)' through (8) and subject to the conditions set forth in Section 100-33 thereof. . ." ; Section 100-11 does provide that where a. provision or requirement which is more restrictive or which establishes the higher standard shall govern. 10. It is also the opinion of this Board that this structure does not fall under Section 100-230D which applies to television or radio towers or aerials attached to a permanent structure (such as CB, ham radio, TV antennas, and the like) accessory to the principal building and principal use of the property. It is this Board's position that the subject pole tower is not a roof-type antenna and is deemed a separate, accessory structure. Accessory structures are governed by Section 100-33 in the Limited Business Zone District; and WHEREAS, public utilities have always been recognized by the Town to provide essential, unrestricted telecommunications services to and for the public, over, on and through its rights-of-way and its land; NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that it is the Interpretation of this Board that the height restriction under Section 100-81C(1) and Section 100-33 of the zoning code is applicable for all types of accessory structures, including those intended for telecommunications and other permitted accessory uses; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance for a total height as requested of 100 feet for an accessory monopole telecommunications tower to provide utility services directly to and for public use, as applied under Appl. No. 4023, be and hereby is GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The height of the proposed accessory monopole tower shall not exceed 100 feet, as requested, and shall not exceed the structural dimensions shown on the plan prepared by Juengert/Grutzmacher Architects dated 1-26-91, Job Number 9037-174 (unless necessary and approved for safety purposes) ; 2. The fall-down radius of the tower shall be "as submitted" with the following setback distances: ' Page 5 - Appl. No. 4023 • Decision Rendered August 18, 1992' Matter of CELLULAR TELEPHONE (METRO ONE) a) 95 to 103 feet to the northerly property line; b) 69 to 62 feet from the proposed tower to the southerly property line and radius clearance of approximately 40 feet past the southerly property line over onto adjoining property to the south, also owned by William J. Baxter; c) 62+- feet to 69 feet from the rear wall of the accessory one-story block building. 3. Any future expansion for the storage of the telecommunications equipment to areas outside of the existing one-story block building located in the rear yard will require further application for Special Exception consideration; and the tower and equipment building must be continuously maintained in good condition at all times; 4. In the event this transmission tower becomes obsolete .or its use is discontinued for the telecommunications purposes requested in this application, the tower shall be removed within three months of its obsolescence, and it shall be the responsibility of the owner, subsequent owners, successors, assigns, and/or the applicant herein to comply with this condition, at their own expense; and 5. No other structures, buildings, or uses shall occupy or be located on the premises unless further application is made to this Board under this Special Exception, as well as to the Planning Board under the site plan regulations, in order to re-consider this Special Exception and all other zoning standards, including safety, health, and welfare standards and concerns; and 6. Lighting shall be placed near the top of the tower for aircraft safety purposes; and 7. No excessive (disturbing) noise levels; 8. Monitoring shall be as per FCC mandates; 9. Appropriate screening and site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board for this Limited Business (LB) Zone District; 10. Written covenants and restrictions shall be submitted in recordable form; and after acceptance by the Town, the original shall be recorded by the applicant in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk and a copy of same furnished with the Office of the Board of Appeals. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and Page 6 - Appl. No. 402.3 • Decision Rendered August 18, 1992 Matter of CELLULAR TELEPHONE (METRO ONE) w Villa. (Member Dinizio abstained. ) This resolution was duly adopted with a quorum vote of the Board. * • * _ lk GERARD ING R, CHAI N APPEALS BOARD MEMBER �gUFFO(�c • • y0 4� Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 53095 Main Road James Dinizio,Jr. z P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tortora Southold, New York 11971 Lora S. Collins X41 � 0�� ZBA Fax (631)765-9064 George Horning J! *t Telephone(631)765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD I� FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2000 Appl. No. 4862—SPRINT SPECTRIUM, L.P, 1000-108-4-11.3 STREET& LOCATION: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: November 16, 2000 FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTSIDESCRIPTION The applicant's property is located on the west side of Elijah's Lane, Mattituck. The property contains approximately 95,000 sq. ft. with 197.50 ft. frontage along the west side of Elijah's Lane, Mattituck. The property is improved with a one-story warehouse building and rear yard structures as shown on the Map dated August 13, 199, prepared by Carman-Dunne, P.C. The property is zoned Light-Business (LB). BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Inspector's May 31, 2000 Notice of Disapproval for the reason that applicant's proposed wireless telecommunication tower exceeds the height limited under Section 100- 1628.3 within 300 feet, at a total height of 110 feet (overall). RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant is requesting a height 10 ft, greater than its existing tower and which has an overall height 20 feet greater than other structures within 300 feet. The existing telecommunications tower is 100 ft. tall. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: Based on the testimony and record before the Board and personal inspection, the Board makes the following findings: (1) The proposed monopole tower will replace the existing tower and will add co-location facilities, which is encouraged by the Southold Town Code. Co-location of telecommunication antennas are needed and will enhance efficiency with expanded coverage. Altemate sites for the tower, to obviate the need for a variance, is not available on this property without a variance. (2) No evidence has been submitted to show that the additional 10 ft. will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. (3) There is no evidence that grant of the requested variance will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions. (4) Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable applicant to co-locate with others for communications purposes, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. (5) The use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of properties in adjacent Zone Districts. The property contains a 100 ft. tall wireless telecommunications tower, and the new tower is a Page ?-December 7, 2000 • . App:. No. 4062: 1000-108-4-11.3(Sprint) Southold Town Board of Appeals I NN i replacement, with an additional 10 feet in height. (6) The variance requested is not substantial. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Collins, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the application, as applied for, subject to the following CONDITIONS: 1. That a fully operational light be placed at the top, and continuously used and maintained (for aircraft visibility purposes (to and from the Mattituck Air Base); 2.That only one monopole structure or tower may exist on the property. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: MEMBERS GQ ER, TO RA, LLINS, and HORNING. This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). GERARD P. GOEHRIN ER CHAIRMAN 12/20/00 ) NE WR STREET ;/ /C ' VILLAGE �'�-. , � �r =ORMER OWNER N - ACR. S W TYPE OF BUILDING ES. j.r7SEAS. LTOTA=L :�7DATE F CB. MICS., Mkt. Value YT LAND IMP. REMARKS a O02 rAll( 71 /. Q U s OO S D A,, 5 Z / i„ , — in 39le) �o o O 5,q 0 a na' ” �a ( �7 3 .9 r .ZD •ns� ' j�S r'. 0 Jo zr 97 � aa�Qa - �P� - o1 : 900 BSao of g /3 g �'P�aSlO7 Rn��ev.was �c�eCc_� Ria _ . c.� / i �l1aj�z A�.y7I� wrrAAJ( NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE 3 7 r q�}� miJ✓Inp�l/�-kIA.ior FARM Acre Vafue Acre Per VcJue � /6/O/ kl��?779q 1 O .-_ • Tillable FRONTAGE ON WATER Noodland FRONTAGE ON ROAD t, _ - 4deahe Plot �, BULKHEAD oZG �7 CO-1 n rn P ulifB ff53 0„ �nKGt Total __� .� - DOCK `l a8 # 3ps1 nienn enclose ated 4Aa�3�� U)37p 2q , Qelle►- 6oe1/e.- 4/0st �1 SCTM # - IO U IOS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD OWNER STREET VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOT Z \jd x4-e r Sr $ i is hs L41 ML/tt I ACR. GS E zs L 2-6 39,e LIZ ryl/sf N TYPE OF BLD. PROP. CLASS LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE 3� o FRONTAGE ON WATER _- HOUSE/LOT BULKHEAD TOTAL ■■■■■■■MEMO N■■■■■■■ N■■■■■■ SEE ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■it■■■■■i■■■I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■r111■■©■�■■■I!■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■1i15■■■I!■■l■■■■■■■■■■N�■■■ ■N I■■■■■I■lf'J■I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■iN■■i>■! ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■N Extension �` iii■■i■i■i■iiia ■'a■■�■ ■■■■■i ■�MEN■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■ N1 ■■■■■■■■NN■■■ !Ext. Walls -� Place Recreation Room .. -� e ,Dormer 0 • o��g11FF0(,r�o ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE,MMC �� G.f, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK p P.O.Box 1179 H = Southold,New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Fax(631)765-6145 MARRIAGE OFFICER y� �` Telephone(631)765-1800 RECORDS OF MANAGEMENT OFFICER southoldtown.northfork.net FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville DATED: August 16, 2011 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 6507 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No. 6507 of Re.Nielsen. Huber & Coughlin for MetroPCS New York, LLC-the Application to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Also enclosed is the Applicant's Project Description, Questionnaire, Agricultural Data Statement, Short Environmental Assessment Form, Transactional Disclosure Form, Two Page Cover Letter from Re, Nielsen, Huber& Coughlin, LLP Dated August 12, 2011, Copy of Application for Building Permit Dated July 7, 2011, Notice of Disapproval from Building Department Dated July 12, 2011, Authorization Form from William J. Baxter to MetroPCS New York, LLC, Seven Pages of Photos of Where Concrete Slab will be, Nine Pages of Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, Two Pages of Property Record Cards (Both Sides), Copy of Southold Town Board of Appeals No. 3801 Decision Rendered January 12, 1989, Copy of Board of Appeals No. 4022SE Decision Rendered August 18, 1992, Copy of Board of Appeals No. 4023 Decision Rendered August 18, 1992, findings&Determination No. 4862 Dated November 16, 2000 Public Hearing, Copy of Survey Showing Property as it Exists Dated December 16, 2009 Prepared by AREK Surveying Company, 14 Pages of Project Information Showing Maps and Proposed Construction Dated December 30, 2009. • Town of Southold • P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 08/16/11 Receipt#: 113187 Transaction(s): Reference Subtotal 1 1 Application Fees 6507 $1,250.00 Check#: 7476 Total Paid: $1,250.00 Name: Metropcs, New York Llc 5 Skyline Drive Hawthorne, NY 10532 Clerk ID: CAROLH Intemal ID:6507 ZBA TO TOWN CLERK TRANSMITTAL SHEET (Filing of Application and Check for Processing) DATE: 8/15/11 ZBA # NAME CHECK # AMOUNT TC DATE STAMP RECEIVED 6507 Metro PCS NY, LLC 7476 $1250.00 AUG 1 6 2011 Sou hold Town Clerk $1250.00 By Thank you. • ��d io�� I � � Rethink Possible September 21, 2011 Town of Southold 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 RE: AT&T site USID 5679 -415 Elijah Lane, Mattituck, NY To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to confirm that AT&T is the owner of the telecommunications tower facility located at 415 Elijah Lane, Mattituck, NY. There is no new lease space available between the existing tenants. The highest available RAD center on the existing tower is approximately 55'. Sincerely, %C2LL�L't' /J• %'GGG��'�'/ Bruce Nicholson National Sales Manager 5 Q, • 3114 , 5, 1 f \VOA"� \ '(.y NDENE 1 • L I�EY.BEA �L�S a p c Res3 F 1 _ p % - \� Long eek` X313 LL n _ PI.sT 0 \ rJ m o� 00 D.. Is a •k NgNG a. a le \ GREEX "o LN GENTS ee 9 j CRESCENT W Townmetro Of Site ID NY7313A I— I Town Boundaries MAP 1 415 Elijahs Lane .85 dBm In Building Residential O Subject Site Southold Mattituck, New YorkExisting Coverage e Proposed Sites Map Scale:V=0.6580 mi • On Air Sites Prepared by June 17,2011 Nice Balzano h g eP \ s4 NY739549 • Egsp R d l - 14 1 � 1 / G M � y Ro ✓ � Sqp BAY VIEWS -tyrq Jr � S1 a I �E NIto 12 0151 ee CRESCENT W Town —I metmPLS. Of Site ID NY7313A Town Boundaries Southold 415 Elijahs Lane -85 dBm In Building Residential O Subject Site MAP Mattituck , New York Coverage from Proposed Sites Subject Site June 17,2011 Map Scale:1"=0.6580 mi • On Air Sites Prepared by Nico Balrano • L e � 'i :GFVFISZOP� EARVIEW: ',• i J Ir L L 14 \ • UGENEB Y II�EY BEA -'� • • \ ` • 9 OPD p0 n M Rp`r BAYVIEWA C \V Rp :qlg eekl r E S 9} CRESCENT W Town metroPC& Of Site ID NY7313A I_ I Town Boundaries Southold 415 Elijahs Lane -85 dam In Building Residential o Subject Site MAP Mattituck, New York ® aro osed Sites Coverage from Subject Site P and On Air Sites Map Scale:1"=0.6580 mi • On Air Sites Prepared by June 17,2011 Nico Balrano e q� GNR\SSnP. VIEW R Ni 0 EDS RO o ee L • L V 1 � at �• r • EP Q\5\-N S CHcSCtNT N TownI^— metroPCS. Of Site ID NY7313A — I Town Boundaries Southold 415 Elijahs Lane -85 dem In Building Residential O Subject Site MAP 4 Mattituek,New YorkO Coverage from Subject Site Proposed Sites On Air Sites and proposed Sites Map Scale:l"=0.8580 mi 0 On Air Sites Prepared by June 17,2011 Nico Balzano 1 Ao °�aeS°P f I LEARVIEW. _ ,y�,C (\i NpR N ym mp EDS Ro V - _ res LO t i II,EYBEA 0I. • Y TTT \ Q-° j / ` •� - • `yqd 6AyVIEWA Long e° a0 y° 333J — T P f _— � � I \ CRREE,=J VJ TownImetro Of Site ID NY7313A � I Town Boundaries �'••"�•" Southold 415 Elijahs Lane .85 dam In Building Residential O Subject Site MAP 5 Mattituek, New York 0Coverage from Subject Site at 55' Proposed Sites On Air Sites and proposed Sites Map Scale:l"=0.6580 mi - 0 On Air Sites Prepared by June 17,2011 Nice Balzano CH""10 EARVIEW. A OR Pn,Ry NCiyOR In ePC>P 1 .0 r me L VV �j \ �2 . UGENES RG 1 L t tM r�I7/{ c WNl \ mP ex • w: 41, t. /,f o • M NLSRO ' BAY VIEW A Long 7 Gp? boyo LL . NY7313 A 1 fir, I� �Pl ow DoE � NY7 _le ' 0 GREEK E P 0151N � v Town —I metros.S. Of Site ID NY7313A Town Boundaries Southold 415 Elijahs Lane -85 dem In Building Residential O Subject Site MAP Mattituc k , New York Coverage from Subject Site at 55' . Proposed Sites On Air Sites and proposed Site at 60' June 17,2011 Map Scale:1"=0.6580 mOn Air Sites i • Prepared by Nice ealmno ��j � FARVIEW �RY ANCNGk S N W 0� h�Q- J O W Wp • • 14 \\ / , '� r T� YGENES gp , t IN g y� • wN l4EY BEA • Ali r Mutl v w • T i qL M ch 0 `p BAY VIEW L., G O � SSP Dow NY7392 x P m er y Is IF GREEK Town —� metroPu",-. Of Site ID NY7313A Town Boundaries Southold 415 Elijahs Lane -85 dBm In Building Residential O Subject Site MAP 7 Mattituck , New York Coverage from Subject Site at 55' o Proposed Sites and On Air Sites Map Scale:1"=0.6580 nil • June 17,2011 On Air Sites Prepared by Nice Balreno <� e � h pNR151�R - � � EARVIEW � W / \\ I NY7315 Ri rIC i 14 L \ r , E �o s r RGS o cr a RO' BAYVIEWA FaA9 ek� � �� 31 \ r �,� �"�A moo• NY7 I� �_. c, � 0 NY7312' 00P z • 'm er - le � GREEK E P4p�5l.N GENts e fee. Town —I metro of Site ID NY7313A Town Boundaries Southold 415 Elijahs Lane -85 darn In Building Residential O Subject Site MAP Mattituek New York 0 Proposed Sites Coverage from Subject Site at 55' Map Scale:1"=0.6580 mi • Prepared by June 17,2011 On Air Sites Nico Balzanno A�t d /6 flip TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X In the Matter of the application of proposal of MetroPCS New York, LLC AFFIDAVIT OF For Approval to collocate public utility wireless telecommunications RADIOFREQUENCY antennas on a proposed extension on an existing monopole and install ENGINEER related equipment at the premises("Premises"): 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituck,New York District 1000, Section 108, Block 4, Lot 11.3 [MetroPCS Site No.NY 7313] -----------------------------------------------X STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF WESTC14ESTER ) NICHOLAS BAL7,ANO,being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am a radio frequency engineer for MetroPCS New York, LLC (hereinafter "MetroPCS"). As a radio frequency engineer, I am trained to identify service deficiencies in MetroPCS' wireless telecommunications network and to evaluate the ability of proposed antenna sites to remedy these service deficiencies. MetroPCS is in the process of establishing a wireless telecommunications network in Suffolk County. I am fully familiar with MetroPCS' wireless telecommunications network in Suffolk County. 2. I submit this affidavit in support of MetroPCS' application for approval to install a wireless telecommunications facility at the Premises. Pursuant to this application, MetroPCS requests approval to affix public utility wireless telecommunications antennas to a proposed extension on an existing monopole and install related equipment on the ground as depicted in the plans submitted herewith. 3. MetroPCS 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 to serve the public within Suffolk County and throughout much of the United States. MetroPCS strives to provide reliable service throughout its licensed coverage area. 4. MetroPCS is in the process of establishing a wireless telecommunications network throughout Suffolk County. The proposed facility will allow MetroPCS to provide reliable coverage in the vicinity of the proposed site. Unreliable service can represent an inconvenience to users of MetroPCS' services and can have serious consequences during times of emergency or disaster. 5. In order to understand why the proposed antenna site is needed, it is necessary to understand how MetroPCS' system works from an engineering standpoint. MetroPCS' wireless telecommunications system is designed so that low powered base stations are strategically located at determined distances apart and at predetermined heights. Due to such factors as hills, valleys, trees, buildings, and other physical obstructions and due to the nature of radio waves, each coverage area or "cell" is irregularly shaped. With sufficient signal strength from each base station, the MetroPCS user can reliably transmit, receive or maintain voice or data connections. The sites are ordinarily engineered to cover a limited area so that an antenna facility will cover only the area surrounding it but will not interfere with other sites in the system. 6. MetroPCS has established design criteria so that its wireless network will provide reliable wireless service to its customers, whether those customers are on the street, in a vehicle, or in a building. Providing reliable service to MetroPCS' customers within vehicles and buildings is critical for MetroPCS to provide the quality of wireless service that customers demand and successfully compete with other wireless providers. 7. To meet customer demands and expectations, MetroPCS strives to provide In-Vehicle (or In-Car)coverage and In-Building coverage. These coverage levels represent the minimum signal strength and reliability of service needed to transmit, receive or maintain a voice or data connection at the mobile handset as the environment changes. 8. MetroPCS has reliable In-Vehicle coverage when a customer can place or receive a call within a vehicle successfully across 95% of a site's coverage area. lo-Vehicle coverage generally results in unreliable in-building coverage. Since the signal level is stronger closer to the antenna site than further away from the antenna site,there will be some coverage within buildings close to the site. 9. MetroPCS has reliable In-Building Residential coverage when a MetroPCS customer can place or receive a call while in a building that is three stories or less in height successfully across 95% of the site's coverage area. This type of coverage will typically provide reliable coverage over the majority of the cell coverage area; however in some areas, and specifically at the outer geographic boundaries of the cell site's coverage area, coverage will be restricted and will likely lead to customers dissatisfaction if customers try to place or receive a call inside a windowless room, cellars or emergency shelters. 10. MetroPCS has reliable In-Building Commercial overage when a MetroPCS customer can place or receive a call while in a building that is greater than three stories in height successfully across 95% of the site's coverage area. In-Building Commercial coverage is targeted for urban residential centers and business districts with high-rise buildings, and suburban business centers. Coverage issues may still occur in hard to serve locations such as within elevators and parking structures. U. To provide these levels of coverage, MetroPCS has scientifically determined the strength of the wireless signal ("signal strength") necessary to provide these levels of coverage. Because wireless signals are attenuated (i.e. degraded or partially blocked) by obstructions such as trees, automobile windows, automobile sheet metal, and building materials such as wood, brick and metal, a wireless signal must be of sufficient strength in the ambient environment (i.e. outside with no obstructions) to reliably penetrate into automobiles and buildings. 12. Wireless signal strength is measured on a logarithmic power scale referenced to 1 milli- watt of power. Signal strength levels less than 1 milli-watt being negative. The smaller the negative dBm number, the stronger the signal. For example, -75dBm is a stronger signal level than —85dBm. An ambient signal level of —95dBm would provide reliable In-Vehicle coverage on MetroPCS' system. MetroPCS' system requires an ambient signal level of —85dBm to provide reliable In-Building Residential coverage, and an ambient signal level of-75dBm to provide reliable In-Building Commercial coverage. These signal level requirements provide the basis for MetroPCS' design criteria. 13. MetroPCS' design criteria for wireless facilities serving an area are based upon providing 95% reliable signal over a site's coverage area to ensure reliable service for customers. This standard reflects a business judgment that 100% reliability is an unrealistic goal at this time due to financial, technical and environmental constraints. A 95% level of reliability is consistent with the level of service provided by MetroPCS' competitors and is the standard in the industry. Providing service at this level allows MetroPCS to satisfy customers' demands and compete on an equal footing with competitors serving the market. 14. To achieve the 95% reliable design goal, MetroPCS conducts extensive analysis based upon MetroPCS' technology and the area served. 15. In order to eliminate the service deficiency in a particular area, MetroPCS performs signal propagation studies to determine the height and location of the needed cell site. Based on its studies, MetroPCS determined that an antenna facility would have to be established within a narrowly defined search area in order to remedy the service gap in question. In this case, we determined that the installation of the proposed facility will allow MetroPCS to provide reliable service in the vicinity of the Premises. 16. The existing monopole is the tallest structure in the search area. I conducted studies of what coverage MetroPCS could provide if it located its antennas at the next available height on the existing monopole (55'). Such a facility would provide approximately 0.884 square miles of reliable coverage at-85dBm. This would still leave a substantial gap in coverage in the area and would not meet MetroPCS' coverage objectives in the area. The proposed extension will allow MetroPCS to provide approximately 2.71 square miles of reliable coverage at —85dBm. The proposed extension will allow MetroPCS to provide an additional 1.826 square miles of reliable coverage in the vicinity of the premises and will obviate the need for the construction of a new facility. 17. The instant proposal, with the antennas affixed at the height depicted on tine plans submitted herewith, allows MetroPCS to provide such reliable service in the vicinity of the Premises. The location and height of the antennas is determined by some or all of the following factors: availability l� of existing structures, willingness of property owners to enter into leases, drive test data, 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 that enables radio frequency engineers to predict the anticipated signal propagation at a given height and location. 18. In order to illustrate the effect that the proposed site would have on coverage in its vicinity, propagation maps have been prepared demonstrating the different coverage levels summarized above. The maps depict the areas presently enjoying reliable service in the vicinity, and the area to be served by the proposed site. As the maps indicate, the proposed facility is of vital importance to MetroPCS' efforts to provide reliable service to the area in question. Unless this application is granted, MetroPCS will be unable to provide reliable service in the vicinity of the Premises. 19. The antennas proposed will not interfere with radio or television service or public safety telecommunications in the surrounding area. AA, i 6 NICHOtM BALZ O Sw to befor m this l ' di; UBLIC dAMIN i'llMUIVA Notary POW,Sieh d New York OMM18T95 QuaRIM in West he"County My Commission Eviree January 25,2014 &,507 ke'rl APPRAISAL CONSULTING REPORT MetroPCS New York, LLC Site Location: Existing Monopole 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Suffolk County Tax Map # 1000/108/4/11.3 DATE OF HEARING October 6, 2011 PREPARED FOR Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 PREPARED BY Mr. Michael Lynch LYNCH APPRAISAL LTD. 15 Dewey Street Huntington, New York 11743 (631) 427-1000 • LYNCH APPRAISAL LTD• REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS 15 DEWEY STREET HUNTINGTON,NEW YORK 11743 (631)427-1000 October 6, 2011 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall 53095 Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Appraisal ConsultingReportConsultingReport MetroPCS Site #NY 7313 Proposed Wireless Communications Facility: Existing Monopole - 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Date of Report: Sept. 28, 2011 Dear Board Members: In accordance with a request from MetroPCS New York, LLC ( "MetroPCS") , I have inspected the above site and prepared an Appraisal Consulting Report (the "Report" ) regarding potential effects of a proposed wireless communications facility (the "Communications Facility" ) on the surrounding community. This report is intended to comply with the report requirements set forth under Standards Rule 5-2 of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) , subject to limiting conditions and a certification as outlined in the Addendum. After considering the location, market conditions, proposed build, and all other factors that influence value, it is my professional opinion that MetroPCS ' proposed Communications Facility will not negatively affect property values in the surrounding area and will not have any adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood or the pattern of its development. My conclusions are outlined in the following Report. Respectfully submitted, LYNCH APPRAISAL LTD. By: �� Michael J. Lynch N.Y.S. Cert. General R.E. Appraiser #46000001012 • • 2 �- Purpose and Intended Use of Report The purpose and intended use of the Report is to study any possible adverse effects a proposed Communications Facility will have on the surrounding community. This Report is strictly prepared at the request of MetroPCS to present to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals for a hearing to be held on October 6, 2011. Effective Date of Report The effective date of the Report is September 28, 2011, the date of inspection by Mr. Michael J. Lynch. Description of Proposed Communications Facility MetroPCS ' proposed Communications Facility consists of, without limitation, the installation of six ( 6 ) panel antennas (the "Antennas" ) to an existing 108 , 0" (AGL) monopole (the "Monopole") . The Antennas will be affixed to a 1010" extension on the Monopole that will raise the height of said structure to 11810" (AGL) . The height to the top of the Antennas will be 11816" (AGL) . There will also be associated equipment cabinetry set on a 10 , x 16 ' concrete slab within an existing fenced compound that surrounds the Monopole. In addition, MetroPCS will screen, with 10, high evergreen shrubbery, the area just outside the westerly fenced area of the equipment cabinetry. The Monopole currently houses all of the major wireless carriers, including AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, and Nextel. • • 3 Description of Property and Surrounding Neighborhood The subject property (the "Property" ) is within a Limited Business (LB) Zoning District, located along the westerly side of Elijah' s Lane, 299 ' ± north of Main Road, in the Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. It is also known and designated by Suffolk County Tax Map Number: District 1000 , Section 108, Block 4 , Lot 11 . 3 . The Property totals approximately 80 , 495± Sq.Ft. ( 1 . 85± Acres ) in overall area, is mostly level, and wooded for its westerly half. The Property is improved with a 1-story garage/warehouse structure that contains approximately 9, 325 sq. ft. of gross area. It is bordered by an auto parts store to its south, and vacant land partially to its north. The Property is otherwise abutted or adjacent to residences on its north, west, and east sides . Nearby, along the south side of Main Road, is agricultural land in use as a vineyard. Scope of the Report In preparing this Report, the appraiser: - Inspected the Property and surrounding community; - Reviewed the engineering drawings as supplied by MTM Design Group, Inc. ; - Reviewed Suffolk County and Town of Southold assessment, tax map, and zoning records; - Researched sales trends in the area of the Property in addition to comparable sites throughout Nassau and Suffolk Counties; - Prepared this Report in conformance with USPAP requirements. • 4 Report Methodology In analyzing any potential adverse effect the Communications Facility may have on the surrounding community, the appraiser considered the proposed build of the Communications Facility to an existing Monopole, the surrounding neighborhood and land uses, zoning classification of the subject Property and surrounding parcels, and other existing conditions. In addition, we have reviewed and carried out studies with respect to wireless communications facilities in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, including the East End of Long Island. These communications facilities include monopole sites, lattice and guyed wire tower sites, rooftop mounted sites, and water tank sites. One of those studies of note is as follows: Monopole Antenna Site , Keyspan Operations Center, Montauk Highway, Bridgehampton, New York. A 1201 ± monopole was erected at this center circa September 2000. This property is surrounded by residential properties to its north, east and west, and opposite agricultural land to its south. Nearby, at the southwest corner of Montauk Highway and Newlight Lane, is a community of upper- middle priced homes that was first developed in the mid 1980s. This development is partially within view of the monopole due to the open agricultural fields to the east. Our staff compared sales data of homes in the development before and after the installation date of the monopole. Our "before" data, which included six (6) sales running from 4/97 to 5/99, was compared with "after" data, which included six (6 ) sales running from 2/01 to 5/04. The average price per home in the before and after groups was 1288 higher for the latter ( $516, 167 vs . $1, 179, 000 ) , which breaks down to an average of 298/year market appreciation. This figure compares favorably with the overall market appreciation of • 5 �P 22%/year tabulated from all single-family homes sales over the same time period for all of Bridgehampton. As such, the antennas or monopole did not appear to lead to a devaluation of nearby property values around the site. Conclusions In summary, we offer the following conclusions: - The proposed Communication Facility is appropriate for the Property given that the application involves the addition of Antennas to an existing Monopole, one that has housed communications facilities by other carriers as far back as the early 1990s. - The Property is well suited for the Communications Facility, given existing conditions, natural screening, land uses, and zoning in the surrounding neighborhood. - No correlation was found between the presence of wireless communication facilities and declining property values in the studies we reviewed or carried out on communities in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, including the East End of Long Island. - The proposed MetroPCS Communications Facility, therefore, will not negatively affect property values in the surrounding area and will not have any adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood or the pattern of its development. • 6 ADDENDA �, � PHOTOGRAPHS EXISTING CONDITIONS i �' Tf t f �• i n ' t p � ° s� 'f �� _'�•�: ;�,#� Yom• �i:s. 9 h l y a a_ AT&T _ `.I ri1� ra ro+n��. aW,n adt.Mteat�p Photo 2: Eaisting Ground Equipment, Shelters, Etc. t s Photo 3: View of Garage/Warehouse Building and Monopole at Rear • • 10 r I i f Photo 4: View of Property from Elijah's Lane, Looking West I 4 , `r i Photo 5 : Elijah's Lane Looking North • 11 After— Photo 6 : View of Abutting Auto Parts Store South of Property along Elijah's Lane A. r Photo 7 : View of Abutting Residence to North of Property along Elijah 's Lane • • 12 Photo 8 : View of Abutting Residence to Northwest of Property along Rachael ' s Lane w/Monopole in Backdrop L Photo 9: View of Abutting Vacant Land to North of Property at Southwest Corner of Elijah' s La. & Rachael ' s Lane • • 13 Photo 10: View of Residence Opposite Property to East along Elijah' s Lane Photo 11 : View Looking Southeast along Gabriella Court w/Monopole Visible in Distance + , N -• t tp cl 41 q .. . fa N 10 1� � a a u O • • s / t dO 1 .0 .7 4-4 J3 01 6 x Ift • .1(:`M. may. _ .. .79 ar a rte` tY� • O .0 • • 15 TAX MAP & ENGINEERING DRAWINGS y �✓ n `a I • i ,n o�O x 3—.—\'..•_J- �. ��_ \x, aka P[ .v 1 PO u OvSVFM © SIIJI1Cly ti anwa+�yY�f MY lOVpp p.. ��— �v vex.. � .. .n ....� M � _�� .• _ _ p 1 IOW ON ZONING INFOW ATION IIATIIA ,.•...... W.<. m _ p ..s„m,,,, —_ DESIGN" GROUPE ir..nrnrt nwnal[� ® MKK n. Yrl.c[I AR V HI iE TV0.E vbn +nun EN INEE0.INL I w`e .�. lnvrtx[N nmY 'TNFVJF.RbET MJM TELT'} 6}M N 5 u 0 R O R fe[ereR?a.�exel uoii�ln`'A4 pm�vynn.TewdeJ. 1 C H U R a 0 U N M IA 1 f ^�'^�.e H1W C CHOiV oOR N CI ' u5 }. r. P.iptin mP eU 4 n S 1 0 N Iwae�Fra nn. . rw�er z — — _ N 70°30'501'E N -- W } I 475.60' w475 60r , o N P v a �- w.r. a s.r _ ._ _� •`�' i a W o �numnem n..e N b�0 menet v.u'»en rumamra�waaum: to ' 0. .. i l.__ - \p. Vilml�for AN. metroPCSL mace rwm xlw. ' mu'rurt L _ mwxcwmaerwan uu � nwom m.aea mnaml O n.a o. IrtRalLpgM _ _ p +^'T 9 • � ..ms 09MPST5030 yet ' ON N U 'N nx _� �a T ITJ <S ELIJAN LANE 0 p S 770}x' \ _ _ MATTINGK,NY I195� •N 00 �y �Y e-.r., oy1.RH fi 88.0 �Faw� neuro, e TT �c.m o % O g o..v`ai vew ornox ;l A.- I ,m la' s.cc-T w.w=e ncv u s17E FLAY - —' A-I ARM DESIGN" G R O U P� J _ \ A RC H xT E CIV RE EN G 1NE E RI NG ,`�', ` aa. wMwe wn RS mIMVT'r vv iA'A] .1 -� �EB' P.O 00%3 maUkvP \ XAZfET.NEW�EBSEt O7lIp walm � E"D w i aMa�.me TEL'. I)x.0e e.631p � ra a.vm[iv.w� vu'ra ro�o...�w..�n`�°°�m .�I��—�.Me-.."� .'^�,.I"'$','m.uA am..[w..n. ' • I. rN1 iol I14, Ycedxw Y PAdHV w[eI_ xc fi e [ 9 II �—cEl'm2' hd4T_— ! / .DEl VeN nv mwem , -vP2CRK•nwr.'rtvu h, vS.h'mumvul � / I lTr EI oil YY/� �� Yv .'wnFrM SII nmfn+�xw9X mu.vul .^�w.G.s'�i.a \/ti✓+' s v I ectal. Iw roloss for AI ' � _ •e%rua�ew%e \./ _. wn.anmwalrydw _ _ - win Tvvtl.o� naonewr2w5rxt eIeM11EIYO (\/'��J wraaaalvau I� N.El pmm NY1313 \/�✓'+ ML uesfmra�imW M.m enlww Meal I I I M� / '}o MRT5030 . SRE MF MAT I` PJ%'an na.Y v�a e4 Q�i I -* I Iia r lil II �mrovw�nne/.wwrsvmh 415 ELJAN;LANE 1 _ M[a�w To�wJ/�I /.�n��W�E MATTITUGK, 1195 er.vwIDrofnnm nmrt un Co-Lo ATION o w.... am 1u I EET R$ IPPA,01 EETTTE 4O RoF EI PLAN MONOPOLE ELEVATION 1'G w•u[v.N1 mW � rya mu vul n rCEi N.a@C.4 4C'! EGVIPMENTPLAN KSTELEVATION - A-2 ,-. • 19 Certification �'ro Assumptions & Limiting Conditions Qualifications of the Appraiser CERTIFICATION zo I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2 . the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. 4. I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. 5. my engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 6. my compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. 7 . my analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 8. 1 made a personal inspection of the property on Sept. 28, 2011 that is the subject of this report. 9. no one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report. I� 4�x Michael J. Lynch ♦ • • 21 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This appraisal report has been made with the following general assumptions: 1. No responsibility is assumed for the legal description or for matters including legal or title considerations. Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated. 2. The property is appraised free and clear of any or all liens or encumbrances unless otherwise stated. 3. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed. 4. The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable. However, no warranty is given for its accuracy. 5. All engineering is assumed to be correct. The plot plans and illustrative material in this report are included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property. 6. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them. 7. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless noncompliance is stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report. 8. If the site is improved with a dwelling built prior to 1978, lead paint may be present and should be checked by an expert as per Title X, the Federal Disclosure law regarding lead hazards. 9. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report. 10. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based. 11. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted in the report. • • 22 '1 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS (continued) 12. In this appraisal assignment, the existence of potentially hazardous material used in the construction or maintenance of the building, such as the presence of urea- formaldehyde foam insulation, and/or the existence of toxic waste on the premises, has not been considered. The appraiser does not assume responsibility of existing potentially hazardous materials and it is recommended that a qualified expert be engaged to inspect as required. 14 . It is assumed that any debris, junk, abandoned personal property, etc. that may exist will be removed from the site. The appraisal report has been made with the following general limiting conditions: 1. This is an Appraisal Consulting Report, which is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standard Rule 5-2 of USPAP. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses, if not detailed in the report, is retained in the appraiser's file. The information contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client and for the intended use stated in this report. The appraiser is not responsible for the unauthorized use of this report. 2. The distribution, if any, of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate allocations for land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 3. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and in any event only with proper written qualification and only in its entirety. 4. The appraiser herein by reason of this appraisal is not required to give further consultation, testimony, or be in attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been previously made. 5. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. • • 23 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 15 Dewey Street, 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 communications sites,fast food establishments, convalescent homes, service stations,multi-family residences, new construction,etc. Appeared 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 Brookhaven Town Board. Town of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals. Town of Huntington Planning Board. 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. • 24 Appeared as Expert Witness (cont.): Village of Cedarhurst Board of Zoning Appeals. Village of Fast Hills Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of East Rockaway Board of Appeals. Village of Farmingdale Board of Trustees. Village of Farmingdale Planning Board. Village of Floral Park Board of Trustees. Village of Freeport Planning Board. Village of Freeport Board of Zoning Appeals. 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 Hempstead Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Hempstead Personal Wireless Services Facilities Review Board. Village of Lattingtown Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Lawrence Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Lynbrook Board of Trustees. Village of Malverne 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 Board of Trustees. Village of New Hyde Park Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of North Hills 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 Oyster Bay Cove Board of Trustees. Village of Oyster Bay Cove Planning Board. Village of Port Washington North Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Rockville Centre Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Roslyn Board of Trustees. Village of Roslyn Harbor Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Sea Cliff Zoning Board of Appeals. 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 Board of Trustees. 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 Islandia Board of Trustees. Village of Lloyd Harbor Board of Trustees. Village of Lloyd Harbor Planning Board. Village of Lloyd Harbor Zoning Board of Appeals. • 25 Appeared as Expert Witness (cont.): v Village of Northport Board of Zoning Appeals. Village of Northport Board of Architectural &Historic Review. Village of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Lindenhurst Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Lake Grove Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Bellport Board of Trustees. Village of Patchogue Planning Board. Village of Port Jefferson Board of Trustees. Village of Quogue Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of The Branch Zoning Board of Appeals. Village of Head of the Harbor Board of Trustees. Village of Westhampton Beach Board of Trustees. City of Glen Cove Planning Board. City of Glen Cove Zoning Board of Appeals. City of Long Beach 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#IA-1. Basic Valuation Procedures - Exam#IA-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 #1410 Standards of Professional Practice, Part B - Exam #11420 �tO7 Planner's Report: Proposed metroPCS Telecommunications Facility Located at: 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituck, New York Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, Long Island, NY September 2011 Prepared by David Karlebach, PP, PC 38 E. Ridgewood Avenue #396 Ridgewood, NJ 07450 David Karlebach, AICP, PP s s Introduction The purpose of this planning study is to assess the existing character and visual quality of the area surrounding the Project Site, and examine any potential adverse visual impacts that may occur. A conclusion is offered concerning the impacts on the character of the neighborhood or on the environmental conditions of the area. Existing Land Use The Project Site is located on a trapezoidal 1.85-acre tract of land identified as Section 108, Block 4, Lot 11.3 as shown on the Town of Southold tax assessment maps. The Project Site is located in the Hamlet of Mattituck approximately 1/4 mile northeast of Mattituck Airport, and approximately 1-1/4 miles northeast of the Mattituck central business district. Access to the site is achieved via Elijah's Lane. The site is improved with a one-story frame garage with associated parking and utilities. The building and a dirt driveway occur at the northeasterly portion of the lot. A 108 foot-high steel monopole containing five tiers of communication antennas is located near the center of the lot. This is significant because the uses on the site will not change as a result of the proposed development. The site will continue to be used for both a commercial use and a public utility use if the development approvals are granted. At the base of the monopole are associated radio equipment cabinets within a fenced compound. The southwesterly portion of the lot is vacant, wooded land. Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding area is primarily developed with single-family residential and agricultural uses. Single family residential uses occur to the north and northeast along Elijah's Lane, Jeremiah's Lane and Rachael's Road, and to the southwest along Main Road, Eastward Court, Cardinal Drive, and Azalea Road. The distance from the proposed equipment to the nearest residential use is 221.08 feet. There are many farm fields west and southeast of the site. 1 Other than the existing monopole on the subject property, there are no other structures of sufficient height in the immediate area on which to mount antennas. The area is dominated by one and two-story buildings and farm fields. Project Description The applicant proposes to install a metroPCS telecommunications facility consisting of a ten foot-high monopole extension with six antennas attached at the top. Four appurtenant radio equipment cabinets are proposed to be located on a new 10' x 16' concrete slab within the existing equipment compound. There is no additional building area proposed in connection with this project. Site disturbance will be minimal. An underground utility trench is proposed to deliver electric service from an existing utility pole along Elijah's Lane to the proposed facility. A double staggered row of arborvitae trees, ten feet in height, are proposed to be planted outside of the fenced compound. The applicant also proposes to relocate an existing beacon light and lightning rod to the top of the monopole extension. One GPS antenna is proposed to be located on the proposed cable bridge. Cellular Architecture The geographic area in which the provider is licensed to operate is subdivided into small regions or"cells."These areas may be different in size and architecture, depending upon variables such as terrain and morphology classification. Each cell has a "nucleus" composed of a base transmitting station (BTS). The BTS is comprised of the hardware needed to support communication between the mobiles and the Public Telephone Switched Network (PTSN). PCS and cellular systems use a grid-type architecture that provides coverage using low power radio transmitters mounted on existing structures where available, or newly constructed communication structures. By constructing sufficient and strategically placed transmitters or base stations, PCS and cellular operators provide continuous and "seamless" 2 coverage wherever the end user might be. Because users often pass through several cells as they travel through an area, the system automatically hands-off the call from one base station to the next. The facility will provide service to area residents, businesses, and the traveling public. Zoning The subject property is situated entirely within the LB "Limited Business" zone. Wireless Communications facilities are regulated under §280-67 through §280-76.5 of the zoning ordinance (herein referred to as the Wireless Ordinance). This proposal represents a second priority location as set forth in §280-70D(1)(b). The deviations from the wireless ordinance are summarized below: Ord. Desai tion Re uired Existing Proposed §270J(2) Maximum height 45 ft. 108 ft. 118 ft. Distance of wireless equipment 74.6 ft. 224.43 ft. §270J(6) to adjacent residential property 500ft. (antennas) (antennas) line 74.6 ft. 235.43 ft. e ui ment a ui ment The application advances the goals of the wireless ordinance in the following manner: • §280-70D(1): Applicants for wireless communications facilities shall locate, site and erect said wireless facilities in accordance with the following priorities: (a) "On an existing antenna support structure or other structures on Town-owned properties, including the right of way; (b) On existing antenna support structure or other structures on other property in the Town...." • §280-72A(5): Wireless communications facilities shall be designed to provide for co-location by multiple providers or designed so that they can be retrofitted to accommodate multiple providers, wherever possible. 3 • §280-67: It is the express purpose of the article to minimize the visual and environmental impacts of wireless communications facilities while protecting the health safety and welfare of Southold's citizens and allowing wireless service providers to meet their technological and service objectives.. Positive Aspects In our advanced technological society there is a manifest need for improved wireless telecommunications. Wireless telecommunications now plays a vital role in preserving the safety of all citizens. As of December 2010 there are 302.9 million wireless subscriber connections in the United States.' The number of wireless only households is 26.6%.2 Each day in the U.S. over 296,000 calls are made from wireless phones to 9- 1-1 and other emergency numbers.3 Wireless phones are routinely used to report traffic accidents, drunk driving incidents and suspected crime activity to the proper authorities. The success of emergency relief and recovery efforts relies on the ability of workers to communicate effectively, efficiently and securely. Wireless technology is uniquely suited to these applications because (1) disasters typically do not affect wireless communication links; and, (2) the rapid deployment of a communications system for mobile field workers is more productive with a wireless system. The users of this system include insurance companies; emergency relief workers; federal, state and local disaster agencies; emergency medical personnel; and other suppliers of necessary services. The federal government's policy regarding the importance of enhanced wireless 9-1-1 service is expressed in Title 47, USCA §615 which states: "The Federal Communications Commission shall encourage and support efforts by States to deploy comprehensive end-to-end emergency communications infrastructure and programs, based on coordinated statewide plans, including seamless, ubiquitous, reliable telecommunications networks and enhanced wireless 9-1-1 service. In encouraging and supporting that deployment, the Commission shall consult and cooperate with State and local officials responsible for emergency services and public safety, the telecommunications www.ctia.org/advocacy/research/index.cfiTi/AID/10323 2 www.etia.org/advocacy/research/index.cfin/AID/10323 3 www.ctia.org/advocacy/research/index.efin/AID/10323 4 • §280-67: It is the express purpose of the article to minimize the visual and environmental impacts of wireless communications facilities while protecting the health safety and welfare of Southold's citizens and allowing wireless service providers to meet their technological and service objectives.. Positive Aspects In our advanced technological society there is a manifest need for improved wireless telecommunications. Wireless telecommunications now plays a vital role in preserving the safety of all citizens. As of December 2010 there are 302.9 million wireless subscriber connections in the United States.' The number of wireless only households is 26.6%.2 Each day in the U.S. over 296,000 calls are made from wireless phones to 9- 1-1 and other emergency numbers.3 Wireless phones are routinely used to report traffic accidents, drunk driving incidents and suspected crime activity to the proper authorities. The success of emergency relief and recovery efforts relies on the ability of workers to communicate effectively, efficiently and securely. Wireless technology is uniquely suited to these applications because (1) disasters typically do not affect wireless communication links; and, (2) the rapid deployment of a communications system for mobile field workers is more productive with a wireless system. The users of this system include insurance companies; emergency relief workers; federal, state and local disaster agencies; emergency medical personnel; and other suppliers of necessary services. The federal government's policy regarding the importance of enhanced wireless 9-1-1 service is expressed in Title 47, USCA §615 which states: "The Federal Communications Commission shall encourage and support efforts by States to deploy comprehensive end-to-end emergency communications infrastructure and programs, based on coordinated statewide plans, including seamless, ubiquitous, reliable telecommunications networks and enhanced wireless 9-1-1 service. In encouraging and supporting that deployment, the Commission shall consult and cooperate with State and local officials responsible for emergency services and public safety, the telecommunications www.ctia.org/advocacy/research/index.efin/AID/10323 10323 2 www.ctia.org/advocacy/research/index.cffiVAID/I 0323 3 www.ctia.org/advocacy/research/index.cfn/AID/10323 4 industry ..., the motor vehicle manufacturing industry, emergency medical service providers and emergency dispatch providers, transportation officials, special 9-1-1 districts, public safety, fire service and law enforcement officials, consumer groups, and hospital emergency and trauma care personnel." In addition to public safety services, a variety of other services available to the consumer advance the public good. These services include classroom networking, intelligent transportation systems (ITS), inventory management, electronic newspapers and other programs which transmit voice and data transmissions more efficiently and securely. The FCC mandates that wireless communication services shall be available to all the people of the United States at a reasonable charge, for the purposes of the national defense and promoting safety of life and property. The proposed base station facility located in the Town of Southold is necessary to construct and complete the FCC- licensed network. Potential Visual Impact The proposal does not change the number or locations of towers in Southold. Nearby residents are already acclimated to the presence of a tall structure in the area. The additional ten foot extension will not change their perception of the site. The proposed increase in height is a superior planning alternative to the construction of a new tower in this community. Nationwide, co-location is favored in virtually all zoning ordinances, including the ordinances of the Town of Southold. The proposed landscaping will completely obscure the visibility of the proposed equipment. Computer photo-simulations of the proposed facility have been prepared by EBI Consulting and are part of this application. The document is entitled "Visual Analysis, Proposed Public Utility Wireless Communications facility, NY7313, Mattituck, provided by EBI Consulting, dated January 8, 2011 and revised August 8, 2011. The report depicts both pre-development and post-development conditions at five locations surrounding the site. David Karlebach, PP, PC has reviewed these photo-simulations and finds them to be accurate and correct. The photo-simulations represent a slight increase in the height of the monopole, the visibility of which is not harmful to the neighborhood. The antenna mounting structure has been designed in a manner which 5 arranges the antennas closer to the surface of the monopole as compared to the existing antennas. Conclusion The site is developed with an existing communications tower which is specifically designed to accommodate telecommunication antennas and equipment. This precludes the need to erect a new freestanding structure that would potentially have a far greater community impact. The location of the use on a previously developed site eliminates normal planning concerns with respect to access, drainage, and the availability of utilities. The spatial requirements are minimal; the proposed equipment area measures only 10 feet x 16 feet. There is no need for tree removal or site grading operations. The proposed monopole extension will have minimal effect on the surrounding area. If there is any visual impact associated with this site, it lies solely with the existing structure. The small increase in the height of the pole does not alter the visual quality of the site. The proposed facility will not have a significant impact on the environment or the community, and will not affect the quality of life of Southold residents in a negative way. The local reviewing agencies in Southold have determined that this site is particularly suited for this use when approving prior applications to install telecommunication antennas and equipment. It is prudent to conclude that a slight enhancement of the facility would yield the same findings. 6 EBI C o n s u I t i n g Visual Analysis Prepared For: metroPCS Unlimit Yourself® PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY NY7313 MATTITUCK Provided By: EBI Consulting January 8, 2010 Revised:August, 8, 2011 imEBIPN: 61096599 C O N S U L T I N G Creating Valuefior Your Business Site Number: NY7313 415 Elijahs Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Prepared For: Metro PCS Provided By: EBI Consulting 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 ph. 781.273.2500 fax 781.273.3311 ISSUED: 01/08/10 REV. 1: 01115/10 REV.2. 09/08110 REV.3 08/08/11 DRAWN BY: MC/RAJ CHECKED BY RAJ Note. These photo simulations are intended to represent modifications relative to a person observing the aesthetics of the proposed telecommunications installation. Therefore. they are inherently approximate in nature and should not be used as an exact, scaled, engineering drawing. 21 B Street B B I Burlington, MA 01803 SDI C O N S U L T I N G Tel: (781) 273.2500 www.ebiconsulting.com Fax: (781) 273.3311 Letter of Methodology August 10,2011 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituck,NY 11952 Re: Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Site Name: NY7313—Mattituck The following is a description of the methodology used by EBI Consulting in preparing the visual analysis study of the proposed MetroPCS installation for the site located at 415 Elijah's Lane,Mattituck, NY('Property"). The proposed facility('Facility")consists of small panel antennas mounted to a 10' monopole extension on the existing tower("Existing Tower")at the Property and also related equipment on the ground. Both the antennas and equipment will match the existing antennas and equipment so as to not have any adverse visual impact to the area. A site visit was made on January 76, 2010 and photographs were taken from various locations around the Facility using an Olympus E-500 digital camera. The actual weather condition was clear skies. Using the technical and mechanical specification documents we built and arranged the Facility using 3D software called 3D Studio Max. 3D Studio Max allows us to add a daylight system that calculates what direction the sun will point according to what time of day,the date, and from the location the photographs were taken. The next step involved loading the map and the photographs taken at the site into 3D Studio Max and positioning virtual cameras in the software, based on the locations the photos were taken from.These cameras represent the photographer who took the photographs and it takes into consideration the average height at which the camera would have been held by an average five to six foot person. These cameras are placed at the exact locations on the map;therefore it automatically calculates the exact distance and perspective of the Facility. This generated simulated 3D views of the photographer's viewpoint plus the addition of the 3D model of the proposed Facility. Once these simulated viewpoints were created in 3D Studio Max, realistic lighting, shadows, and materials were rendered upon the proposed Facility and the result is multiple images that depict the proposed Facility on the photograph. The new images created by 3D Studio Max are imported into software called Photoshop and each view is labeled accordingly based upon the information provided by the field technician. The final product results in high quality existing and proposed images that accurately depict the addition of the proposed Facility. Kindly note that photo simulations are intended to represent modifications relative to a person observing the aesthetics of the proposed Facility.Therefore,they are inherently approximate in nature and should not be used as an exact,scaled,engineering drawing. Sincerely, tv�� John Menezes EBI Consulting Office:781-425-5108 FAX:781-425-5163 Mobile:781-572-5173 jmenezesaebiconsulting com www.ebiconsulting.com ENVIROBUSINESS, INC.LOCATIONS I ATLANTA,GA I BALTIMORE, MD I BURLINGTON,MA I CHICAGO, IL DALLAS,TX I DENVER,CO I HOUSTON,TX I LOS ANGELES,CA I NEW YORK,NY 1 PHOENIX,AZ I PORTLAND,OR SAN FRANCISCO,CA I SEATTLE.WA I YORK, PA ' VISIBILITY MAP • �� 3 IP-1`G �m Long Island Off" C 98� Jay- - 5 - -- O 2 7 3 g �O £ h� Z d' NE'N-�'- F�K fl Legend 0 180 360 540 720 900 Project Site O Photo Location Points Non-Visible Locations wi Photo location Map METRO PCS/NY7313 S 415 ELIJAHS LANE EBI MATTITUCK, NY 11952 PN. 61096599 I Y 3 I ■u�rrw* �.►�' _ -..ems` •�,y.:— _— - Capyrig ht= 2010 [BI ConsulFing- r5•J r / •I �. orvr�. _mac ..•i.' .. �.. ��— wr°- -- ,�'�� Gopyrightpi=;2010 EBI Consulting. .� 1,1.1 I 1 �♦'� I a : B Copyright©2010 EBI Consulting Y w e 1 si 1 low OW AIL F � � r . ..• It Cop right©2010 EBI Consulting VIEW 3 y: M 1 �� •h � �� sill '�►'P , _ o � � EXISTING CONDITIONS LOOKING NORTHWEST FROM CORNER OF NEW SUFFOLK AVE. & LOCUST AVE. P N i� x �1 I 1 PROPOSED METRO PCS ANTENNAS LOOKING NORTHWEST FROM CORNER OF NEW SUFFOLK AVE. & LOCUST AVE. r EXISTING CONDITIONS • • • FROM • ( rr n� Copyright m 2010 EBI Consulting e � { , .� � r - � i��ilii S � - r ....✓ .�! ., rs_ .. :+ Copyright %2DIC EBI ConsWbnq Federal Coin munications Commission FCC 09-99 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 RE fCEI V ED ? OCT B � In the Matter of ) 8 ��.'/ Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify ) WT Docket No.08-165OARD �FAPPE Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)to Ensure ) q�$ Timely Siting Review and to Preempt Under ) Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that ) Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as ) Requiring a Variance ) DECLARATORY RULING Adopted: November 18,2009 Released: November 18, 2009 By the Commission: Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners Copps, McDowell,Clybum, and Baker issuing separate statements. TABLE,OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph# 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. I (I. BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................................6 III. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................................... 18 A. Authority to Interpret Section 332(c)(7)........................................................................................20 B. Time for Acting on Facility Siting Applications............................................................................27 C. Prohibition of Service by a Single Provider...................................................................................54 D. Ordinances Requiring Variances ...................................................................................................66 E. Other Issues....................................................................................................................................68 N. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................71 V. ORDERING CLAUSES.......................................................................................................................72 APPENDIX -A APPENDIX-B I. INTRODUCTION I. This Declaratory Ruling by the Commission promotes the deployment of broadband and other wireless services by reducing delays in the construction and improvement of wireless networks. Wireless operators must generally obtain State and local zoning approvals before building wireless towers or attaching equipment to pre-existing structures. To encourage the expansion of wireless networks, Congress has required these entities to act"within a reasonable period of time"on such requests.' In many cases, delays in the zoning process have hindered the deployment of new wireless infrastructure' 147 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(ii). See para.33, infra. Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 Accordingly,today we define timeframes for State and local action on wireless facilities siting requests, while also preserving the authority of States and localities to make the ultimate determination on local zoning and land use policies. 2. On July 11,2008,CTIA—The Wireless Association®(CTIA)filed a petition requesting that the Commission issue a Declaratory Ruling clarifying provisions in Sections 253 and 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended(Communications Act), regarding State and local review of wireless facility siting applications(Petition).' The Petition raises three issues: the timeframes in which zoning authorities must act on siting requests for wireless towers or antenna sites,their power to restrict competitive entry by multiple providers in a given area, and their ability to impose certain procedural requirements on wireless service providers. In this Declaratory Ruling, we grant the Petition in part and deny it in part to ensure that both localities and service providers may have an opportunity to make their case in court,as contemplated by Section 332(c)(7) of the Act' 3. Wireless services are central to the economic,civic, and social lives of over 270 million Americans.' Americans are now in the transition toward increasing reliance on their mobile devices for broadband services, in addition to voice services.`' Without access to mobile wireless networks, however, consumers cannot receive voice and broadband services from providers. Providers continue to build out their networks to provide such services,and a crucial requirement for providing those services is obtaining State and local governmental approvals for constructing towers or attaching transmitting equipment to pre-existing structures. While Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act preserves the authority of State and local governments with respect to such approvals, Section 332(c)(7)also limits such State and local authority, thereby protecting core local and State government zoning functions while fostering infrastructure build out. 4. The first part of this Declaratory Ruling concludes that we should define what is a presumptively"reasonable time"beyond which inaction on a siting application constitutes a"failure to act." In defining this timeframe, we have taken several measures to ensure that the reasonableness of the time for action"tak[es] into account the nature and scope"of the siting request."' In the event a State or local government fails to act within the appropriate time period,the applicant is entitled to bring an action in court under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Communications Act, and the court will determine whether the delay was in fact unreasonable under all the circumstances of the case. We conclude that the record supports setting the following timeframes: (l) 90 days for the review of collocation applications;and(2) 150 days for the review of siting applications other than collocations. 5. In the second part of this decision, we find, as the Petitioner urges,that it is a violation of Section 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(II)of the Communications Act for a State or local government to deny a personal 3 In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance,WT Docket No. 08-165,Petition jor Declaratory Ruling,filed July 11,2008 ("Petition"). 47 U.S.C. $332(c)(7). ' Implementation of Section 6002(b)of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993;Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless including Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No.09-66,Notice of inquiry,24 FCC Red 11357, 11358¶2(2009)("Mobile Wireless Competition NOP');see also Fostering Innovation and Investment in the Wireless Communications Market,GN Docket No. 09-157,A National Broadband Plan For Our Future,GN Docket No.09-51,Notice ojlnquiry,24 FCC Red 11322¶ 1 (2009)("Wireless communications is one of the most important sectors of our economy and one that touches the lives of nearly all Americans."). Mobile Wireless Competition NOI,24 FCC Red at I 1358 1;2. '47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(ii). 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 Kl�~ wireless service facility siting application because service is available from another provider. Finally, because we have not been presented with any evidence of a specific controversy, we deny the last part of the Petitioner's request, that we find that a State or local regulation that requires a variance or waiver for every wireless facility siting violates Section 253(a) of the Communications Act. II. BACKGROUND 6. The Statute, Section 332(c)(7)of the Act is titled"Preservation of Local Zoning Authority,"and it addresses"the authority of a State or local government. . . over decisions regarding the placement,construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities."" Personal wireless service facilities are defined in Section 332(c)(7)(C)(ii)as"facilities for the provision of personal wireless services,i9 and personal wireless services are defined in Section 332(c)(7)(C)(i)as`commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services,and common carrier wireless exchange access services."10 7. Subsection (A)states that nothing in the Act limits such authority except as provided in Section 332(c)(7)." Subsection (B) identifies those limitations. Among other limitations,Clause(B)(i) states that`[t]he regulation of the placement, construction,and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof. . . shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. ,12 Clause(B)(ii)requires the State or local government to act on any request to place, construct,or modify personal wireless service facilities "within a reasonable period of time . . . taking into account the nature and scope of such request."" Clause (B)(v)permits a person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by the State or local government to commence an action in court within 30 days after such final action or failure to act.14 8. Section 253 of the Communications Act contains provisions removing barriers to entry in the provision of telecommunications services." Specifically, Section 253(a) states: "No State or local statute or regulation,or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. ,16 Section 253(d)directs the Commission to preempt any State or local statute,regulation, or legal requirement that it determines,atter notice and an opportunity for public comment, violates Section 253(a)." 9. The Petition. The Petition contends that the ability to deploy wireless systems depends upon the availability of sites for the construction of towers and transmitters. Before a wireless service provider can use a site for a tower or add an antenna to a tower or other structure, zoning approval is generally required at the local level, and the local zoning approval process"can be extremely time- '47 ime-"47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A). Section 332(c)(7)appears in Appendix B in its entirety. 947 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(C)(ii). '('47 °47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C)(i). "Unlicensed wireless service"is defined as"the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses,but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services(as defined in section 303(v))." 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C)(iii). 11 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(A). 1'47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i). 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(ii). 14 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). In the case of an action or failure to act that is impermissibly based on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv),a person adversely affected may also petition the Commission for relief, id. b 47 U.S.0C § 253. 1f'47 U.S.C. § 253(a). 47 U.S.C. § 253(dy 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 consuming."" The Petition asserts that timely deployment of wireless facilities is essential to achieving the Communications Act's public interest goals.10 According to the Petition,delays in the zoning process for wireless facility siting applications are impeding those goals.20 The Petition asserts that Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act "created a framework in which states and localities could make zoning decisions `subject to minimum federal standards—both substantive and procedural—as well as federal judicial review."''' The Petition claims that those zoning authorities that do not act in a timely manner are frustrating the goals of the Communications Act 22 10. Accordingly, the Petition first requests that the Commission eliminate an ambiguity that CTIA contends currently exists in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v)and clarify the time period in which a State or local zoning authority will be deemed to have failed to act on a wireless facility siting application.''' The Petition requests that the Commission"declare that the failure to render a final decision within 45 days of a filing of a wireless siting application proposing to collocate on an existing facility constitutes a failure to act for purposes of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v)."24 Moreover,the Petition requests that the Commission "declare that the failure to render a final decision on any other, non-collocation wireless siting application within 75 days constitutes a failure to act for purposes of Section 332(c)(7)(B)fey,25 Relatedly,the Petition asks the Commission to find that, if a zoning authority fails to act within the above timeframes, the application shall be"deemed granted."26 Alternatively, the Petition requests that the Commission establish a presumption under such circumstances that entitles an applicant to a court-ordered injunction granting the application unless the zoning authority can justify the delay 21 H. Second, the Petition requests that the Commission clarify that Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), which forbids State and local facility siting decisions that"prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services,"bars zoning decisions that have the effect of preventing a specific provider from providing service to a location. ' The Petitioner asserts that this provision prevents a local zoning authority from denying an application based on one or more carriers already serving the geographic area."' 12. Third, the Petition requests that the Commission preempt, under Section 253(a) of the Communications Act,310 local ordinances and State laws that automatically require a wireless service provider to obtain a variance before siting facilities." 13. On August 14, 2008, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB)requested Petition at 4. iv Id. at 8-13. The public interest goals identified by the Petition include nationwide wireless communications services for all Americans, universal service,advanced telecommunications services,broadband deployment, spectrum build-out,and public safety and E91 I. 10 Id. at 13. 21 Id. at 18(citing Citr of Ranchos Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 128(2005)(Breyer,J.,concurring)). 22Id at 19. '3 Id. at 20-23. 24 Id. at 24.11 _ Id. at 25-26. 26 Id. at 27-29. 17 Id. at 29-30. Id. at 30-35 (citing 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(11)). '0 Id.at 31-34. '0 47 U.S.C.§ 253(a). Petition at 35-37. 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 comment on the Petition." After a brief extension,comments were due on September 29, 2008, and replies were due on October 14, 2008." Hundreds of comments and replies were filed in response to the Public Notice, including comments from wireless service providers,tower owners, local and State government entities,and airport authorities 34 14. Industry commenters generally support the Petition in all respects.35 They argue that the Commission has the authority to interpret Section 332(c)(7)36 and that the Commission's definition of the reasonable timeframes for State and local governments to process facility siting applications will promote the deployment of advanced networks, including broadband." Wireless providers assert that without defined timeframes for State and local governments to process personal wireless service facility siting applications, they face undue delay in some localities." They further argue that timeframes are necessary so that they know when they should seek redress from courts for State and local governments' failure to act in a timely manner." They claim that the Petitioner's proposed timetables are fair and should be used to define the"reasonable period of time" for State and local governments to process facility siting applications in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii).41 15. State and local governments, as well as airport authorities, oppose the Petition. As an initial matter, they contend that Congress gave the courts,rather than the Commission,the authority to interpret Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act, and they cite statutory text and legislative history in support of their contention 4' Thus,they contend that the Commission lacks the authority to determine what is a"reasonable period of tune"and when a"failure to act"or a"prohibition of service"has occurred.'' State and local government commenters further argue that both "reasonable period of time" and "failure to act" have clear meanings, and that Congress deliberately used these general terms to "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment On Petition For Declaratory Ruling By CTIA -The Wireless Association To Clarify Provisions Of Section 332(c)(7)(B)To Ensure Timely Siting Review And To Preempt Under Section 253 State And Local Ordinances That Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals As Requiring A Variance, WT Docket No. 08-165, Public Notice,23 FCC Red 12198(WTB 2008). "Comments originally were due on September 15,2008, and replies were due on September 30,2008. Several interested parties requested additional time to submit comments and replies. While the WTB found that the requests had not established good cause for the full extensions desired,the WTB granted a short extension in order to permit interested parties additional time"to file more thorough and thoughtful comments,which should lead to a more s complete and better-informed record." Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Extension Of Time To File Comments On CTIA's Petition For Declaratory Ruling Regarding Wireless Facilities Siting, WT Docket No. 08- 165,Public Nolice,23 FCC Red 13386(WTB 2008). 31 See generullr WT Docket No. 08-165. The major commenters and the short forms by which they are cited are listed in Appendix A. Brief comments are not listed but are considered in this Declaratory Ruling. 35 See, eg.,Verizon Wireless Comments, AT&T Comments; Rural Cellular Association Comments;PCIA—The Wireless Infrastructure Association Comments. 36 See, e.g.,Sprint Nextel Comments at 8;T-Mobile Comments at 12; MetroPCS Comments at 5-6. 17 See, e.g., MetroPCS Comments at 6-7; NextG Networks Comments at 4. 3"See, e.g., Sprint Nextcl Comments at 4-5; Cal WA Comments at 2-3;T-Mobilc Comments at 6. 39 See, e.g.,Cal WA Comments at 4; Rural Cellular Association Comments at 4;T-Mobile Comments at 9-10. 40 See, e.g., Rural Cellular Association Comments at 4-5;T-Mobile Comments at 11-12;MetroPCS Comments at 7- 8. it See, e.g., NATOA ct al. Comments at 1-5& 9-11;California Cities Comments at 18-21; Fairfax County,VA Comments at 14-I5. 42 See. eg., Fairfax County,VA Comments at 14-15; California Cities Comments at 18-20; City of Dublin,OH Comments at 2-3; Coalition for Local Zoning Authority Comments at 10-1 1; NATOA et al. Reply Comments at 7-9. 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 � preserve State and local government flexibility to process applications within the typical timeframes based on the individual circumstances of each case."' These commenters also oppose either deeming an application granted in the event of a zoning authority's"failure to act"or establishing a presumption entitling an applicant to a court-ordered injunction granting the application 44 16. The Petitioner requests that the Commission apply Section 253(a)of the Communications Act to preempt local ordinances and State laws that automatically require a wireless service provider to obtain a variance before siting facilities. In addressing this request, State and local government commenters argue that Section 253(a)cannot be applied to such ordinances because under Section 332(c)(7)(A),"[n]othing in [the Communications] Act"outside of Section 332(c)(7) shall limit State or local authority over personal wireless service facilities siting decision S.4' The EMR Policy Institute (EMRPI)filed a Comment and Cross-Petition that, inter cilia, seeks a declaratory ruling relating to the Commission's regulations regarding exposure to radio frequency emissions.41 17. Since the filing of the Petition, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009(Recovery Act).4' The Recovery Act directs the Commission to create a national broadband plan by February 17,2010, that seeks to ensure that every American has access to broadband capability and establishes clear benchmarks for meeting that goal 4tl To this end, on April 8, 2009, the Commission initiated a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) seeking comment on the best approach to developing this Plan,the interpretation of key statutory terms, and a number of specific policy goals 41 Some commenters that filed in response to the NOI also filed their comments in the instant docket, arguing that the grant of the Petition will promote the availability of wireless broadband services.50 The Petitioner particularly notes that the delays experienced by wireless providers for wireless service facility siting applications are frustrating the deployment of wireless broadband services to millions of Americans.` - III. DISCUSSION 18. Under Section 1.2 of the rules, the Commission"may . . . issue a declaratory ruling tenminating a controversy or removing uncertainty."5, The Commission has broad discretion whether to 43 See, e.g.,NATOA et al. Comments at 12-14;City of Philadelphia Comments at 34; Florida Cities Comments at 2-4, 15-20;City of Dublin,OH Comments at 2-3;California Cities Comments at 13-16. 0.4 See, e.g., California Cities Comments at 17-21;NATOA et al. Comments at 15-18; SCAN NATOA Comments at I1-12. 45 See,e.g.,NATOA et al.Comments at 7;California Cities Comments at 23-24; Fairfax County,VA Comments at 3;Michigan Municipalities Comments at 2; N.C. Assoc. of County Commissioners Comments at 1-2. 46 See EMRPI Comments and Cross-Petition. "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,Pub. L.No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009)(Recovery Act). 48 Recovery Act§ 6001(k). 49 See gene-allr A National Broadband Plan for Our Future,GN Docket No.09-51,Notice o/Inquiry,24 FCC Red 4342(2009). 5n See CTIA Comments,GN Docket No. 09-51,at 15-19(filed June 8,2009); PCIA and The DAS Forum Comments-,GN Docket 09-51,at 5-6(filed June 8, 2009);CTIA Reply Comments,GN Docket No.09-51, at 13-15 (filed July 21,2009); Google Inc. Reply Comments,GN Docket 09-51,at 40-41 (filed July 21,2009). 5 1 CTIA Comments,GN Docket No. 09-51,at 18(filed June 8,2009). 5�47 C.F.R. § 1.2. 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 issue such a ruling.'' 19. Below, we address the three issues raised in CTIA's Petition. On the first issue,we conclude that we should define what constitutes a presumptively"reasonable period of time"beyond which inaction on a personal wireless service facility siting application will be deemed a"failure to act." We then determine that in the event a State or local government fails to act within the appropriate time period,the applicant is entitled to bring an action in court under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v). At that point, the State or local government will have the opportunity to present to the court arguments to show that additional time would be reasonable, given the nature and scope of the siting application at issue. We next conclude that the record supports setting the time limits at 90 days for State and local governments to process collocation applications,and 150 days for them to process applications other than collocations. On the second issue raised by the Petition, we find that it is a violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) for a State or local government to deny a personal wireless service facility siting application solely because that service is available from another provider. On the third issue, because the Petitioner has not presented us with any evidence of a specific controversy, we deny its request that we find that a State or local regulation that explicitly or effectively requires a variance or waiver for every wireless facility siting violates Section 253(a). Finally, we address other issues raised in the record, including dismissal of the EMRPI Cross-Petition. A. Authority to Interpret Section 332(c)(7) 20. Background. The Petition claims that the Commission has the authority to interpret ambiguous provisions in Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act by means of a declaratory ruling.14 Wireless providers support the Petition's assertion, arguing that the courts have upheld similar interpretive authority in other contexts. These commenters rely in particular on Alliance jor Communitv Media v. FCC," in which the Sixth Circuit upheld the Commission's establishment of a timeframe for local authorities to process cable franchise applications.'` 21. State and local government commenters disagree,arguing that the statutory text and the legislative history evince congressional intent to deny the Commission such authority." Specifically, State and local government commenters argue that in expressly preserving State and local government authority over personal wireless service facility siting decisions, subject only to the specific limitations stated in Section 332(c)(7), Congress withheld preemptive authority from the Commission." Accordingly, they argue that the Commission does not have the authority to interpret Section 332(c)(7). They contend that the legislative history of Section 332(c)(7)further demonstrates this intent, as Congress indicated that"any pending rulemaking concerning the preemption of local zoning authority over the placement, construction, or modification of CM[R]S facilities should be tenninated.i59 Other State and local government commenters assert that because the courts have exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes 51 See Yale Broadcasting Co. v. FCC,478 F2d 594,602 (D.C. Cir. 1973),cert. denied,414 O.S. 914(1973); Telephone Number Portability;BellSouth Corporation Petition for Declaratory Ruling and/or Waiver,CC Docket No.95-116,Order, 19 FCC Red 6800,6810 120(2004). 54 Petition at 20-24. 15 529 F.3d 763(6i"Cir.2008),cert. denied, 129 SCt.2821 (2009)("Alliance for Cormnunity Media"). "See, e.g., Sprint Nextel Comments at 8;T-Mobile Comments at 12; MetroPCS Comments at 5-6. 57 See. e.g.,NATOA et al.Comments at I-5 &9-11;California Cities Comments at 18-21; Fairfax County,VA Comments at 14-15. See, e.g.,NATOA et al. Comments at 1-5. Id. at 9-10(citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458,al 208)(NATOA emphasis removed). NATOA et al. argues that Congress did not mean to address only those rulemakings in play in 1996,but any future rulemakings on personal wireless service facility issues. Irl. at 10. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 arising under Section 332(c)(7)(except for those relating to RF emissions), Congress did not contemplate any role for the Commission in the State and local zoning approval process. Thus,they argue, the Commission lacks the authority to determine what constitutes a"reasonable period of time,""failure to act,"or"prohibiti[on of] the provision of personal wireless services."" 22. In its Reply,the Petitioner disputes the claim that Congress"left in place the complete autonomy of States and localities with respect to zoning."61 The Petitioner argues that"it is Congress that expressly inserted such federal concerns into the tower siting process, limiting traditional local authority, when it promulgated Section 332(c)(7)"in order to reduce delays and impediments at the State and local level 62 Accordingly, the Petitioner argues that the Commission's interpretation of Section 332(c)(7)does not contravene that section's reservation to State and local governments of authority to review personal wireless service facility siting applications to the extent not limited by Section 332(c)(7)." Moreover,the Petitioner counters in its Reply that the Petition is not a challenge to a specific siting decision;thus, Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v)'s requirement that all controversies regarding siting decisions (other than those involving RF emissions) should be heard in the courts does not apply here 64 The Petitioner also asserts that the Sixth Circuit's decision in Alliance for Community Media v. FCC rejected the argument that the Commission's implementation of a timeframe in the local franchising regime"improperly intruded on decisions left by Congress to the courts."65 23. Discussion. We agree with the Petitioner that the Commission has the authority to interpret Section 332(c)(7). Congress delegated to the Commission the responsibility for administering the Communications Act. Section I of the Act directs the Commission to"execute and enforce the provisions of this Act"in order to, suer alia, regulate and promote communication"by wire and radio" on a nationwide basis 66 Moreover, Section 201(b)of the Act authorizes the Commission"to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act."6J Further, Section 303(r) of the Communications Act states that"the Commission from time to time, as public convenience, interest or necessity requires shall ... [m]ake such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. . . ."6" Finally, Section 4(i) states that the Commission "may perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its function s."6 These grants of authority necessarily include Title III of the Communications Act in general, and Section 332(c)(7) in particular. 24. This finding is consistent with our decision in the Local Franchising Order, in which we 60 See, e.g.,Fairfax County,VA Comments at 14-15;California Cities Comments at 18-20; City of Dublin,OH Comments at 2;NATOA et al. Reply Comments at 7-9; Coalition for Local Zoning Authority Comments at to-1 I. 01 CTIA Reply Comments at 12. Id. at 12-13 (emphasis in original). 631d. The Petitioner also contends that it does not request that the Commission"condition or limit the scope of a zoning authority's review of a tower siting application,"or that the Commission"preempt a zoning authority's review of an application." Id. at 2. 641d. at 21-22. `"Id at 22. 06 47 U.S.C. § I51. fi7 47 U.S.C. §201(b). See also National Cable& Telecomm. Asc'n v. Brand X Internet Servs.,545 U.S. 967,980 (2005)("Congress has delegated to the Commission the authority to 'execute and enforce' the Communications Act, §151,and to `prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions' of the Act, §201(b)."). 6s 47 U.S.C. § 303(r). 69 47 U.S.C. § 154(i). R Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 held that the Commission has clear authority to interpret what it means for a local government to "unreasonably refuse to award"a franchise to a cable operator in Section 621(a)(1)of the Act."' That decision has been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Alliance for Community Media v. FCC. In that case,the court found that the Supreme Court's precedent in AT&T Corp. v.Iowa Utilities Board" controlled,and it held that the Commission"possesses clear jurisdictional authority to formulate rules and regulations interpreting the contours of section 621(a)(1)"pursuant to its authority under Section 201(b)to carry out the provisions of the Communications Act." The Court held that"the statutory silence in section 621(a)(1)regarding the agency's rulemaking power does not divest the agency of its express authority to prescribe rules interpreting that provision."" The same holds true here. Section 332(c)(7)falls within the Act; accordingly, the Commission has the authority to interpret it. 25. We disagree with State and local government commenters that our interpreting the limitations that Congress imposed on State and local governments in Section 332(c)(7) is the same as imposing new limitations on State and local governments. Our interpretation of Section 332(c)(7) is not the imposition of new limitations, as it merely interprets the limits Congress already imposed on State and local governtnents. Moreover,the legislative history does not establish that the Commission is prohibited from interpreting the provisions of Section 332(c)(7). The Conference Report states that"[a]ny pending Commission rulemaking concerning the preemption of local zoning authority over the placement, construction or modification of CM[R]S facilities should be terminated ,14 We read the legislative history as intending to preclude the Commission from maintaining a rulemaking proceeding to impose additional limitations on the personal wireless service facility siting process beyond those stated in Section 332(c)(7). Our actions herein will not preempt State or local governments from reviewing applications for personal wireless set-vice facilities placement,construction,of modification. State and local governments will continue to decide the outcome of personal wireless service facility siting applications pursuant to the authority Congress reserved to them in Section 332(c)(7)(A). Under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii), they may deny such applications if the denial is"supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. ,15 However, State and local governments must act upon personal wireless service facility siting applications"within a reasonable period of time"as defined herein,and must not prohibit one carrier's provision of service based on the availability of set-vice from another carrier, or applicants may commence an action in a Court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to Section 337(c)(7)(B)(v). 26. Moreover, we find that Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v)does not limit our authority to interpret Section 332(c)(7). Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v)states that"[a]ny person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government . . . may . . . commence an action in any court of 7 0 Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No. 05-311,Repm7 and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,22 FCC Red 5101,5128 11 54(2007)("Local Franchising Order') (interpreting Section 62Ila)(1)of the Act,which prohibits local franchising authorities from"unreasonably refas[ing] to award"competitive cable franchises,and holding that if a local franchising authority fails to act on an application for a local franchise within 90 days for an applicant that already has access to rights-of-way or 6 months for all other applicants,then an interim franchise will be deemed gramed until the franchising authority takes action on the application). " 525 U.S. 366(1999)(finding,inter alfa,that the Commission has the authority to carry out provisions of the Act, including the local competition provisions added by the Telecommunications Act of 1996). 12 529 F.3d at 773-74. Id. at 774. 74 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, 104th Congress, 2nd Sess. 208(1996). "47 U.S.C. $ 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 competent jurisdiction."J' State and local governments argue that Congress gave the courts, not the Commission,exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce Section 332(c)(7). This is the same argument that we rejected in the Local Franchising Order. In that decision,we held that"[t]he mere existence of a judicial review provision in the Communications Act does not, by itself,strip the Commission of its otherwise undeniable rulemaking authority."" The Sixth Circuit agreed,holding that"the availability of a judicial remedy for unreasonable denials of competitive franchise applications does not foreclose the agency's rulemaking authority over section 621(a)(1)."" Accordingly, the fact that Congress provided forjudicial review to remedy a violation of Section 332(c)(7)does not divest the Commission of its authority to interpret the provision or to adopt and enforce rules implementing Section 332(c)(7). B. Time for Acting on Facility Siting Applications 27. Background. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)of the Communications Act states that State or local governments must act on requests for personal wireless service facility sitings"within a reasonable period of time."79 Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v)further provides that"[a]ny person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act""0 by a State or local government on a personal wireless service facility siting application `may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction."" The Petition asserts that the Commission has the authority to and should define the timeframes by which State and local governments must process personal wireless service facility siting applications"' The Petition claims that in the absence of timeframes, it is unclear when a State or local government has failed to act tinder the statute. Thus, an aggrieved party wishing to challenge a State or local government's failure to act could miss the 30-day statute of limitations through no fault of its own."" The Petition proposes that the Commission declare that a State or local government has failed to act if it does not render a final decision on a collocation application within 45 days or on any other application within 75 days. The Petition asserts that the Commission should declare that, if a zoning authority fails to act within the prescribed timeframes, the application shall be"deemed granted.""' In the absence of such relief, the Petition argues, the lengthy litigation process would deprive the applicant of its ability to construct within a reasonable time, as provided by the statute."5 Alternatively,the Petition requests that the Commission establish a presumption that entitles an applicant to a court-ordered injunction granting the application, unless the local zoning authority can demonstrate that the delay was reasonable."° 28. State and local government commenters assert that both"reasonable period of tune"and "failure to act"are clear terms and that Congress used these general terms because it wanted State and local governments to process applications in the timeframes in which land use applications are typically processed. The Act and its legislative history, they contend, establish that the courts, not the '047 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). ' Local Franchising Order,22 FCC Red at 5129 11 56(2007). '"Alliance for Cmnrrntnitr Media,529 F.3d at 775 (finding that this conclusion was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Corp. v.Iowa Util Bd upholding the Commission's authority to issue rules governing the States' resolution of interconnection arbitrations). '047 U.S.C.�3321c)(7)(B)(ii). %047 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). Id, Petition at 20-24. ld. at 20. la.. at 27-28. /d. at 28-29. See id at 29-30. 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 �� Commission, should determine whether such processing is reasonable based on the individual facts in each case." They argue that some applications require greater time to consider than others,and that sufficient time is needed to compile a written record as required by Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)8"and to seek collaborative solutions with wireless providers and the surrounding communities impacted by the proposed wireless service facilities."9 Finally, they assert that rigid timeframes do not account for time to amend applications that are often incomplete when submitted by wireless providers, and may provide incentive for wireless providers to submit incomplete applications and to delay correcting them until the application is"deemed granted"(as proposed by the Petitioner)" 29. Wireless providers argue that the Commission has the authority to define"reasonable period of time"and"failure to act,"and that such definition is necessary because some State and local governments are unreasonably delaying action on their applications9' They further contend that without defined timeframes, it is unclear when governments have failed to act and when they may go to court for redress. Z They claim that the Petitioner's proposed timetables are reasonable" 30. State and local government commenters also urge the Commission to reject both the "deemed granted"proposal and the alternative presumption in favor of injunctive relief proposed in the Petition94 They argue that Congress directed applicants aggrieved by a failure to act to seek a remedy in court,and assigned to the courts the task of deciding the appropriate remedy."' Moreover, they assert, under the Petitioner's proposed regime, local governments would have no say over siting of facilities once an application is deemed granted,even where safety factors justify modification or rejection of the facility96 31. Sprint Nextel proposes that the Commission adopt the alternative remedy in the Petition. It argues that a presumptive grant is consistent with the Commission's approach in the Local Franchising Order, in which the Commission did not deem a franchise application granted,but provided for an interim authorization, upon the local government's failure to act upon an application in a timely fashion9' The Petitioner argues in its Reply that because a State or local authority's failure to act within a reasonable time is specifically declared unlawful under the statute, an automatic grant is appropriate. 32. Discussion. The evidence in the record demonstrates that personal wireless service providers have often faced lengthy and unreasonable delays in the consideration of their facility siting applications, and that the persistence of such delays is impeding the deployment of advanced and "'See, e.g.,NATOA et al. Comments at 12-14; City of Philadelphia Comments at 3-4; Florida Cities Comments at 2-4;City of Dublin,OH Comments at 2-3. ""47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)(denial of a personal wireless service facility siting application must be rendered"in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record"). 9 See, e.g., California Cities Comments at 13-16; Florida Cities Comments at 15-20. 90 See, e.g.,Fairfax County,VA Comments at 13;City of Bellingham, WA Comments at 1-2; Michigan Municipalities Convnents at 19-20. 91 See, e.g.,Sprint Nextel Comments at 4-5;Cal WA Comments at 2-3;T-Mobile Comments at 6-9. 9,See. e.g.,Cal WA Comments at 4; Rural Cellular Association Comments at 4-5;T-Mobile Comments at 9-10. 93 See, e.g., Rural Cellular Association Comments at 6;T-Mobile Comments at 11-12; MetroPCS Comments at 7-8. 94 See, e.g.,California Cities Comments at 17-21; SCAN NATOA Comments at I0-12. 9'See. e.g., Florida Cities Comments at 6; University of Michigan Comments at 3-4. 9B See, e.g.,Stokes County,N.C.Comments at 2. 9'Sprint Nextel Comments at 9-11 (cuing Local Franchising Order,22 FCC Red 5101, 5139(2007)). °N CTIA Reply Comments at 26. • 1 n�� Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 emergency services. To provide guidance,remove uncertainty and encourage the expeditious deployment of wireless broadband services, we therefore determine that it is in the public interest to define the time period after which an aggrieved party can seek judicial redress for a State or local government's inaction on a personal wireless service facility siting application. Specifically,we find that a"reasonable period of time"is,presumptively, 90 days to process personal wireless service facility siting applications requesting collocations,and,also presumptively, 150 days to process all other applications. Accordingly,if State or local governments do not act upon applications within those timeframes,then a"failure to act"has occurred and personal wireless service providers may seek redress in a court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days,as provided in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v). The State or local government,however, will have the opportunity to rebut the presumption of reasonableness.90 33. Need for Action. Initially, we find that the record shows that unreasonable delays are occurring in a significant number of cases. The Petition states that based on data the Petitioner compiled from its members,there were then more than 3,300 pending personal wireless service facility siting applications before local jurisdictions.1 ' "Of those,approximately 760 [were] pending final action for more than one year. More than 180 such applications [were] awaiting final action for more than 3 years.i10' Moreover, almost 350 of the 760 applications that were pending for more than one year were requests to collocate on existing towers, and 135 of those collocation applications were pending for more than three years.10' In addition, several wireless providers supplemented the record with their individual experiences in the personal wireless service facility siting application process. For example, Sprint Nextel asserts that the typical processing times for personal wireless service facility siting applications range from 28 to 36 months in several California communities.l0' Verizon Wireless asserts that "in Northern California, 27 of 30 applications took more than 6 months,with 12 applications taking more than a year, and 6 taking more than two years to be approved"; and that"in Southern California, 25 applications took more than two years to be approved,with 52 taking more than a year,and 93 taking more than 6 months."1 A NextG Networks describes delays of 10 to 25 months for its proposals to place facilities in public rights-of-way, and states that such delay occurred even when NextG Networks merely sought to replace old equipment.1 ' Moreover, two wireless providers offer evidence that the personal wireless service facility siting applications process is getting longer in several jurisdictions. For example, T-Mobile contends that in Maryland,the typical zoning process went from two months to nine months in four years and in Florida,from two months to nine months in two years.100 Verizon Wireless notes that in 99 We note that the operation of this presumption differs significantly from the Petitioner's alternative proposal that the Commission establish a presumption in favor of a court-ordered injunction granting the application. Under the approach we are adopting today,if a court finds that the State or local authority has failed to rebut the presumption that it failed to act within a reasonable time,the court would then review the record to determine the appropriate remedy. The State or local authority's exceeding a reasonable time for action would not, in and of itself,entitle the siting applicant to an injunction granting the application. See para. 39, intra. 100 Petition at 15. °11 Id (emphasis in original). 11"Id. The Petition claims that in "many jurisdictions"it was taking longer to obtain personal wireless service facility approvals than in prior years. Id. 111t Sprint Nextel Comments at 5. Sprint Nextel also notes problems with processing in a New Jersey community. Id. The California Wireless Association also describes several instances of delays that ranged from 16 months to two years in California. CalWA Comments at 2-3. 1114 Verizon Wireless Comments at 6-7. T-Mobilc also cites specific problems it encountered in four States. T- Mobile Comments at 7-9. Likewise,MetroPCS describes its experience with application processing delays in four jurisdictions. MetroPCS Comments at 8-12. ""NextG Networks Comments at 5-8. 106 T-Mobile Comments at 6. In its comments,T-Mobile also references a collocation application submitted in LaGrange,New York, that was denied following a lengthy review process,despite the fact that the existing tower (continued....) 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 the Washington, D.C. metro area, the typical processing time for new tower applications increased from six to nine months in 2003 to more than one year in 2008, and the processing of collocation applications increased from 15 to 30 days in 2003 to more than 90 days in 2008."" 34. This record evidence demonstrates that unreasonable delays in the personal wireless service facility siting applications process have obstructed the provision of wireless services.10" Many wireless providers have faced lengthy and costly processing. We disagree with State and local government commenters that argue that the Petition fails to provide any credible or probative evidence that any local government is engaged in delay with respect to processing personal wireless service facility siting applications,1p9 and that there is insufficient evidence on the record as a whole to justify Commission action.10 To the contrary, given the extensive statistical evidence provided by the Petitioner and supporting commenters,and the absence of more than isolated anecdotes in rebuttal,we find that the record amply establishes the occurrence of significant instances of delay.'" (...continued from previous page) was designed to accommodate multiple carriers and no height increase was required to hold the proposed installation. T-Mobile Comments at 26(Declaration of Sabrina Bordin-Lambert). T-Mobile appealed the denial to the U.S. District Court,and the Court ruled in favor of T-Mobile and issued a permanent injunction directing the town to issue all necessary approvals to permit T-Mobile's antenna collocation within 90 days. Omnipoint Communications, lne. e Taarn of LaGrange,No.08 Civ.2201(CM)(GAY)(S.D.N.Y.Aug.31,2009). As support for the injunction, the Court cited the town's specific actions that resulted in a lengthy,five-year delay that ultimately prevented T-Mobile from filling an important gap in service. Id. 117 Verizon Wireless Comments at 6. Moreover,both T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless provide information concerning pending applications. T-Mobile asserts that nearly one-third of its then 706 collocation applications had been pending for more than one year,and 114 of those had been pending for more than three years. T-Mobile Comments at 7. T-Mobile had 571 pending new tower applications,more than 30 percent of which had been pending for more than one year,and more than 25 of these applications had been pending for more than three years. Id. Verizon Wireless states that data it gathered"indicates that of the over 400 collocation requests reported as pending, over 300/,,of the requests [were] pending for more than six months."Verizon Wireless Comments at 6. In addition, it claims that"[o]f the over 350 non-collocation requests reported as pending,more than half of those applications[were] pending for more than 6 months,and nearly 100 of those applications[were] pending for more than one year."/d. 10s We note that very late in the process, Petitioner and its supporters submitted new evidence in the form of letters and affidavits from carrier representatives that discuss specific experiences. See Ex Parte Letter from Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President,Regulatory Affairs,CTIA—The Wireless Association,to Marlene H.Dench, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,WT Docket No. 08-165,filed November 10,2009,Attached Letters from Michael S.Giaimo,Thomas C. Greiner,Jr.,Scott P. Olson, Paid B.Albritton,and John W. Nilon,Jr., and Affidavit of Edward L. Donohue. NATOA and the Coalition for Local Zoning Authority responded that they have had no opportunity to respond to the substance of Petitioner's submissions,and suggested that the Commission should either strike CTIA's submission from the record or postpone action on the Petition until communities named in that submission have been served and given opportunity to respond.See Ex Parte Letter of Gerald L. Lederer, Counsel for NATOA and the Coalition for Local Zoning Authority,to Marlene Derrell, Secretary,Federal Communications Commission,WT Docket No.08-165,filed November 10,2009. We strongly encourage parties to submit relevant evidence as early as possible in the course of a proceeding,and preferably within the established pleading schedule,so that it may be subjected to the crucible of a response. Under the circumstances here,we do not give the record evidence contained in Petitioner's November 10 submission weight in our analysis. 100 NATOA et al.Comments at 22; Stokes County,N.C.Comments at I. Similarly,the County of Sonoma cites the proliferation of cell phones and towers as evidence that there is no problem and argues that the Commission should first investigate whether processing problems really exist. Sonoma Comments at 1. '"'See, c.g. Coalition for Local Zoning Authority Reply Comments at 5-7; SCAN NATOA Reply Comments at 2-6; California Cities Reply Comments at 6;NATOA et al. Reply Comments at 15. '1' The City of Philadelphia argues that the Petitioner's failure to identify and serve those local governments toward which its allegations are directed deprives those governments of a meaningful opportunity to verify or contest the (continued_..) 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 35. Delays in the processing of personal wireless service facility siting applications are particularly problematic as consumers await the deployment of advanced wireless communications services, including broadband services,in all geographic areas in a timely fashion.''2 Wireless providers currently are in the process of deploying broadband networks which will enable them to compete with the services offered by wireline companies.'" For example, Clearwire is deploying a next generation broadband wireless network for the 2.5 GHz band using the Worldwide Inter-Operability for Microwave Access(WiMAX)technology.14 Clearwire asserts that its WiMAX network will"provide a true mobile broadband experience for consumers, small businesses, medium and large enterprises, public safety organizations and educational institutions.i15 Similarly, we expect that the winners of recent spectrum auctions will need facility siting approvals in order to deploy their services to consumers.'ie At least one Advanced Wireless Service(AWS)licensee with nationwide reach already is implementing its new network in the AWS band.'" Moreover, in the 700 MHz band,the Commission adopted stringent build out requirements precisely to ensure the rapid and widespread deployment of services over this spectrum.'" State and local practices that unreasonably delay the siting of personal wireless service (...continued from previous page) Petitioner's allegations and deprives the Commission of a fair and full record. City of Philadelphia Comments at 2- 3. See also Coalition for Local Zoning Authority Reply Comments at 5;Greater Metro Telecom. Consortium et al. Reply Comments at 6. We agree that an opportunity for rebuttal is an important element of process before making a finding regarding any individual community's processes. Today's decision provides such an opportunity for rebuttal by establishing presumptively reasonable timeframes that will allow the reasonableness of any particular failure to act to be litigated. The record shows that the State and local government community has had ample opportunity to respond to the aggregate evidence that supports our decision. 11 2 See Petition at 8-10. "s The Petitioner has submitted a study which asserts that approximately 23.2 million U.S. residents and 42%of road miles in the U.S. do not currently have access to 3G mobile broadband services. It further estimates that approximately 16,000 new towers will need to be constructed and 55,000 existing towers will need to be augmented for both Code Division Multiple Access(CDMA)and Global System for Mobile communications(GSM)3G broadband services to be ubiquitous to U.S.consumers. CostQucst Associates, Inc., U.S. Ubiquity Mobility Study, April 17,2008 at 4, filed as attachment to CTIA Fx Parte,GN Docket No. 09-51, WT Docket Nos.08-165,08-166, 08-167,09-66(filed Aug. 14,2009). 14 Sprint And Clearwire To Combine WiMAX Busincsses, Creating A New Mobile Broadband Company,News Release,Sprint Nextel and Clearwire Corp., May 7,2008("SprindClearwire News Release"). See Sprint Nextel Corp.and Clearwire Corp.,Applications for Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses, Leases,and Authorizations, WT Docket No.08-94 and File Nos.0003462540 et al..Memorandum Opinion and Order,23 FCC Red 17570, 17619 11 128(2008)(approving Clearwire and Sprint Nextel's plan to combine their 2.5 GHz wireless broadband businesses into one company). 15 SprindClearwire News Release. Clearwire's wireless broadband service is now available in 14 markets. Clearwire Introduces CLEAR(TM) 4C WiMas Inler-nel Service in l0 New Ma kels, Press Release,Clearwire, Sept. 1,2009. 1 6 See Auction of Advanced Wireless Services Licenses Closes: Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 66, Report No. AUC-06-66-F, Public Notice,21 FCC Red 10521 (WTB 2006);Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 73, Public Notice, Report No. AUC-08-73-1(Auction 73), DA 08- 595(rel. Mar. 20,2008). 11 7 T-Mobile Comments at 2 (noting that unless it can expeditiously obtain approvals, its efforts to add high-speed services and expand coverage will be"significantly hampered"). '"See Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket No.06-I50; Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,CC Docket No. 94- 102; Section 68.4(a)of the Commission's Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones,WT Docket No. 01-309; Biennial Regulatory Review—Amendment of Parts 1,22,24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 03-264: Former Nextel Communications, Inc. (continued....) 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 facilities threaten to undermine achievement of the goals that the Commission sought to advance in these proceedings. Moreover,they impede the promotion of advanced services and competition that Congress deemed critical in the Telecommunications Act of 1996"y and more recently in the Recovery Act.'Z 36. In addition,the deployment of facilities without unreasonable delay is vital to promote public safety, including the availability of wireless 911, throughout the nation. The importance of wireless communications for public safety is critical,especially as consumers increasingly rely upon their personal wireless service devices as their primary method of communication. As NENA observes in its comments: Calls must be able to be made from as many locations as possible and dropped calls must be prevented. This is especially true for wireless 9-1-1 calls which must get through to the right Public Safety Answering Point ("PSAP")and must be as accurate as technically possible to ensure an effective response. Increased availability and reliability of commercial and public safety wireless service, along with improved 9-1-1 location accuracy, all depend on the presence of sufficient wireless towers."' 37. Right to Seek Relief Given the evidence of unreasonable delays and die public interest in avoiding such delays,we conclude that the Commission should define the statutory terms"reasonable period of time"and "failure to act"in order to clarify when an adversely affected service provider may take a dilatory State or local government to court. Specifically, we find that when a State or local government does not act within a"reasonable period of time"under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), a"failure to act"occurs within Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v). And because an "action or failure to act" is the statutory trigger for seeking judicial relief, our clarification of these terns will give personal wireless service providers certainty as to when they may seek redress for inaction on an application. We expect that this certainty will enable personal wireless service providers more vigorously to enforce the statutory mandate against unreasonable delay that impedes the deployment of services that benefit the public. At the same time, our action will provide guidance to State and local governments as to what constitutes a reasonable timeframe in which they are expected to process applications, but recognizes that certain cases may legitimately require more processing time.'" 38. By defining the period after which personal wireless service providers have a right to seek judicial relief,we both ensure timely State and local government action and preserve incentives for providers to work cooperatively with them to address community needs. Wireless providers will have the incentive to resolve legitimate issues raised by State or local governments within the timeframes defined as reasonable, or they will incur the costs of litigation and may face additional delay if the court (_.continued from previous page) Upper 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules,WT Docket No.06-169; Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, PS Docket No. 06-229;Development of Operational,Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal,State and Local Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010,WT Docket No. 96-86; and Declaratory Ruling on Reporting Requirement under Commission's Part I Anti-Collusion Rule,WT Docket No.07-166,Second Report and Order,22 FCC Red 15289, 15342-55 111; 141-177 (2007). "v Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104-104,Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 56, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (1996 Act). The 1996 Act amended the Communications Act of 1934. '10 See.supra note 47. NENA Comments at 1-2. We recognize that there are numerous jurisdictions that are processing personal wireless service facility siting applications well within the timeframes we establish herein. We encourage these jurisdictions to continue their expeditious processing of applications for the benefit of wireless consumers. 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 determines that additional time was, in fact, reasonable under the circumstances. Similarly, State and local governments will have a strong incentive to resolve each application within the timeframe defined as reasonable,or they will risk issuance of an injunction granting the application. In addition, specific timeframes for State and local government deliberations will allow wireless providers to better plan and allocate resources. This is especially important as providers plan to deploy their new broadband networks. 39. We reject the Petition's proposals that we go farther and either deem an application granted when a State or local government has failed to act within a defined timeframe or adopt a presumption that the court should issue an injunction granting the application. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) states that when a failure to act has occurred,aggrieved parties should file with a court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days and that"[t]he court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis."12' This provision indicates Congressional intent that courts should have the responsibility to fashion appropriate case-specific remedies. As the Petitioner notes, many courts have issued injunctions granting applications upon finding a violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B).124 However,the case law does not establish that an injunction granting the application is always or presumptively appropriate when a "failure to act"occurs.12' To the contrary, in those cases where courts have issued such injunctions upon finding a failure to act within a reasonable time, they have done so only after examining all the facts in the case.',' While we agree that injunctions granting applications may be appropriate in many cases, the proposals in personal wireless service facility siting applications and the surrounding circumstances can vary greatly. It is therefore important for courts to consider the specific facts of individual applications and adopt remedies based on those facts. 40. We also disagree with commenters that argue that the statutory scheme precludes us from interpreting the terms"reasonable period of tune"and"failure to act"by reference to specific timeframes. State and local government commenters assert that Congress used these general terms,rather than setting specific time periods in the Act, because it wanted to preserve State and local governments' discretion to process applications in the timeframes in which each government typically processes land use applications. They contend that this reading comports with the complete text of Section 332(c)(7)(13)(ii), which obligates the State or local government to act "within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed . . . taking into account the nature and.scope uf.such request."12' Moreover, these commenters rely upon the Conference Agreement, which states that"the tune period for rendering a [personal wireless service facility siting] decision will be the usual period under such circumstances"and that"[i]t is not the intent of this provision to give preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in the processing of requests,or to subject their requests to any but the generally applicable time frames for zoning decision[s].„121 12'47 U.S.C. $ 332(c)(7)(B)(v). 124 See Petition at 28; CTIA Reply Comments at 23-25. es We note that many of the cases the Petitioner cites involved not a failure to act within a reasonable time,but a lack of substantial evidence or other violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B). See, e.g.,New Par v. Cit,of Saginaw,301 F.3d 390, 399-400(6th Cir. 2002);Nat'l Tower. LLC v_ Plainville Zoning Rd ofAppeals,297 F.3d 14, 24-25 (Ist Cir. 2002); Preferred Sites. LLC v. Troup Cuunm,296 F.3d 1210, 1222 (1 I th Cir.2002). 12e See Tennessee ex rel. Wireless Income Props. v. Chattanooga,403 F.3d 392(6°i Cir. 2005); Masterpage Communications, Inc. v. Town of Olive. NY,418 ESupp.2d 66(N.D.N.Y. 2005). 127 47 C.F.R. C 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)(emphasis added). See NATOA et al.Comments at 14-15;California Cities Comments at 5-6; Fairfax County,VA Comments at 6-7; City of Dublin,OH Comments at 3;City of Grove City, Oil Comments at 3; Florida Cities Comments at 5-6;City of Burien,WA Comments at 4;Villagc of Alden,NY Comments at 3. H.R. Conf. Rep.No. 104-458, 104th Congress, 2nd Sess.208(1996). 16 Federal Cotmnunications Commission FCC 09-99 41. Particularly given the opportunities that we have built into the process for ensuring individualized consideration of the nature and scope of each siting request, we find these arguments unavailing. Congress did not define either"reasonable period of time"or"failure to act" in the Communications Act. As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held,the term"reasonable"is ambiguous and courts owe substantial deference to the interpretation that the Commission accords to ambiguous terms.'21 We similarly found in the Local Franchising Order that the term"unreasonably refuse to award"a local franchise authorization in Section 621(a)(1)is ambiguous and subject to our interpretation.'3' As in the local franchising context, it is not clear from the Communications Act what is a reasonable period of time to act on an application or when a failure to act occurs. As we find above, by defining timeframes in this proceeding,the Commission will lend clarity to these provisions,giving wireless providers and State and local zoning authorities greater certainty in knowing what period of time is"reasonable,"and ensuring that the point at which a State or local authority"fails to act" is not left so ambiguous that it risks depriving a wireless siting applicant of its right to redress. 42. Moreover, our construction of the statutory terms"reasonable period of time"and "failure to act"takes into account,on several levels, the Section 332(c)(7)(13)(ii)requirement that the "nature and scope"of the request be considered and the legislative history's indication that Congress intended the decisional timeframe to be the"usual period"under the circumstances for resolving zoning matters. First,the timeframes we define below are based on actual practice as shown in the record. As discussed below, most statutes and government processes discussed in the record already conform to the timeframes we define. As such, the timeframes do not require State and local governments to give preferential treatment to personal wireless service providers over other types of land use applications. Second,we consider the nature and scope of the request by defining a shorter timeframe for collocation applications,consistent with record evidence that collocation applications generally are considered at a faster pace than other tower applications. Third,under the regime that we adopt today, the State or local authority will have the opportunity, in any given case that comes before a court, to rebut the presumption that the established timeframes are reasonable. Finally,we have provided for further adjustments to the presumptive deadlines in order to ensure that the timeframes accommodate certain contingencies that may arise in individual cases, including where the applicant and the State or local authority agree to extend the time, where the application has already been pending for longer than the presumptive timeframe as of the date of this Declaratory Ruling, and where the application review process has been delayed by the applicant's failure to submit a complete application or to file necessary additional information in a timely manner.''' For all these reasons, we conclude that our clarification of the broad terms"reasonable period of time"and"failure to act" is consistent with the statutory scheme. 43. Timeframes Constituting a"Failure to Act". The Petition proposes a 45-day timeframe for collocation applications and a 75-day timeframe for all other applications."2 The Petition asserts that because no new towers need to be constructed, collocations are the easiest applications for State and local °0 Capital Network Svstem, lnc. v. FCC,28 F.3d 201,204(D.C. Cir. 1994). In this case the court stated: "[b]eeause 'just,' 'unjust,' `reasonable,' and 'unreasonable' are ambiguous statutory terms,this court owes substantial deference to the interpretation the Commission accords them." The court upheld the Commission's rejection of a competitive carrier's proposed tariff as patently unlawful because it was not"just and reasonable"under Section 201(b)of the Act. See also National Cable& Telecomm. Ass'n c. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. at 982-84 (finding that where a statute is ambiguous and the implementing agency's construction is reasonable,a federal court must accept the agency's construction of the statute,even if the agency's interpretation differs from priorjudicial construction). 1°Local F (117(hiving Order,22 FCC Red at 5130 T 58 (2007). "' See iolro paras.49-53. "' Petition at 24-27. The Petition claims that over 80 percent of carriers surveyed had had"some collocations granted within one week"and new builds"granted within 2 weeks." Petition at 16. 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 governments to review and,therefore,should reasonably be reviewed within a shorter period."' The Petitioner surveyed its members and found that collocations can take as little as a single day to review, and that all members responding had received zoning approvals within 14 days.'31 With respect to new facilities or major modifications,the Petitioner's members indicated that they had received final action "in as little as one day, with hundreds of grants within 75 days.s1' Wireless providers argue that the Petitioner's proposed timeframes are reasonable,"'and they rely upon State and local processes as evidence to support that conclusion."' Moreover,there is evidence from local governments that they are able to decide promptly personal wireless service facility siting applications. For example,the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, has processed personal wireless service facility siting applications within 13 days, on average, since 2000,"'and the City of LaGrande, Oregon, has processed applications on average in 45 days in the last ten years.' 9 44. While we recognize that many applications can and perhaps should be processed within the timeframes proposed by the Petitioner, we are concerned that these timeframes may be insufficiently flexible for general applicability. In particular, some applications may reasonably require additional time to explore collaborative solutions among the governments,wireless providers,and affected communities.1" Also, State and local governments may sometimes need additional time to prepare a written explanation of their decisions as required by Section 332(c)(7)(11)(iii),14' and the timeframes as proposed may not accommodate reasonable,generally applicable procedural requirements in some communities.14' Although,as noted above, the reviewing court will have the opportunity to consider such unique circumstances in individual cases, it is important for purposes of certainty and orderly processing that the timeframes for determining when suit may be brought in fact accommodate reasonable processes in most instances.'' "'Id at 24-25 14 Id. at 25. "'Id. at 26. All members responding to the survey reported receiving approvals for new facilities within 30 days. Id. i3e See. e.g., MetroPCS Comments at 12; Rural Cellular Association Comments at 6;NextG Networks Comments at 9-12. "'Sprint Ncxtcl Comments at 6-8(citing to South Dakota Public Utility Commission's model wireless zoning ordinance and Florida and North Carolina statutes);T-Mobile Comments at I 1-12(citing to the processing experienced by T-Mobile in Florida,Georgia,and Texas);MetroPCS Comments at 7-8 (citing to the processing experienced by MetroPCS in Delaware and Pennsylvania);NextG Networks Comments at 9-14(citing to North Carolina, Florida& Kentucky statutes). City of Saint Paul,Minnesota and the City's Board of Water Commissioners Comments at 10. City of LaGrande,Oregon Comments at 3. 10 Such collaborative processes are asserted to have led to improved antenna deployments. See, e.g.,California Cities Comments at 13-16. 14' Michigan Municipalities Comments at 14-19. 142 See, e.g-,Fairfax County,VA Comments at 7-10;City of Dublin, OH Comments at 3-4; Florida Cities Comments at 8-9. 143 California Cities note that the Commission previously rejected time limits for itself in a rulemaking concerning petitions filed pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v)because they would not afford the Commission sufficient flexibility to account for particular facts in a case. California Cities Continents at 8-10(citing Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v)of the Communications Act of 1934, WT Docket No. 97-192,Report and Order, 15 FCC Red 22821,22829-301 20 (2000)). The timeframes that we adopt account for the flexibility that may be needed to address different fact situations, while at the same time adhering to the important public interest in certainty discussed above_ 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 45. Based on our review of the record as a whole,we find 90 days to be a generally reasonable timeframe for processing collocation applications and 150 days to be a generally reasonable timeframe for processing applications other than collocations. Thus, a lack of a decision within these timeframes presumptively constitutes a failure to act under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v). At least one wireless provider, U.S. Cellular, suggests that such 90-day and 150-day timeframes are sufficient for State and local governments to process applications.14 46. We find that collocation applications can reasonably be processed within 90 days. Collocation applications are easier to process than other types of applications as they do not implicate the effects upon the community that may result from new construction. In particular, the addition of an antenna to an existing tower or other structure is unlikely to have a significant visual impact on the community. Therefore, many jurisdictions do not require public notice or hearings for collocations.145 For purposes of this standard, an application is a request for collocation if it does not involve a "substantial increase in the size of a tower"as defined in the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas.146 This limitation will help to ensure that State and local governments will have a reasonable period of time to review those applications that may require more extensive consideration. 47. Several State statutes already require application processing within 90 days. California and Minnesota require both collocation and non-collocation applications to be processed within 60 days.147 North Carolina has a tune period of 45 days for processing after a 45-day review period for application completeness (for a total of 90 days),"s and Florida's process is 45 business days after a 20- business day review period for application completeness (for a total of approximately 91 days, including weekends).149 Moreover,the evidence submitted by local governments indicates that most already are 1a4 U.S.Cellular Reply Comments at 2-3. las See, e. N.C. Gen. Stat.Ann. § 153A-349.53(a): Fla. Stat. Ann. § 365.172(12)(a)(I ha). 146 See T-Mobile Comments at 10-1 I. A"[s]ubstantial increase in the size of the tower"occurs if: (I)[t]he mounting of the proposed antenna on the tower would increase the existing height of the tower by more than 10%,or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet,whichcvcr is greater,except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas;or(2)[t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved,not to exceed four,or more than one new equipment shelter;or(3) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet,or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance,whichever is greater,except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via cable;or(4) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current tower site, defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site. 47 C.F.R.Part 1,App. B Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, Definitions, Subsection C. 147 Cal.Gov't.Code§§ 65950&65943 (assuming no environmental review is required; also has 30-day review period for completeness); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 15.99(permitting an additional 60-day extension upon written notice to applicant). 14n N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § I53A-349.52. 1'49 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 365.172. In addition,the State of Connecticut's Connecticut Siting Council stales that"most applications to approve a tower-sharing request are processed by our agency in four to six weeks." State of Connecticut's Connecticut Siting Council Sept. 24,2008 Letter at 2. 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 � processing collocation applications within 90 days. Of the approximately 51 localities that submitted information concerning their processing of collocation applications, only eight state that their processing is longer than 90 days. However, five of those localities indicate that their processing is within 120 days, on average. Based on these facts,we conclude that a 90-day timeframe for processing collocation applications is reasonable. 48. We further find that the record shows that a 150-day processing period for applications other than collocations is a reasonable standard that is consistent with most statutes and local processes. First,of the eight State statutes discussed in the record that cover non-collocation applications,only one State,Connecticut, contemplates a longer process.15' Nonetheless,the process in Connecticut is only 30 days longer than the timeframe set forth here.'S' The other seven States provide for a review period of 60 to 150 days.112 Second,of the processes described by local governments in the record, most already routinely conclude within 150 days or less. Approximately 51 localities submitted information concerning their processing of personal wireless service facility siting applications. Of those,only twelve indicate that they may take longer than 150 days. However, four of these twelve cities indicate that they generally process the applications within 180 days. Based on these facts, we conclude that a 150-day timeframe for processing applications other than collocations is reasonable. Accordingly,we do not agree that the Commission's imposition of the 90-day and 150-day timeframes will disrupt many of the processes State and local governments already have in place for personal wireless service facility siting applications.D3 49. Related Issues. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) provides that an action for judicial relief must be brought"within 30 days"after a State or local government action or failure to act.15' Thus, if a failure to act occurs 90 days(for a collocation) or 150 days(in other cases) after an application is filed,any court action must be brought by day 120 or 180 on penalty of losing the ability to sue. We conclude that a rigid application of this cutoff to cases where the parties are working cooperatively toward a consensual resolution would be contrary to both the public interest and Congressional intent. Accordingly, we clarify that a"reasonable period of time"may be extended beyond 90 or 150 days by mutual consent of the personal wireless service provider and the State or local government, and that in such instances,the commencement of the 30-day period for filing suit will be tolled. 50. To the extent existing State statutes or local ordinances set different review periods than we do here, we clarify that our interpretation of Section 332(c)(7)is independent of the operation of these 150 See Conn. Gen. Stat.Ann. §§ 16-50(i)&(p)(action required within 180 days after application is filed). 151 Moreover,the State of Connecticut,Connecticut Siting Council states that"applications to approve a new-build tower are generally reviewed and acted upon in four to five months." Stale of Connecticut's Connecticut Siting Council Sept.24,2008 Letter at 2. 15'The State of California requires applications to be processed within 60 days,after a 30-day review period for completeness,assuming no environmental review is required. Cal.Gov't.Code §§ 65950&65943. The State of Florida requires applications to be processed within 90 business days,after a 20-business day review period for completeness. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 365.172. The State of Minnesota requires applications to be processed within 60 days,which can be extended an additional 60 days upon written notice to the applicant. Minn. Stat. Ann. § 15.99. The State of Oregon requires applications to be processed within 120 days,after a 30-day review period for completeness. Or.Rev. Slat. §227.178. The Commonwealth of Virginia requires applications to be processed within 90 days,which can be extended an additional 60 days. Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2232. The Slate of Washington requires applications to be processed within 120 days,after a 28-day review period for completeness. Wash. Rev.Code§§ 36.70B.080& 36.70B.070. The State of Kentucky requires applications to be processed within 60 days. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 100.987. 1"See, e-,,,-. California Cities Comments at 10-12; Fairfax County, VA Comments at 7-10; City of Dublin,OH Comments at 3-4; Michigan Municipalities Comments at 11-14. 1"47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 � statutes or ordinances. Thus,where the review period in a State statute or local ordinance is shorter than the 90-day or 150-day period, the applicant may pursue any remedies granted under the State or local regulation when the applicable State or local review period has lapsed. However, the applicant must wait until the 90-day or 150-day review period has expired to bring suit for a"failure to act"under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v). Conversely, if the review period in the State statute or local ordinance is longer than the 90-day or 150-day review period,the applicant may bring suit under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v)after 90 days or 150 days, subject to the 30-day limitation period on filing,and may consider pursuing any remedies granted under the State or local regulation when that applicable time limit has expired. Of course, the option is also available in these cases to toll the period under Section 332(c)(7)by mutual consent. 51. We further conclude that given the ambiguity that has prevailed until now as to when a failure to act occurs, it is reasonable to give State and local governments an additional period to review currently pending applications before an applicant may file suit. Accordingly, as a general rule, for currently pending applications we deem that a"failure to act"will occur 90 days(for collocations)or 150 days (for other applications)after the release of this Declaratory Ruling. We recognize, however,that some applications have been pending for a very long period, and that delaying resolution for an additional 90 or 150 days may impose an undue burden on the applicant. Therefore, a party whose application has been pending for the applicable timeframe that we establish herein or longer as of the release date of this Declaratory Ruling may, after providing notice to the relevant State or local government,file suit under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) if the State or local government fails to act within 60 days from the date of such notice. The notice provided to the State or local government shall include a copy of this Declaratory Ruling. This option does not apply to applications that have currently been pending for less than 90 or 150 days,and in these instances the State m local government will have 90 or 150 days from the release of this Declaratory Ruling before it will be considered to have failed to act. We find that this transitional regime best balances the interests of applicants in finality with the needs of State and local governments for adequate time to implement our interpretation of Section 332(c)(7). 52. Finally,certain State and local government commenters argue that the timeframes should take into account that not all applications are complete as filed and that applicants do not always file necessary additional information in a timely manner." MetroPCS does not contest this argument, but it further proposes that local authorities should be required to notify applicants of incomplete applications within three business days and to inform the applicant what additional information should be submitted.S" The Petitioner supports MetroPCS's proposal."' We concur that the timeframes should take into account whether applications are complete. Accordingly,we find that when applications are incomplete as filed, the timeframes do not include the time that applicants take to respond to State and local governments' requests for additional information. We also find that reviewing authorities should be bound to notify applicants within a reasonable period of time that their applications are incomplete. It is important that State and local governments obtain complete applications in a timely manner, and our finding here will provide the incentive for wireless providers to file complete applications in a timely fashion. 53. Five State statutes discussed in the record specify a period for a review of the applications for completeness. The State of Florida requires an application to be reviewed within 20 See, e.g., Fairfax County,VA Comments at 13;City of Bellingham,WA Comments at 1-2; Michigan Municipalities Comments at 19-20; Stokes County,N.C. Comments at I (complete application should be required); Florida Cities Comments at 8-9(wireless companies should also be held to timelines for responding to requests from localities concerning siting applications). ''°MetroPCS Comments at 12. MetroPCS also proposes that the zoning authority should be conclusively deemed to have accepted the tiling as complete if it does not respond within three days. CTIA Reply Comments at 18. 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 business days for determining whether it is complete;"'the State of Washington requires review within 28 days;15'the States of California and Oregon require review within 30 days,""and the State of North Carolina requires review within 45 days.11 Considering this evidence as a whole, a review period of 30 days gives State and local governments sufficient time for reviewing applications for completeness, while protecting applicants from a last minute decision that applications should be denied as incomplete. Accordingly,we conclude that the time it takes for an applicant to respond to a request for additional information will not count toward the 90 or 150 days only if that State or local government notifies the applicant within the first 30 days that its application is incomplete. We find that the total amount of time, including the review period for application completeness, is generally consistent with those States that specifically include such a review period. C. Prohibition of Service by a Single Provider 54. Background The Petitioner next asks the Commission to conclude that State or local regulation that effectively prohibits one carrier from providing service because service is available from one or more other carriers violates Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)of the Act.112 The Petitioner contends that the Act does not define what constitutes a prohibition of service for purposes of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(1I)."' The Petitioner asserts that Circuit court decisions have interpreted this provision in a number of different ways, including so as to allow the denial of an application so long as a single wireless provider serves the area,thereby creating a need for the Commission to interpret it 114 The Petitioner argues that its position is consistent with the pro-competitive goals of the 1996 Telecommunications Act,and further,that the provision refers to personal wireless services in the plural, which cuts against a single provider interpretation."' Similarly, Section 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(I) bars unreasonable discrimination among providers,also suggesting a preference for multiple providers.161 In addition to supporting the Petitioner's argument,numerous wireless providers assert that if local zoning authorities could deny siting applications whenever another carrier serves the area, competition as intended by the 1996 Act and the introduction of new technologies would be impeded, and E91 I service and public safety could be impacted."' 55. Parties opposing the Petition argue that if, as the Petition suggests, there are local governments that deny applications solely because of coverage by another provider,the affected provider can, as courts have recognized, bring a claim of unreasonable discrimination.161 Opponents also argue ""See Fla. Stat. Ann. §365.172(providing for a 20-business day review for application completeness,then a 45- business day period for collocation application processing and a 90-business day period for all other application processing). 1iB Wash. Rev.Code§§ 36.70B.080&36.70B.070(providing for a 28-day review for application completeness, then a 120-day period for application processing). la°Cal. Gov't.Code§§ 65943&65950(providing for a 30-day review for application completeness,then a 60-day Pei iod for application processing assuming there are no environmental issues);Or. Rev. Stat §227.178(providing for a 30-day review for application completeness,then a 120-day period for application processing). 16 1 N.C. Gen. Stat Ann. § 153A-349.52 (providing for a 45-day review for application completeness,then a 45-day period for collocation application processing). "' Petition at 30-35. 163/d. at 30. 164 Id. at 31. 16'Id.at 31-32. 166 Id.at 32. 16r See,e.g., Sprint Nextel Comments at I I-12;T-Mobile Comments at 13-14; NextG Networks Comments at 14-15. ""See NATOA et al.Comments m 20. 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 that the Petition fails to provide any credible or probative evidence of a prohibition on the ability of any provider to provide services."' Commenters also argue that granting the Petition would limit State and local authorities' ability to regulate the location of facilities."' One opposition commenter suggests that because the interpretation advanced in the Petition would appear to prevent localities from considering the presence of service by other carriers in evaluating an additional carrier's application for an antenna site, granting this request could have a negative impact on airports by increasing the number of potential obstructions to air navigation."' Finally, one commenter argues that because Section 332(c)(7)(A)17 2 states that the zoning authority of a State or local government over personal wireless service facilities is only limited by the specific exceptions provided in Section 332(c)(7)(B), and because Section 332(c)(7)(B)does not say that a zoning authority cannot consider the presence of other providers, the Commission may not impose such a limitation."' 56. Discussion. We conclude that a State or local government that denies an application for personal wireless service facilities siting solely because"one or more carriers serve a given geographic market"174 has engaged in unlawful regulation that"prohibits or ha[s] the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services,"within the meaning of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). Initially,we note that courts of appeals disagree on whether a State or local policy that denies personal wireless service facility siting applications solely because of the presence of another carrier should be treated as a siting regulation that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting such services.1' Thus,a controversy exists that is appropriately resolved by declaratory ruling.1' We agree with the Petitioner that the fact that another carrier or carriers provide service to an area is an inadequate defense under a claim that a prohibition exists, and we conclude that any other interpretation of this provision would be inconsistent with the Telecommunications Act's procompetitive purpose. 57. Section 332(c)(7)(11)(i)(II)provides, as a limitation on the statute's preservation of local zoning authority, that a State or local government regulation of personal wireless facilities"shall not 16'ld. at 22. See,e.g.,City of Auburn, WA Comments at 3;City of ScaTac,WA Comments at 2. See North Carolina Department of Transportation's Division of Aviation Comments at 2. 1e 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A)(stating"[e]xcept as provided in this paragraph,nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction,and modification of personal wireless service facilities."). "'See County of Albemarle,VA Comments at 8-9. '74 Petition at 32. "`Some courts of'appeals have found no violation of the"effect of prohibiting"clause solely because another carrier is providing service. See APT Pittsburgh L.P. v. Penn Township Butler County of Pa., 196 F.3d 469,480(3d Cir. 1999)("evidence that the area the new facility will serve is not already served by another provider"essential to showing violation"effect of prohibiting"clause);AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc.v. City Council of Va. Beach, 155 F.3d 423,428-29(4"'Cir. 1998)(concluding that the statute only applies when the State or local authority has adopted a blanket ban on wireless service facilities). Other courts of appeals have reached the opposite conclusion. See Second Generation Properties, L.P. v. Town ofPeUmm,313 F.3d 620, 633-34(1"Cir.2002)(rejecting a rule that "any service equals no effective prohibition"); MeiroPCS, hu. v. Cim and Coun(v of Francisco,400 F.3d 715, 731-33 (9i'Cit.2005)(adopting the First Circuit's analysis). "r'See 47 C.F.R.§ 1.2; National Cable& Teleconnn. Assn v. Brand X Internet Servs., 125 S.Ct.at 2700("A court's priorjudicial construction of a statute trumps an agency construction otherwise entitled to Chevron deference only if the prior court decision holds that its construction follows from the unambiguous terms of the statute and thus leaves no room for agency discretion"). None of the courts of appeals has held that the meaning of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(ll)is unambiguous. See, e.g., Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., v. City o/Cranston, No. 08-2491 (1"Cir. November 3,2009)("Beyond the statute's language,the[Communications Act]provides no guidance on what constitutes an effective prohibition,so courts _. have added judicial gloss"). 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.""' While we acknowledge that this provision could be interpreted in the manner endorsed by several courts—as a safeguard against a complete ban on all personal wireless service within the State or local jurisdiction, which would have no further effect if a single provider is permitted to provide its service within the jurisdiction—we conclude that under the better reading of the statute,this limitation of State/local authority applies not just to the first carrier to enter into the market,but also to all subsequent entrants. 58. We reach this conclusion for several reasons. First,our interpretation is consistent with the statutory language referring to the prohibition of"the provision of personal wireless services"rather than the singular term"service." As the First Circuit observed, "[a] straightforward reading is that `services' refers to more than one carrier. Congress contemplated that there be multiple carriers competing to provide services to consumers.""" 59. Second, an interpretation that would regard the entry of one carrier into the locality as mooting a subsequent examination of whether the locality has improperly blocked personal wireless services ignores the possibility that the first carrier may not provide service to the entire locality,and a zoning approach that subsequently prohibits or effectively prohibits additional carriers therefore may leave segments of the population unserved or underserved."' In the words of the First Circuit, the"fact that some carrier provides some service to some consumers does not in itself mean that the town has not effectively prohibited services to other consumers."'"n Such action on the part of the locality would contradict the clear intent of the statute. 60. Third, we find unavailing the reasons cited by the Fourth Circuit(and some other courts) to support the interpretation that the statute only limits localities from prohibiting all personal wireless services(i.e.,a blanket ban or"one-provider"approach). The Fourth Circuit's principal concern was that giving each carrier an individualized right under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(11) to contest an adverse zoning decision as an unlawful prohibition of its service"would effectively nullify local authority by mandating approval of all (or nearly all) applications.""' As explained below, however, our interpretation of the statute does not mandate such approval and therefore does not strip State and local authorities of their Section 332(c)(7) zoning rights. Rather, we construe the statute to bar State and local authorities from prohibiting the provision of services of individual carriers solely on the basis of the presence of another carrier in the jurisdiction; State and local authority to base zoning regulation on other grounds is left intact by this ni ing. 61. Finally,our construction of the provision achieves a balance that is most consistent with the relevant goals of the Communications Act. In promoting the construction of nationwide wireless networks by multiple carriers, Congress sought ultimately to improve service quality and lower prices for consumers. Our interpretation in this Declaratory Ruling promotes these statutory objectives more effectively than the alternative, which could perpetuate significant coverage gaps within any individual "'47 U.S.C. $ 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(I1). "s Second Generation Properties, L.P. v. Town of Pelham,313 Fad at 634. "s To the extent a wireless carrier has gaps in its service,a zoning restriction that bars additional carriers will cement those gaps in place and effectively prohibit any consumer from receiving service in those areas. If the gap is large enough,the people living in the gap area who tend to travel only shorter distances from home will be left without a usable service altogether. According to the First Circuit,the presence of the one carrier in the jurisdiction therefore does not end the inquiry under Section 332(c)(7)(13): "That one carrier provides some service in a geographic gap should not lead to abandonment of examination of the effect on wireless services for other carriers and their customers." Second Gencrulion Properties, L.P v. Tonn olPelham. 313 F.3d at 634. 1 sn/d 181 AT&T Wireless PCS v. Cin Comic il0/ Vo. Beach. 155 Fad at 428. 74 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 wireless provider's service area and, in turn, diminish the service provided to their customers.", In addition, under the Fourth Circuit's approach,competing providers may find themselves barred from entering markets to which they would have access under our interpretation of the statute, thus depriving consumers of the competitive benefits the Act seeks to foster. As the First Circuit recently stated,the "one-provider rule""prevents customers in an area from having a choice of reliable carriers and thus undermines the [Act's] goal to improve wireless service for customers through industry competition."'"' In sum,our rejection of this rule"actually better serves both individual consumers and the policy goals of the [Communications Act].,,114 62. Our determination also serves the Act's goal of preserving the State and local authorities' ability to reasonably regulate the location of facilities in a manner that operates in harmony with federal policies that promote competition among wireless providers."' As we indicated above, nothing we do here interferes with these authorities' consideration of and action on the issues that traditionally inform local zoning regulation. Thus,where a bona fide local zoning concern,rather than the mere presence of other carriers, drives a zoning decision, it should be unaffected by our ruling today. The Petitioner appears to recognize this when it states that it"does not seek a ruling that zoning authorities are prohibited from favoring collocation over new facilities where collocation is appropriate."186 Our ruling here does not create such a prohibition. To the contrary,we would observe that a decision to deny a personal wireless service facility siting application that is based on the availability of adequate collocation opportunities is not one based solely on the presence of other carriers,and so is unaffected by our interpretation of the statute in this Declaratory Riding. 63. We disagree with the assertion that granting the petition could have a negative impact on airports by increasing the number of potential obstructions to air navigation."' As the Federal Aviation Administration notes,our action on this Petition does not alter or amend the Federal Aviation Administration's regulatory requirements and process.'" Under the Commission's rules as well, parties are required to submit for Federal Aviation Administration review all antenna structuresj"9 that potentially can endanger air navigation, including those near airports.190 The Commission requires antenna structures that exceed 200 feet in height above ground or which require special aeronautical study to be painted and lighted191 and also requires antenna structures to conform to the Federal Aviation Administration's painting and lighting recommendations."' 64. We reject the assertion that the declaration the Petitioner seeks would violate Section '"2 See MetroPCS.Inc. v. City and County ql San Francisco, 400 F.3d at 732(result of"one-provider"interpretation is"a crazy patchwork quilt of intermittent coverage ... [that]might have the effect of driving the industry toward a single carrier,"quoting Second Generation Properties, L.P. v. Town of Pelham,313 F.3d at 63 1). 193 On impoint Holdings, Inc., v. City of Cranston(citing Second Generation Properties. L.P. v. Tou n of'Miami, 313 F.3d at 631,633). 184 Mc'nroPCS. Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d at 722. 185 See,e.g.,Cityof Auburn, WA Comments at 3;City of SeaTac,WA Comments at 2. 8 6 CTIA Reply Comments at 29-30(emphasis removed). I"7 See North Carolina Department of Transportation's Division of Aviation Comments at 2. 188 See FAA Comments at 1. 189 Section 17.2(a)of the rules defines"antenna structure"as including"the radiating and/or receive system,its supporting structures and any appurtenances mounted thereon." 47 C.F.R. § 17.2(a). "See 47 C.F.R. § 17.7. 191 See 47 C.F.R. § 17.21. 19'See 47 C.FA. § 17.23. 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 � 332(c)(7)(A).193 Subparagraph(A)states that the authority of a State or local government over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities is limited only by the limitations imposed in subparagraph(B).194 Because the Petition requests that the Commission clarify one of the express limitations of Section 332(c)(7)(B)—i.e.,whether reliance solely on the presence of other carriers effectively operates as a prohibition under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(11)— we find that the Petitioner is not seeking an additional limitation beyond those enumerated in subparagraph(B). 65. In addition,opponents argue that denial of a single application is insufficient to demonstrate a violation of the"effect of prohibiting"clause.19' Circuit courts have generally been hesitant to find that denial of a single application demonstrates such a violation, but to varying degrees, they allow for that possibility.'16 We note that the denial of an application may sometimes establish a violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) if it demonstrates a policy that has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services as interpreted herein. Whether the denial of a single application indicates the presence of such a policy will be dependent on the facts of the particular case. D. Ordinances Requiring Variances 66. Background. In its Petition, CTIA requests that the Commission preempt,under Section 253(a)of the Act,19' local ordinances and State laws that effectively require a wireless service provider to obtain a variance,regardless of the type and location of the proposal,before siting facilities.'9" It asks the Commission to declare that any ordinance automatically imposing such a condition is"an impermissible barrier to entry under Section 253(a)"and is therefore preempted.1Y' To support such action, CTIA provides two examples of zoning limitations in a"New Hampshire community"and a"Vermont community-that it claims in effect require carriers to obtain a special variance.211 Wireless providers that address this issue agree with the Petition, arguing that the variance process sets a high evidentiary bar which diminishes the wireless providers' prospects of gaining approval to site facilities 2"' Many other commenting parties are opposed to the Petition's request and assert, for example, that Section 332(c)(7) is 193 See County of Albemarle, Virginia Comments at 8-9. 194 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(A). 195 See NATOA et al.Comments at 19-20; Coalition for Local Zoning Authority Comments at 1 I. 190 See,e.g., Town of Amhcrst. N.H. v. Omnipoint Convnunieations Enterprises, Inc., 173 Fad 9, 14(Is[Cir. 1999) ("Obviously, an individual denial is not automatically a forbidden prohibition violating the[effect of prohibiting clause].");APT Piushurgh L.P. v. Penn Township Butler County ofPa., 196 F.3d at 478-79("Interpreting the [Telecommunications Act's] 'effect of prohibiting' clause to encompass every individual zoning denial simply because it has the effect of precluding a specific provider from providing wireless services,however,would give the [Act]preemptive effect well beyond what Congress intended. . . . This does not mean,however,that a provider can never establish that an individual adverse zoning decision has the 'effect' of violating[Section] 332(c)(7)(B)(iyll)."); MetroPCS, Inc. v. Ciq,and Coenvp of San 1-ancisco,400 Fad at 731 ("it would be extremely dubious to infer a general ban from a single[]denial"). See also T-Mobile,USA,Inc. v. City of Anacortes,572 F.3d 987,994-95 (9"Cir. 2009)(finding that because the city was unable to show that there were any available and feasible alternatives to T-Mobile's proposed site,the City's denial of T-Mobile's application constituted a violation of the effect of prohibiting clause under Section 332(e)(7)(B)(i)(II)). '97 47 U.S.C. § 253(x). 19"See Petition at 35-37. 191) Id.at 37; we also id. at 36("The FCC should declare that any ordinance that automatically requires a . . . variance . . . is preempted.. . 100 See id. at 36. 201 See, e;.. Sprint Ncxtcl Comments at 13-14; Cal WA Comments at 3; Rural Cellular Association Comments at 8; MetroPCS Comments at 13. 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 the exclusive authority in the Act on matters involving wireless facility siting.202 They maintain that Section 253 does not apply to wireless facility siting disputes involving blanket variance ordinances.203 rdinances203 67. Discussion. We deny CTIA's request for preemption of ordinances that impose blanket variance requirements on the siting of wireless facilities. Because CTIA does not seek actual preemption of any ordinance by its Petition;04 we decline to issue a declaratory ruling that"zoning ordinances requiring variances for all wireless siting requests are unlawful and will be struck down if challenged in the context of a Section 253 preemption action."")' CTIA does not present us with sufficient information or evidence of a specific controversy on which to base such action or ruling,206 and we conclude that any further consideration of blanket variance ordinances should occur within the factual context of specific cases. To the extent specific evidence is presented to the Commission that a blanket variance ordinance is an effective prohibition of service,then we will in that context consider whether to preempt the enforcement of that ordinance in accordance with the statute. We note that in denying CTIA's request, we make no interpretation of whether and how a matter involving a blanket variance ordinance for personal wireless service facility siting would be treated under Section 332(c)(7) and/or Section 253 of the Act 201 E. Other Issues 68. Service Requirements. Numerous parties argue that the Petitioner failed to follow the Commission's service requirements with respect to preemption petition S.201 Our rules require that a party filing either a petition for declaratory ruling seeking preemption of State or local regulatory authority, or a petition for relief under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v), must serve the original petition on any State or local government whose actions are cited as a basis for requesting preemption.21' By its terns, the service requirement does not apply to a petition that cites examples of the practices of unidentified jurisdictions to demonstrate the need for a declaratory ruling interpreting provisions of the Communications Act.210 Commenters'principal argument is that the Commission should require the Petitioner to identify the '02 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). 203 Several commenters argue that by using the sweeping phrase"nothing in this chapter,"Congress made clear that it intended Section 332(c)(7)to override any other provision in the Communications Act that may be in conflict, including Section 253. They further argue that CTIA's proposal to have the Commission broadly preempt any ordinances"effectively" requiring a variance directly conflicts with Congress' preservation of local zoning authority in Section 332(c)(7). See, e.g., NATOA et al. Comments at 7;California Cities Comments at 23-24;Fairfax County Comments at 3; Michigan Municipalities Comments at 2;N.C. Assoc. of County Commissioners Comments at 1-2. 204 See, e.g.,CTIA Reply Comments at 33 n.124. 705 Id.at 30. '06 Although the Petition identifies two examples that Petitioner describes as problematic,it does not represent that the ordinances explicitly require variances for all applications,nor does it attempt to demonstrate with any specificity why the examples effectively require variances in all instances. See Petition at 36(briefly describing ordinances of communities in Vermont and New Hampshire). '07 47 U.S.C. §§332(c)(7),253. "'"See,e.g.,Coalition for Local Zoning Authority Comments at 2-4; NATOA ct al. Comments at 21;Greater Metro Telecom.Consortium and City of Boulder,CO Comments at 2-3. 'p147 C.F.R. § 1.1206(a), Note 1. 110 We note that the Petitioner did belatedly serve the two local governments whose ordinances were described in the Petition as requiring variances; however,as discussed above,we deny Petitioner's request to preempt ordinances that require variances. See Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance,WT Docket No.08-165, Opposition to Motions,t'or Extension of Tune,at 3 n.7(filed Aug. 26, 2008). 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 jurisdictions that it references anonymously,which, they assert,would then trigger the service requirement. However,nothing in the rules requires that these jurisdictions be identified. We recognize, as commenters emphasize,that in the absence of identification it has not been possible for some local governments to respond to certain factual statements in the Petition,either directly or through their associations," ' and we take this into account in considering the weight we give to these assertions. At the same time, State and local governments have entered voluminous evidence into the record on their own behalf, including responses to several of the specific examples offered by the Petitioner. Accordingly,we conclude that the record is sufficient to address the Petitioner's claims. 69. Radiofrequency(RF)Emissions. Several commenters argue that we should deny CTIA's Petition in order to protect local citizens against the health hazards that these commenters attribute to RF emissions.211 Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Act provides that"[n]o State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement,construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.i213 To the extent commenters argue that State and local governments require flexibility to deny personal wireless service facility siting applications or delay action on such applications based on the perceived health effects of RF emissions, this authority is denied by statute under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). Accordingly, such arguments are outside the scope of this proceeding. 70. In its Comments and Cross-Petition, EMRPI contends that in light of additional data that has been compiled since 1996, the RF safety regulations that the Commission adopted at that time are no longer adequate 314 EMRPI is asking us to revisit the Commission's previous decision that the scientific evidence did not support the establishment of guidelines to address the non-thermal effects of RF emissions 2" This request is also outside the scope of the current proceeding, and we therefore dismiss EMRPI's Cross-Petition. IV. CONCLUSION 71. For the reasons discussed above, we grant in part and deny in part CTIA's Petition for a Declaratory Ruling interpreting provisions of Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act. In particular, we find that a"reasonable period of time"for a State or local government to act on a personal wireless service facility siting application is presutttptively 90 days for collocation applications and presumptively 150 days for siting applications other than collocations,and that the lack of a decision within these timeframes constitutes a"failure to act"based on which a service provider may commence an action in court under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v). We also find that where a State or local government denies a personal wireless service facility siting application solely because that service is available from another provider, such a denial violates Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(11). By clarifying the statute in this manner,we recognize Congress' dual interests in promoting the rapid and ubiquitous deployment of advanced, innovative,and competitive services, and in preserving the substantial area of authority that Congress reserved to State and local governments to ensure that personal wireless service facility siting 111 See, e.g.,City of Philadelphia Comments at 2-3 (arguing that the failure of the Petitioner to identify and serve the localities discussed in its Petition denies the Commission a complete and fair record of the facts). "12 See, e.g., Catherine Kleiber Comments; E. Stanton Maxey Comments at I; Maria S. Sanchez Comments at 1-2; Miranda R. Taylor Comments at 1-2. 21347 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 14 EMRPI Comments and Cross-Petition at 4. 21�Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, ET Docket No. 93-62,Second Meno-anchun Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Ride Making, 12 FCC Red 13494, 13505'l 31 (1997), c ffd sub nam. Cellular Phone TaskJorce v. FCC,205 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000),cert. denied sub non. Citizens Jon the Appropriate Placement o7 Telecommunications Facilities v. FCC.531 U.S. 1070(2001). 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 occurs in a manner consistent with each community's values. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 72. Accordingly,IT IS ORDERED that,pursuant to Sections 4(i),40),201(b), 253(a), 303(r),and 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act of 1934,as amended,47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i),0), 201(b), 253(a), 303(r), 332(c)(7), and Section 1.2 of the Commission's rules,47 C.F.R. § 1.2, the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by CTIA—The Wireless Association IS GRANTED to the extent specified in this Declaratory Ruling and otherwise IS DENIED. 73. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that,pursuant to Sections 4(i),40),and 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act of 1934,as amended,47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), Q), 332(c)(7),and Section 1.2 of the Commission's rules,47 C.F.R. § 1.2,the Cross-Petition filed by the EMR Policy Institute IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 IInn APPENDIX A V� List of Participants in Proceeding Comments AT&T Inc. (AT&T) Air Line Pilots Association, International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Airports Council International-North America Alltel Communications, LLC American Legislative Exchange Council American Planning Association Arthur Firstenberg Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Aviation Council of Alabama Inc. Aviation Department,Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport B. Blake Levitt Bartonville,Texas Broadcast Signal Lab, LLC Cable and Telecommunications Committee of the New Orleans City Council California Wireless Association(CalWA) Carole Maurer and John Dilworth Cascade Charter Township, Michigan Catawba County Catherine Kleiber Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport Charleston County Planning Department, Charleston County, South Carolina Citizens Against Government Waste City of Airway Heights, Washington State City of Albany, California City of Albuquerque,New Mexico City of Anacortes, Washington City of Apple Valley,Dakota County Minnesota City of Arlington, Texas City of Auburn, Washington(City of Auburn, WA) City of Austin, Texas City of Bartonville, Texas City of Bellevue, Washington City of Bellingham, Washington(City of Bellingham, WA) City of Bloomington Minnesota City of Boca Raton City ofBurien, Washington (City ofBurien, WA) City of Champaign, Illinois City of Cincinnati,Ohio City of Columbia, South Carolina City of CoppelI, Texas City of Dallas, Texas City of Des Plaines,Illinois City of Dublin. Ohio (City of Dublin, OH) City of Dubuque 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 �l City of Evanston, Illinois City of Farmers Branch City of Gahanna, Ohio City of Golf Shores City of Grand Rapids City of Greensboro,North Carolina City of Grove City, Ohio(City of Grove City,OH) City of Gulf Shores,Alabama City of Hammond, Michigan City of Henderson,Nevada City of Houston, Texas City of Huntsville,Alabama City of Kasson, Minnesota City of Kirkland, Washington City of Lancaster,Texas City of LaGrande, Oregon City of Las Vegas, Nevada City of Longmont, Colorado City of Lucas, Texas City of New Ulm, Minnesota City of North Oaks City of North Ridgeville,Ohio City of Oak Park Heights City of Philadelphia City of Plymouth, Minnesota City of Prior Lake, Minnesota City of Red Wing City of Richardson Texas City of Rowlett Texas City of Saint Paul, Minnesota and the City's Board of Water Commissioners City of San Antonio, Texas City of Scottsdale City of SeaTac, Washington (City of SeaTac, WA) City of Sebastopol City of Tyler City of Walker, Michigan City of Wichita and Sedgwick County, Kansas Clear Creek County, Colorado Coalition for Local Zoning Authority City of Los Angeles,et al. (Coalition for Local Zoning Authority) Connecticut Siting Council, State of Connecticut County of Albemarle,Virginia County of Frederick, Virginia County of Goochland &Office of the County Attorney County of Sonoma (Sonoma County, CA) Craven County Board of Commissioners CTIA -The Wireless Association (Petitioner) Domagcj Vucic Donna G. Haldane DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference Elizabeth Kelley Evelyn Savarin FCC Intergovernmental Advisory Committee 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 K� Fairfax County,VA Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) Florida Airports Council Florida Department of Transportation GMTC-RCC George Heartwell,Mayor of City of Grand Rapids,Michigan Glenda Cassutt Goochland County,Virginia Grand County, Colorado Gray Robinson, P.A. Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium,et al. Incorporated Village of Laurel Hollow Iredell County, North Carolina Jill Koontz Kimberly Kitano La Grande, Oregon League of Minnesota Cities League of Oregon Cities Lee County Port Authority Louisville Regional Airport Authority Maria S. Sanchez Marilyn Stollon Marjorie Lundquist MetroPCS Communications, Inc. (MetroPCS) Michael C. Seamands Michigan Municipalities and Other Concerned Communities (Michigan Municipalities) Miranda Taylor Miriam Dyak Missouri State Aviation Council National Agricultural Aviation Association National Association of Counties (NACo) National Association of State Aviation Officials National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, National League of Cities,and United States Conference of Mayors(NATOA et al.) National Emergency Number Association (NENA) NextG Networks, Inc. (NextG Networks) North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (N.C. Assoc. of County Commissioners) North Carolina Chapter of the American Planning Association North Carolina Department of Transportation's Division of Aviation North Carolina League of Municipalities Northwest Municipal Conference NYC Council Member Tony Avella,Chair, Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee Olemara Peters Olmsted County Board of Commissioners Palm Beach County Planning,Zoning& Building Department PCIA—The Wireless Infrastructure Association and The DAS Forum Piedmont Environmental Council,Citizens for Fauquier County, Shenandoah Valley Network,and Appalachian Trail Conservancy Pinta County, Arizona Prince William County, Virginia Robeson Canty,North Carolina Rural Cellular Association 32 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 SCAN NATOA, Inc. (SCAN NATOA) San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union Sandi Maurer Sanford Airport Authority Soledad M. de Pinillos Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint Nextel) State of Connecticut Stokes County,North Carolina(Stokes County,N.C.) Susan Izzo Texas Municipal League The Colony, Texas The EMR Network The EMR Policy Institute (EMRPI) The League of California Cities,the California State Association of Counties, and the City and County of San Francisco(California Cities) The University of Michigan(University of Michigan) T-Mobile USA,Inc. (T-Mobile) Town of Alton,New Hampshire Town of Apex, North Carolina Town of Cary, North Carolina Town of Gilbert, Arizona Town of Grand Lake, Colorado Town of Matthews,North Carolina Town of Trent Woods United States Cellular Corporation (U.S. Cellular) Vamum,Riddering, Schmidt& Howlett, LLP Verizon Wireless Victoria Jewett Village of Bay Harbor, Town of Bay Harbor Islands, Town of Cutler Bay, City of Hollywood,City of Homestead, City of Miramar, City of Sunrise, City of Weston (Florida Cities) Village of Alden, New York(Village of Alden, NY) Village of Buffalo Grove Village of East Hills,New York Village of Hoffman Estates Village of Morton Grove Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois Village of New Albany, Ohio Village of Roslyn Estates (Nassau County, New York) Village of Round Lake Village of Skokie Wake County(North Carolina)Planning Department West Sayville Civic Association Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Department Reply Comments American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research Americans for Tax Reform Cable and Telecommunications Committee of the New Orleans City Council California Wireless Association (CaIWA) Citizens Against Government Waste City of Albuquerque, New Mexico 33 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 City of Cincinnati-City Planning Department City of New York City of Philadelphia City of San Antonio, Texas City of San Diego City of Texas City Coalition for Local Zoning Authority City of Los Angeles,et al. (Coalition for Local Zoning Authority) County of Fairfax,Virginia(Fairfax County) CTIA -The Wireless Association(CTIA Reply) Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium,et al. The League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties,and the City and County of San Francisco(California Cities) Montgomery County, Maryland National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors,National League of Cities, and United States Conference of Mayors(NATOA et al.) National Association of Towns and Townships NextG Networks,Inc. (NextG Networks) Ohio Township Association PCIA—The Wireless Infrastructure Association and The DAS Forum Rural Telecommunications Group, Inc. SCAN NATOA,Inc. (SCAN NATOA) United States Cellular Corporation (U.S. Cellular) Wisconsin Towns Association Verizon Wireless 34 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 APPENDIX B Section 332(c)of the Communications Act of 1934 (7)Preservation of local zoning authority (A) General authority. Except as provided in this paragraph,nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement,construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. (B) Limitations. (i)The regulation of the placement,construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (1) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (11)shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. (iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place,constrict, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. (iv)No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. (v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause(iv)may petition the Commission for relief. (C) Definitions. For purposes of this paragraph (i) the term"personal wireless services"means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services,and common carrier wireless exchange access services; (ii)the term`personal wireless service facilities"means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and (iii) the term "unlicensed wireless service" means the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 303(v)). 35 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI Re: Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions ofSection 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classes All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance,WT Docket No. 08-165. Wireless communication—mobile—has always been central to the FCC's mission. And mobile has never had greater potential to help address vital priorities—including generating economic growth, spurring job creation, and advancing national purposes like health care,education, energy independence, and public safety. We must ensure that America leads the world in mobile. Because mobile increasingly means broadband as well as voice, issues involving spectrum policy and wireless deployment will be important elements of our National Broadband Plan,due by February 17th, and we will hear more about that later today. But even as we work on a National Broadband Plan, we can and should move forward with concrete actions to unleash the opportunity of mobile. To that end, in August the Commission launched inquiries into how best to promote innovation, investment,and competition in the wireless industry, as well as how to protect and empower consumers of wireless and other communications services. In October, I outlined a Mobile Broadband Agenda that included as a key element removing obstacles to robust and ubiquitous mobile networks. And with today's Declaratory Ruling, the Commission moves forward on that agenda and takes an important step to cut through red tape and accelerate the deployment of next-generation wireless services. After years on the distant horizon, 4G networks are ready to move from the drawing board to the marketplace. One major provider has already launched 46 WiMAX service in select markets. Competitors have announced plans to debut LTE networks in major markets around the country beginning next year. The real winners here will be American consumers and businesses, who will soon be able to experience mobile broadband speeds and capacities that rival what many fixed broadband customers receive at home today. These new wireless networks will change how we communicate and how we engage in commerce. And they hold the promise of improving our quality of life. To take one example offered by the American Telemedicine Association in encouraging us to take the step we take today,next generation wireless networks will allow doctors to start using mobile technology to monitor and treat chronic illnesses like heart disease and to improve doctor-patient communications. Accelerating the deployment of these new networks is obviously a critical goal for the nation. But there is a lot of work that remains to be done before we can enjoy their benefits, and it won't be easy. We at the FCC understand the many challenges mobile operators face in turning engineering plans into actual networks of steel towers, antennas, silicon chips, and sophisticated electronics. We understand that sometimes the Commission needs to act, to establish clear rules of the road to reduce uncertainty and delay, spur investment, encourage innovation,and ensure that the benefits of advanced communications are available to all Americans. Today's ruling is one example of creating such rules. One challenge mobile operators face is getting timely zoning approvals from state and local officials before building towers or deploying new equipment. Recognizing this problem.Congress required these entities to act on such requests"within a reasonable period of time." Yet, despite Congress's strong statement, the record before us indicates that delays have continued to persist in too many states and localities. Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 b For example, at the time the petition was filed, of the 3,300 pending zoning applications for wireless facilities,over 760 had been pending for more than a year and 180 had been pending for more than three years. There is evidence that in certain jurisdictions the tower siting process is getting longer, even as the need for more towers and for timely decisions is growing. Today's Declaratory Ruling will help end these unnecessary delays and speed the deployment of 4G networks, while also respecting the legitimate concerns of local authorities and preserving their control over local zoning and land use policies. Our decision achieves this balance by defining reasonable and achievable timeframes for state and local governments to act on zoning applications-90 days for collocations and 150 days for other siting applications. 1 want to be clear that the process we establish does not dictate any substantive outcome in any particular case,or otherwise limit state and local governments' fundamental authority over local land use. It simply requires that they must reach land use decisions that involve wireless equipment in a timely fashion and be able to justify their conclusions to a federal district court if challenged,just as Congress specified. I should note that we reach today's Ruling in response to a petition brought by CTIA,the wireless industry's trade association, and I would like to acknowledge CTIA's role in bringing this important issue to the Commission's attention. The decision we reach today does not grant the full relief that the industry's petition seeks—for example, the petition argued for a shorter set of deadlines, and a requirement that zoning applications be"deemed granted"as soon as the deadlines expired. 1 believe that the timeframes we adopt today, and the requirement that parties seek injunctive relief from a court, are more consistent with preserving State and local sovereignty and with the intent of Congress. Nevertheless, I believe the rules we adopt today are amply sufficient to the task and will have an important effect in speeding up wireless carriers' ability to build new 4G networks—which will in tum expand and improve the range of wireless choices available to American consumers. Of course, we won't rely just on a belief that our rules are having the effects we intend. We will continue to monitor this area closely and ensure that the zoning process with respect to tower siting is operating in the way Congress intended. I would also like to thank the many able representatives of state and local governments who have worked with my office and the Wireless Bureau to ensure that today's ruling respects the legitimate needs and prerogatives of local land use authorities. And of course special thanks to Ruth Milkman and her hardworking staff in the Wireless Bureau for their excellent work on this item, and for striving to strike a smart and effective balance between the deployment and expansion of wireless networks and preserving state and local zoning authority. 2 /y Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS Re: Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clam Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classes All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance,WT Docket No. 08-165. Today's action makes a further down-payment on the objectives of the National Broadband Plan to ensure that all Americans have access to Twenty-first century communications. Wireless service is clearly going to play—is already playing huge role in delivering broadband to rural areas with the capability of offering connectivity where none exists today and mind-boggling new services to consumers as networks are upgraded. Building wireless broadband infrastructure—and building it expeditiously—is integral to our nation's success in too many ways to recount here this morning. Nor do we have to go beyond the obvious in pointing out how urgent it is to have tower infrastructure in place to support all this. Building new wireless towers and attaching additional antennae to existing towers generally require—and rightly so—State and local zoning approval. State and local governments are the ones best positioned to take into account the legitimate interests of citizens in their communities in often-complex zoning decisions. Congress, in enacting Section 332 of the Commrnications Act,preserved this important zoning role that State and local authorities play. At the same time, in order to encourage the expansion of wireless networks nationwide, Congress directed that zoning decisions be made"within a reasonable period of tithe,"allowing court review for failure to act within that timeframe. In today's decision, we seek to provide greater certainty to both State and local governments, as well as to the wireless industry, as to what constitutes a reasonable period of review for collocation and other tower siting applications. Based on the record and our interpretation of the statute, we clarify the point at which an applicant may seekshould it choose to do so court review where a State or local zoning authority has not acted. While we establish a presumption here, nothing in this decision reduces the authority of a court of relevant jurisdiction from assessing, based on the merits of any individual case, whether a zoning review of more than 90 days for collocation applications or 150 days for other tower siting applications is reasonable. I am a great believer in our federal system of government, and have not been shy in the past about opposing Commission action that unnecessarily encroached on the authority of State and local governments. It is for that reason that I strongly dissented from the 2006 Local Fran(hiring Order= which I thought went too far in usurping the authority of local franchising authorities without an adequately granular record tojustify such action. Additionally,the Commission announced in that previous decision that a cable franchise application pending for more than a given timeframe was deemed granted. Nothing subtle about that approach! We take no such actions today. Instead, we actually recognize the rights of State and local jurisdictions and also the importance of the courts. We refrain from dictating final outcomes. But we give an important boost to getting this important infrastructure building job done so that consumers may reap more of the blessings of the great potential of wireless technologies and services. That looks like a win-win-win to me. So I commend the Chairman for getting this important item to us, and I thank all my colleagues, and the Bureau, too, for their hard work and for listening to the concerns of all parties as we went about crafting today's ruling. It's fair and balanced for real and I am pleased to support it. rX Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT M.McDOWELL Re: Petition/or Declaratory Ruling to Clam Provisions ofSection 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classes All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance, WT Docket No. 08-165. In pursuit of helping to create more choices for consumers, 1 have long emphasized the importance of removing regulatory roadblocks to ease the ability of new entrants,and existing service providers, to build more delivery platforms for innovative services. For instance, 1 heartily supported the Commission's work to: free up the TV white spaces for unlicensed use, set shot clocks for local video franchise proceedings, and classify broadband services—no matter the platform—as unregulated Title I information services, to name just a few examples. Today we are taking yet another positive deregulatory step: We are promoting deployment of broadband, and other emerging wireless services, by reducing the delays associated with the construction and improvement of wireless facilities. I am pleased to support this declaratory ruling, and 1 thank Chairman Genachowski for his leadership in this area. Our riling strikes an elegant balance between establishing a deregulatory national framework to clear unnecessary underbrush, while preserving state and local control over tower siting. In creating deadlines for decisions on wireless siting requests—90 days for the review of collocation applications and 150 days for the review of other siting applications—we have both granted the industry greater certainty and provided our state and local colleagues reasonable periods for action, as well as the flexibility,to fully consider the nature and scope of a particular siting request. Put another way, our action eliminates unreasonable delay and uncertainty, the costs of which are passed on to wireless consumers, and allows our state and local colleagues the continued ability to safeguard the interests of their constituents. As we fashion a National Broadband Plan for Congress, we should continue to adopt simple initiatives to speed broadband deployment such as this one,which will help spur America's Internet economy, create jobs, and make us more competitive internationally. On a related point, in recent months, I have heard many in the wireless industry and elsewhere call for"more spectrum." Some have suggested a critical need for many hundreds of megahertz. 1 fully agree that identifying additional bandwidth for long-tern growth is a necessary and worthy endeavor, and I look forward to engaging in that effort. In the meantime, though, 1 hope that today's action—and the associated reduction in regulatory costs—will also free up capital that may be more effectively used to take better advantage of the immediate fixes already available in the marketplace. These include more robust deployment of enhanced antenna systems; improved development, testing and roll-out of creative technologies, where appropriate, such as cognitive radios; and enhanced consideration of,and more targeted consumer education on, the use of femto cells. Each of these technological options augments capacity and coverage, which are especially important for data and multimedia transmissions. In short, the Commission's action today will save the builders of tomorrow's broadband intrasu'ucture time and money. It is my hope that those two crucial resources will be used to squeeze more efficiency out of the airwaves while we undergo the slower process of identifying and bringing more spectrum to market. Accordingly, I eagerly anticipate learning more about the benefits that our decision today has on technological improvements and,ultimately,on consumers. Thank you to Ruth Milkman and the talented Wireless Telecommunications Bureau staff. Also, many thanks to Austin Schlick and his team in OGC for strengthening the legal arguments underpinning this ruling. We especially appreciate the close coordination among your teams and the 81'floor offices on Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 this draft. Today is a win-win due in no small part to your efforts. 10 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN Re: Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions o/Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance,WT Docket No. 08-165. One of the challenges we sometimes face at the Commission is harmonizing federal and local interests. Having recently arrived at the FCC from a state commission,I understand both sides of this occasionally unavoidable tension. In my experience, when these interests collide, the most appropriate path to resolution can be found in the answer to one simple question: What outcome is best for consumers? Today's item, which explains what constitutes a"reasonable period of time"to act on a wireless facility siting application, provides a textbook example of the merits of such an approach. On the one hand, states and localities have understandably expressed concern about ceding power over zoning decisions—determinations that are clearly within their purview. On the other hand, the Commission has a strong interest in ensuring the timely rollout of robust wireless networks throughout the country, especially in light of our statutory obligation to develop a national broadband plan. By asking ourselves what is best for consumers—in this case whether a specified reasonable time period for acting on wireless facility siting applications is more advantageous than an unlimited and undefined timeframe—we are able to arrive at a decision that, in reality,makes good sense for all parties. There is simply no reason to allow an interminable process for these applications. Consumers suffer when any governmental body—federal, state, or local—unnecessarily stands in the way of making timely determinations that have a direct impact on the quality of their lives. At the same time, consumers are banned when arbitrary and unreasonable timeframes are imposed that speed up a process, resulting in decisions lacking appropriate due process protections or that are based on insufficient evidence. Today's compromise preserves, as it must, state and local governments' roles as the at of the merits of wireless service facility siting applications. It also, based on the record developed, provides the presumptively reasonable timeframes required to process these applications. In fact, the item merely adopts the time frames under which many responsible jurisdictions already operate in practice. The compromise also recognizes,however, that a need has arisen for the Commission to act pursuant to its authority under the Communications Act, in order to ensure that other important Congressional and Commission goals are achieved. By giving meaning to the phrase"a reasonable period of time,"we are breathing life into a provision of the Act that is essential to our mobile future. Consumers rely on all of its—federal, state, and local governments—to be responsible and responsive, and by ensuring an orderly siting application process,we are doing just that. 1 would like to thank the staff of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of the General Counsel for their terrific work on this pro-consumer item. In developing this fine solution to a tricky problem, they have appropriately accounted for all of the legitimate interests involved, and have arrived at an answer that will benefit the provision of mobile services in the near future. I am pleased to support this item. Thank you. Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 1 n/ STATEMENT OF v� COMMISSIONER MEREDITH ATTWELL BAKER Re: Petition/or Declaratory Ruling to Clarift Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timelv Siting Review and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classes All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance,WT Docket No. 08-165. Wireless broadband is improving the quality of lives across the country. By 2020 it is expected that most people will access the Internet with a wireless device and that most broadband networks will contain wireline and wireless components. As we are learning every day, building the infrastructure necessary to support those networks,to bring the benefits of these networks to the people who need them,any place, any time is an enormous challenge. Our action today addresses one important aspect of network infrastructure deployment—the time it can take to build out wireless infrastructure--and will help facilitate the process of building or upgrading the towers that are necessary to support our wireless broadband. However, it is only a first step. We will need to continue to look for ways to encourage and facilitate broadband deployments in ways that are consistent with the needs and interests of the communities where they are deployed. The item before its carefully balances several concerns in accomplishing the Commission's goal. First, the item recognizes the rights and duties of local communities to review and approve applications for zoning approvals for wireless communications facilities. At the same time, the item also appreciates the need to provide greater timeliness and certainty to the men and women who build our mobile broadband infrastructure. Several years ago, I was involved NTIA's comprehensive effort to lower barriers for broadband innovation,which included a process for streamlining and simplifying permitting on federal lands for rights-of-way, including tower siting. It was a useful undertaking that helped spur wireless deployments in previously unserved areas. I hope our action today will be equally successful. In general, as we seek to promote and encourage our nation's broadband infrastructure, and particularly mobile broadband, we should always seek ways to streamline the deployment process while at the same time preserving the interests of local communities. I believe the item before us is a step in the right direction. I am especially pleased that our item today recognizes the streamlined tower citing procedures that are already in place in a number of states across the country, and hope other states will follow their lead as well. I thank the Chairman and the Bureau leadership for bringing this item before the Commission, and am pleased to join my colleagues in lending my support. PiNNACIE TEIECOM GROUP Professional and Technical Services x�c ANTENNA SITE FCC RF COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT ANd REPORT M ETROPCS SITE NY7313 415 EIijAN's LANE MATTITUCk, NY JUNE 30, 2011 14 RidGEdAIE AVENUE - SUITE 209 • CEdAR KNO[ts, NJ 07927 0 973.45W630 \bq CONTENTS INTROdUCTION ANd SUMMARY 3 ANTENNA ANd TRANSMISSION DATA S MATHEMATICAL COMPIIANCE ANAIYSIS 7 COMPLIANCE CONCIUSION 12 CERTifiCATION 13 APPENdix A. BACI(GROUNd ON THE FCC MPE LIMIT APPENdix B. SUMMARY OL EXPERT QUAIILiCATIONS z INTROdUCTION ANd SUMMARY At the request of MetroPCS, Pinnacle Telecom Group has performed an independent expert assessment of radiofrequency (RF) levels and related FCC compliance for a proposed wireless base station antenna operation on an existing monopole at 415 Elijah's Lane in Mattituck, NY. MetroPCS refers to the site by the code "NY7313", and proposes panel antennas arranged for sectorized service coverage and transmitting in the 2100 MHz frequency band. The FCC requires all wireless operators to perform an assessment of the RF fields emanating from all the transmitting antennas at a site whenever antenna operations are added or modified, and to ensure compliance with the Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limit in the FCC regulations. In this case, the compliance assessment needs to incorporate the RF effects of existing antenna operations at the site by AT&T, Nextel, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon. Note that FCC regulations require any future antenna collocator to specifically assess and assure continuing FCC compliance based on the overall RF effects of all proposed and then-existing antennas at the site. This report describes a mathematical analysis of compliance with the FCC MPE limit for safe continuous exposure of the general public. The RF effects of the antennas are calculated using a standard FCC formula — and the analysis is designed to conservatively overstate the RF levels that actually occur from the antennas. In that way, though, as long as the results indicate RF levels below the MPE limit, we can have great confidence the compliance requirement is satisfied. The results of a compliance assessment such as this can be described in layman's terms by expressing the calculated RF levels as simple percentages of the FCC MPE limit. If the reference for that limit is 100 percent, then calculated RF levels higher than 100 percent indicate the MPE limit is exceeded and there is a need to mitigate the potential exposure, while calculated RF levels lower than 100 percent indicate compliance with the limit. We can (and will) also 3 describe the worst-case result via the "plain-English" equivalent "times-below- the-limit" factor. The result of the FCC compliance assessment in this case is as follows: ❑ The conservatively calculated maximum RF level from the combination of proposed and existing antenna operations at the site is 0.9158 percent (i.e., less than one percent) of the FCC MPE limit. In other words, the worst-case calculated RF level is more than 109 times below the limit established as safe for continuous human exposure to the RF emissions from antennas. ❑ The results of the calculations provide clear demonstration that the RF levels from the combination of proposed and existing antenna operations will be in clear compliance with the FCC MPE limit. Moreover, because of the conservative methodology and assumptions we incorporated in the analysis, the RF levels actually caused by the antennas will be even less significant than these calculation results indicate. The remainder of this report provides the following: ❑ relevant technical data on the proposed MetroPCS antenna operation at the site, as well as on the existing antenna operations; ❑ a description of the FCC model for assessing MPE compliance, and application of the relevant technical data to that model; and ❑ analysis of the results, and the compliance conclusion for the antenna site. In addition, two Appendices are included. Appendix A provides background on the FCC MPE limit along with a list of key FCC references on compliance. Appendix B provides a summary of the qualifications of the expert certifying FCC compliance for this site. a ANTENNA ANd TRANSMISSION DATA The table below summarizes the relevant technical data for the proposed MetroPCS antenna operation. Technical Data MetroPCS 3O�a� R9��u i _ - =n .. -� �`r � s� � k ..3. ea... '_asp .....v:_.. t t� 'tz S"t"tt ;P �. .v:n,:,.. �,puma.Yi Frequency Band 2100 MHz Service Coverage Type Sectorized Antenna Manufacturer& Model Andrew HBX6516DS-VTM Maximum Antenna Gain 17.0 dBi Antenna Centerline Height AGL 116 ft. 3 in. RF Channels per Sector 3 24 watts and 1 60 watts Antenna Line Loss Conservative) i pored assumed 0 d6 The antenna vertical-plane emission pattern is used in the calculations of RF levels at ground level around a site, as it is a key determinant of the relative amount of RF emissions in the "downward" direction. Figure 1 on the next page shows the vertical-plane emission pattern of the antenna model proposed here by MetroPCS. Note that in these types of antenna emission pattern diagrams, the antenna is effectively pointed at the three o'clock position (the horizon) and the relative strength of the pattern at different angles is described using decibel units. Note, too, that the use of a decibel scale to describe the relative pattern at different angles incidentally serves to significantly understate the actual focusing effects of the antenna. Where the antenna pattern reads 20 dB, for example, the relative RF energy emitted at the corresponding downward angle is 1/100'" of the maximum that occurs in the main beam (at 0 degrees); at the 30 dB point, it is 1/1,0001" of the maximum. 5 • Figure 1. Andrew HBX6565DS-VTM Antenna—Vertical-plane Emission Pattern 0 deg 5 dB/division As noted at the outset, there are existing antenna operations to include in the compliance assessment. Each involves directional panel antennas arranged for sectorized cellular service coverage, and in the analysis for each of the cellular carriers, we will conservatively assume operation with maximum channel capacity and at maximum transmitter power. AT&T is licensed to operate in the 700, 850 and 1900 MHz frequency bands. In the 700 MHz band, AT&T uses as many as four RF channels per antenna sector and a maximum transmitter power of 40 watts. In the 850 MHz band, AT&T uses as many as eight RF channels per antenna sector and a maximum transmitter power of 20 watts. In the 1900 MHz band, AT&T uses as many as four RF channels per antenna sector, with a maximum of 16 watts of transmitter power per channel. AT&T at this site also has a point-to-point dish antenna operation transmitting in the FCC's permitted "unlicensed" frequency band, with a transmitter power of less than one-tenth of one watt. Nextel is licensed to operate in the 851 MHz frequency band. There is a maximum of 12 RF channels in each sector, and each channel is set for 6 maximum of 100 watts of effective radiated power (for which the equivalent antenna input power is less than six watts). Sprint is licensed to operate in the 1900 MHz band, and uses a maximum of six RF channels in each antenna sector, with a maximum transmitter power of 16 watts per channel. T-Mobile (also known as Omnipoint) is licensed to operate in the 1900 MHz and 2100 MHz frequency bands. In the 1900 MHz band, T-Mobile uses a maximum of eight RF channels in each antenna sector, with a maximum transmitter power of 20 watts per channel. In the 2100 MHz band, T-Mobile uses two channels per sector, with a maximum of 40 watts of transmitter power per channel. Verizon is licensed to operate in the 700, 850 and 1900 MHz frequency bands. In the 700 MHz band, Verizon uses one RF channel per antenna sector and a maximum transmitter power of 40 watts. In the 850 MHz band, Verizon uses as many as eight RF channels per antenna sector and a maximum transmitter power of 20 watts. In the 1900 MHz band, Verizon uses as many as four RF channels per antenna sector, with a maximum of 16 watts of transmitter power per channel. MATNEMATICAI COMPLIANCE ANA1YSIS FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65 ("OET Bulletin 65') provides guidelines for mathematical models to calculate the RF levels at various points around transmitting antennas. At street-level around an antenna site (in what is called the "far field" of the antennas), the RF levels are directly proportional to the total antenna input power and the relative antenna gain in the downward direction of interest — and the levels are otherwise inversely proportional to the square of the straight-line distance to the antenna. Conservative calculations also assume the potential RF exposure is enhanced by reflection of the RF energy from the ground. Our calculations will assume a 100% "perfect' reflection, the worst-case approach. 7 The formula for street-level compliance assessment for any given wireless antenna operation is as follows: MPE% = (100 * TXPower* 10 (Gmax-Vdisd10) *4 )/ ( MPE *471 * R ) where MPE% = RF level, expressed as a percentage of the MPE limit applicable to continuous exposure of the general public 100 = factor to convert the raw result to a percentage TxPower = maximum net power into antenna sector, in milliwatts, a function of the number of channels per sector, the transmitter power per channel, and line loss 10 (Gmax-Vdsa10) = numeric equivalent of the relative antenna gain in the downward direction of interest; data on the antenna vertical-plane pattern is taken from manufacturer specifications 4 = factor to account for a 100-percent-efficient energy reflection from the ground, and the squared relationship between RF field strength and power density (2Z= 4) MPE = FCC general population MPE limit R = straight-line distance from the RF source to the point of interest, centimeters The MPE% calculations are performed out to a distance of 500 feet from the facility to points 6.5 feet (approximately two meters, the FCC-recommended standing height) off the ground, as illustrated in Figure 2 that follows. 8 Ink antenna height from antenna R bottom to 6.5 above ground level 0 --– --------- ------ ---- — i 500 Ground Distance D from the site Figure 2. MPE%Calculation Geometry It is popularly understood that the farther away one is from an antenna, the lower the RF level – which is generally but not universally correct. The results of MPE% calculations fairly close to the site will reflect the variations in the vertical- plane antenna pattern as well as the variation in straight-line distance to the antennas. Therefore, RF levels may actually increase slightly with increasing distance within the range of zero to 500 feet from the site. As the distance approaches 500 feet and beyond, though, the antenna pattern factor becomes less significant, the RF levels become primarily distance-controlled, and as a result the RF levels generally decrease with increasing distance, and are well understood to be in compliance. FCC compliance for a collocated antenna site is assessed in the following manner. At each distance point along the ground, an MPE% calculation is made for each antenna operation, and the sum of the individual MPE% contributions at each point is compared to 100 percent, the normalized reference for compliance with the MPE limit. We refer to the sum of the individual MPE% contributions as "total MPE%", and any calculated total MPE% result exceeding 100 percent is, by definition, higher than the FCC limit and represent non-compliance and a need to mitigate the potential exposure. If all results are consistently below 100 s . • • ,fix percent, on the other hand, that set of results serves as a clear and sufficient demonstration of compliance with the MPE limit. Note that according to the FCC, when directional antennas and sectorized coverage arrangements are used, the compliance assessments are based on the RF effect of a single (facing) sector, as the RF effects of directional antennas facing generally away are insignificant. The following conservative methodology and assumptions are incorporated into the MPE% calculations on a general basis: 1. The antennas are assumed to be operating continuously at maximum power and maximum channel capacity — and the power-attenuation effects referred to as antenna line loss are ignored wherever possible. 2. The power-attenuation effects of shadowing or other obstructions to the line-of-sight path from the antenna to the point of interest are ignored. 3. The calculations intentionally minimize the distance factor (R) by assuming a 6'6" human and performing the calculations from the bottom (rather than the centerline) of each operator's lowest-mounted antenna, as applicable. 4. The potential RF exposure at ground level is assumed to be 100-percent enhanced (increased)via a "perfect" field reflection from the ground itself. The net result of these assumptions is to significantly overstate the calculated RF exposure levels relative to the levels that will actually occur— and the purpose of this conservatism is to allow very "safe-side' conclusions about compliance. The table on the next page provides the results of the MPE% calculations for each operator, with the worst-case (maximum) result highlighted in bold in the last column. 10 Ground MetroPCS AT&T Nextel Sprint T-Mobile Verizon Total Dist ft MPE% MPE% MPE% MPE% MPE% MPE% MPE% 0 0.0025 0.0236 0.0019 0.0147 0.0012 0.0238 0.0677 20 0.0039 0.0422 0.0018 0.0274 0.0342 ---6.-0751 -0.1846 40 0.0058 0.0311 0.0015 0.04040.0281 0.0114 0.1183 - -- 60 0.0042 0.0743 0.0181 0.0210 0.0970 0-.-0-562 -0.2708---6-.0920 -0.3397 80 0.0020 0.0681 0.0058 0.0032 0.1686 • 100 0.0013 0.0903 0.0552 0.0583 0.0072 0.4361 0.6484 120 0.0019 0.3691 0.1441 0.0024 0.0765 1 0.3218 0.9158 140 0.1573 0.5470 0.0874 0.0275 0.0028 0.0815 0.9035 160 0.3300 0.3192 0.0155 0.0043 0.0758 0.0422 0.7870 180 0.2274 -0--0893 0.0122 0.0250 0.1141 0.1594 0.6274 200 0.0305 E-0261 0.0512 0.0260 0.0607 0.2954 0.4899 220 0.0016 0.1030 0.0865 0.0053 0.0453 0.2979 0.5396 240 0.0119 0.2856 0.0831 0.0116 0.0609 0.2246 0.6777 260 0.0079 0.3874 0.0770 0.0270 0.0909 0.0849 0.6751 280 0.0067 0.3557 0.0486 0.0531 0.1115 0.0418 0.6174 300 0.0246 0.2808 0.0276 0.0437 0.1022 0.0367 0.5156 320 0.0328 0.1834 0.0112 0.0257 0.0902 0.0354 0.3787 340 0.0324 0.1008 0.0100 0.0089 0.0568 0.0638 0.2727 360 0.0239 0.0487 0.0041 0.0007 0.0237 0.1198 0.2209 380 0.0115 0.0440 0.0093 0.0006 0.0214 0.1079 0.1947 400 0.0104 0.0384 0.0084 0.0063 0.0193 0.1723 0.2551 420 0.0033 0.0349 0.0253 0.0208 0.0278 0.1567 0.2688 • 440 0.0052 0.0663 0.0231 0191 0:9 4 0.2340 0.3731 460 0.0048 0.0608 0.0311 ON% 0.2145 0.3820 480 0.0142 0.1254 ).0437 i 0.0287 0.0872 0.1973 0.4965 03 500 0.0131 0.1159 0.0404 1 26 0.0804 0.2843 0.5667 • As indicated, the worst-case calculated RF level at street-level is 0.9158 percent of the FCC MPE limit. A graph of the calculation results, provided below, probably provides a clearer visual illustration of the relative insignificance of the calculated RF levels. The line representing the calculated total MPE% results barely noticeably rises above the graph's zero baseline, and shows an obviously clear and consistent margin to the FCC MPE limit. COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT RESULTS Normalized FCC MPE Limit ..0— Total MPE% Results 120 - --� a 100 a 80 0 a 80 c C9 40 0 20 It 0 0 11 0 100 200 300 400 500 Distance(ft) COMPLIANCE CONCLUSION The FCC MPE limit has been constructed in such a manner that continuous human exposure to RF emissions up to and including 100 percent of the MPE limit is acceptable and completely safe. As described, the analysis in this case shows that the conservatively calculated maximum RF level from the combination of proposed and existing antenna operations at the site is 0.9158 percent of the FCC MPE limit. In other words, the worst-case calculated RF level from the combination of proposed and existing antennas at the site is more than 109 times below the federal limit established as safe for continuous human exposure to the RF emissions from antennas. 12 • • io�y The results of the calculations provide a clear demonstration of compliance with the FCC MPE limit. Moreover, because of the conservative calculation methodology and operational assumptions we applied in the analysis, RF levels actually caused by the antennas will be even less significant than the calculation results here indicate. CERTIFICATION It is the policy of Pinnacle Telecom Group that all FCC RF compliance assessments are reviewed, approved, and signed by the firm's Chief Technical Officer, who certifies as follows: 1. I have read and fully understand the FCC regulations concerning RF safety and the control of human exposure to RF fields (47 CFR 1.1301 et seq). 2. To the best of my knowledge, the statements and information disclosed in this report are true, complete and accurate. 3. The analysis of site RF compliance provided herein is consistent with the applicable FCC regulations, additional guidelines issued by the FCC, and industry practice. 4. The results of the analysis indicate that the antenna emissions at the subject site will be in compliance with the FCC regulations concerning RF exposure. 6/30/11 Danie ollins Date Z;lChief Technical Officer Pinnacle Telecom Group, LLC 13 • V Appendix A. BAckgROUNd ON THE FCC MPE LIMIT FCC Rules and Regulations As directed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has established limits for maximum continuous human exposure to RF fields. The FCC maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits represent the consensus of federal agencies and independent experts responsible for RF safety matters. Those agencies include the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In formulating its guidelines, the FCC also considered input from the public and technical community— notably the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The FCC's RF exposure guidelines are incorporated in Section 1.301 et seq of its Rules and Regulations (47 CFR 1.1301-1.1310). Those guidelines specify MPE limits for both occupational and general population exposure. The specified continuous exposure MPE limits are based on known variation of human body susceptibility in different frequency ranges, and a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of 4 watts per kilogram, which is universally considered to accurately represent human capacity to dissipate incident RF energy (in the form of heat). The occupational MPE guidelines incorporate a safety factor of 10 or greater with respect to RF levels known to represent a health hazard, and an additional safety factor of five is applied to the MPE limits for general population exposure. Thus, the general population MPE limit has a built-in safety factor of more than 50. The limits were constructed to appropriately protect humans of both sexes and all ages and sizes and under all conditions — and continuous exposure at levels equal to or below the applicable MPE limits is considered to result in no adverse health effects or even health risk. The reason for two tiers of MPE limits is based on an understanding and assumption that members of the general public are unlikely to have had appropriate RF safety training and may not be aware of the exposures they receive; occupational exposure in controlled environments, on the other hand, is assumed to involve individuals who have had such training, are aware of the exposures, and know how to maintain a safe personal work environment. The FCC's RF exposure limits are expressed in two equivalent forms, using alternative units of field strength (expressed in volts per meter, or V/m), and power density (expressed in milliwatts per square centimeter, or mW/cm2). The table on the next page lists the FCC limits for both occupational and general population exposures, using the mW/cm2 reference, for the different radio frequency ranges. 14 Frequency Range(F) Occupational Exposure General Public Exposure (MHz) (mW/cm2) (MW/CM2) 0.3- 1.34 100 100 1.34 - 3.0 100 180/ FZ 3.0 - 30 900 / F2 180 / F2 30 -300 1.0 0.2 300 - 1,500 F/ 300 F/ 1500 1,500 - 100,000 5.0 1.0 The diagram below provides a graphical illustration of both the FCC's occupational and general population MPE limits. Power Density (mW/cm2) 100 Occupational - - General Public 5.0 1.0 0.2 0.3 1.34 3.0 30 300 1,500 100,000 Frequency(MHz) Because the FCC's RF exposure limits are frequency-shaped, the exact WE limits applicable to the instant situation depend on the frequency range used by the systems of interest. 15 The most appropriate method of determining RF compliance is to calculate the RF power density attributable to a particular system and compare that to the MPE limit applicable to the operating frequency in question. The result is usually expressed as a percentage of the MPE limit. For potential exposure from multiple systems, the respective percentages of the MPE limits are added, and the total percentage compared to 100 (percent of the limit). If the result is less than 100, the total exposure is in compliance; if it is more than 100, exposure mitigation measures are necessary to achieve compliance. FCC References 47 CFR, FCC Rules and Regulations, Part 1 (Practice and Procedure), Section 1.1310 (Radiofrequency radiation exposure limits). FCC Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 97-303), In the Matter of Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief From State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Communications Act of 1934 (WT Docket 97-192), Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation (ET Docket 93-62), and Petition for Rulemaking of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association Concerning Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Preempt State and Local Regulation of Commercial Mobile Radio Service Transmitting Facilities, released August 25, 1997. FCC First Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket 93-62, In the Matter of Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, released December 24, 1996. FCC Report and Order, ET Docket 93-62, In the Matter of Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, released August 1, 1996. FCC Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields", Edition 97-01, August 1997. FCC Office of Engineering and Technology (DET) Bulletin 56, "Questions and Answers About Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of RF Radiation", edition 4, August 1999. 16 APPENdIX B. SUMMARY OF EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS Daniel J. Collins, Chief Technical Officer, Pinnacle Telecom Group, LLC Synopsis .39 years of experience in all aspects of wireless system engineering, related regulation, and RF exposure • Has performed or led RF exposure compliance assessments on more than 14,000 antenna sites since the new FCC rules went into effect in 1997 •Has provided testimony as an RF compliance expert more than 1,300 times since 1997 •Accepted as an expert in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and more than 40 other states, as well as by the FCC Education . B E.E., City College of New York(Sch. Of Eng.), 1971 • M.B.A., 1982, Faideigh Dickinson University, 1982 • Bronx High School of Science, 1966 Current Responsibilities: • Leads all PTG staff work involving RF safety and FCC compliance, microwave and satellite system engineering, and consulting on wireless technology and regulation Prior Experience: •Edwards & Kelcey, VP— RF Engineering and Chief Information Technology Officer, 1996-99 •Bellcore, Executive Director— Regulation and Public Policy, 1983-96 •AT&T(Corp. HO), Director—Spectrum Management Policy and Practice, 1977-83 •AT&T Long Lines, Group Supervisor—Microwave Radio System Design, 1972-77 Specific RF Safety/ • Involved in RF exposure matters since 1972 Compliance Experience: • Have had lead corporate responsibility for RF safety and compliance at AT&T, Bellcore, Edwards& Kelcey, and PTG •While at AT&T, helped develop the mathematical models later adopted by the FCC for predicting RF exposure Have been relied on for compliance by all major wireless carriers, as well as by the federal government, several state and local governments, equipment manufacturers, system integrators, and other consulting /engineering firms Other Background: •Author, Microwave System Engineering(AT&T, 1974) •Co-author and executive editor, A Guide to New Technologies and Services(Bellcore, 1993) National Spectrum Managers Association (NSMA)—former three-term President and Chairman of the Board of Directors; was founding member, twice-elected Vice President, a long-time member of the Board of Directors, and was named an NSMA Fellow in 1991 •Listed in Who's Who in the Media and Communication and International Who's Who in Information Technology •Published more than 35 articles in industry magazines 17 • Page 1 of 1 Toth, Vicki RECEIVED �/ From: Marisa Knoth [mknoth@rnhclaw.com] OCT 0110 / Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 11:49 AM b 2011 To: Toth, Vicki BOARD OF APPEALS Cc: John Coughlin Subject: MetroPCS at 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck (ZBA Application#6507) Attachments: 7313 GPD Structural Analysis Report, Elijah's Lane, Mattituck 042511.pdf; 7313 FAA Determination - Elijah's Lane, Mattituck 041510.pdf; FCC Shot Clock Declaratory Ruling.pdf Good Morning Vicky, In furtherance of this morning's hearing,we have attached the following documents: 1. FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation; 2. FCC Shot Clock Declaratory Ruling; and 3. Structural Analysis Report of GPD Group, dated April 25, 2011. Thank you. Marisa Knoth RE,NIELSEN, HUBER& COUGHLfN, LLP 36 North New York Avenue Huntington,New York 11743 (63 1)425-4100 (telephone) (631)425-4104 (facsimile) mknoth a,rnhclaw.com This e-mail message and attached files, if any,are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain information protected by attomey-client,work product,or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or his/her agent, any review,use,dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying,or other distribution of the information in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error,please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original message. 10/6/2011 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Air Traffic Airspace Branch,ASW-520 2010-ARA-1446-OE 2601 Meacham Blvd. Prior Study No. Fort Worth,TX 76137-0520 2010-AF.A 159-OE Issued Date: 04/15/2010 RECEIVED L/v j-6? Marc Harris OCT 2011 HPC Development,LLC 52 Garden Ave. BOARD OFAppeALS Wharton,NJ 07885 **DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations,part 77,concerning: Structure: Antenna-Top Mount NY7313 Location Mattituck,NY Latitude: 40-59-57.79N NAD 83 Longitude: 72-30-40.17W Heights: 122 feet above ground level(AGL) 150 feet above mean sea level(AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s),if any,is(are)met: It is required that FAA Form 7460-2,Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration,be completed and returned to this office any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction(7460-2,Part I) _X Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height(7460-2,Part 11) As a result of this structure being critical to flight safety,it is required that the FAA be kept appraised as to the status of the project.Failure to respond to periodic FAA inquiries could invalidate this determination. This aeronautical study included evaluation of a structure that exists at this time.Action will be taken to ensure aeronautical charts are updated to reflect the most current coordinates,elevation and height as indicated in the case description. Based on this evaluation,marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety.However,if marking and/or lighting am accomplished on a voluntary basis,we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2. This determination expires on 10/15/2011 unless: (a) extended,revised or terminated by the issuing office. (b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)and an application for a construction permit has been filed,as required by the FCC,within Page 1 of 3 6 months of the date of this determination.In such case,the determination expires on the date pres''W by the FCC for completion of construction,or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE:REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED TO THIS OFFICE AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. This determination is based,in part,on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates,heights, frequency(ies)and power.Any changes in coordinates,heights,and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination Any future construction or alteration,including increase to heights,power,or the addition of other transmitters,requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary conshuction equipment such as cranes,derricks,etc.,which may be used during actual construction of the structure.However,this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above.Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law,ordinance,or regulation of any Federal,State,or local government body. A copy of this detmmination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission(FCC)because the structure is subject to their licensing authority. If we can be of further assistance,please contact our office at(718)553-4542.On any future correspondence concerning this matter,please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2010-AEA-1446-OE. Signature Control No: 696069-124846698 (DNE) Katie Venticinque Specialist Attacbment(s) Frequency Data cc:FCC cc:NACO w/map Page 2 of 3 Frequency Data for ASN 2010-AEA-1446.0E LOW HIGH FREQUENCY ERP FREQUENCY FREQUENCY UNIT ERP UNrr 806 824 MHz 500 w 824 849 MHz 500 w 851 866 MHz 500 w 869 894 MHz 500 W 896 901 MHz 500 W 901 902 MHz 7 W 930 931 MHz 3500 w 931 932 MHz 3500 w 932 932.5 MHz 17 dBW 935 940 MHz 1000 W 940 941 MHz 3500 w 1850 1910 MHz 1640 w 1930 1990 MHz 1640 w 2305 2310 MHz 2000 w 2345 2360 MHz 2000 W 1730 1740 MHz 61 dBm 2130 2140 MHz 61 dBm Page 3 of 3 r t • � • li&t RECEIVED �') AWA., �) GPD GROUP Leslie Egbarin6 Kevin Clements AT&T Mobility OCT ZQ�� 12600 Deerfield Pkwy, Suite 2039 5405 Windward Pkwy. Alpharetta, GA 30004 Alpharetta, GA 30004 BOARD OF APPEALS (678) 762-3305 (770) 708-6162 kclements@gpdgroup.com GPD#2011263.95 April 25, 2011 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT AT&T DESIGNATION: Site USID: 5679 Site FA: 10075046 Site Name: MATTITUCK AT&T Project: MetroPCS Tower Extension 06-15-09 METRO PCS DESIGNATION: Site Number: NY7313 ANALYSIS CRITERIA: Codes: TIA/EIA-222-F& 2006 IBC 85-mph with 0" ice 74-mph with 1/2" ice SITE DATA: Elijah's Lane,Mattituck, NY 11952, Suffolk County Latitude 401 59' 58.066" N,Longitude 72° 30' 40.202"W 108'Summit Monopole w/10'Extension Mr. Egbarin, GPD is pleased to submit this Revised Structural Analysis Report to determine the structural integrity of the aforementioned tower. The purpose of the analysis is to determine the suitability of the tower with the addition of the following proposed loading configuration: Elev. 116.25' (6)Andrew HBX-6516DS-VTM Antennas on (3)4' T-Arms w/(12) 7/8" internal coax& (1)RET Cable Based on our analysis we have determined the designs of the tower and its foundation for the proposed, existing, and reserved loadings as referenced in Appendix A. We at GPD appreciate the opportunity of providing our continuing professional services to you and AT&T. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully submitted, �P�o e E �O9 W C!� i y ' David 8, Granger, P.E. `�FQ 71j New York#: 071387-1 pa?ESS[OM' 520 South Main Street.Suite 2531 .Akron,Ohio 44311 .330-572-2100.Fax 330572-2101 .www.GPDGroup.conn Claus Pyle Schomer Burns and DeHaven,Inc Akron.Atlanta Cleveland.Columbus.Indianapolis.Marion.Phoenix.Seattle.Youngstown 0 108 Ft Monopole w/10 Ft Extension Structural Evaluation AT&T USID:5679 SUMMARY& RESULTS The purpose of this analysis was to verify whether the existing structure is capable of carrying the proposed loading configuration as specified by Metro PCS to AT&T. This report was commissioned by Mr. Leslie Egbarin of AT&T. Modifications designed by GPD Associates(Job#: 2009285.06, dated 11/19/09)have been considered in this analysis and consisted of adding a 10'extension to the top of the tower. TOWER SUMMARY AND RESULTS Member trapacity, RWIU Monopole 92.3% Pass Flange Plates 5.7% Pass Flange Bolts 5.1% Pass Base Plate 70.0% Pass Anchor Rods 62.5% Pass Foundation 83.3% Pass ANALYSIS METHOD RISA Tower (Version 5.4.2.0), a commercially available software program, was used to create a three-dimensional model of the tower and calculate primary member stresses for various dead, live, wind, and ice load cases. Selected output from the analysis is included in Appendix B. The following table details the information provided to complete this structural analysis. This analysis is solely based on this information and being provided without the benefit of a detailed site visit. DOCUMENTS PROVIDED Document Remarks Source Preliminary Tower Summary Metro PCS Co-location document Siterra Site Lease Application Metro PCS Application, dated 6/16/2009 Siterra Tower Mapping GPD& Patriot Tower Inc,dated 3/18/2008 Siterra Previous Structural Analysis PJF Job#: 38508-0002 Rev. 2,dated 2/29/2008 Siterra Previous Structural Analysis GPD Job#: 2009286.49 Rev 1, dated 12/9/2009 Siterra Modification Drawings GPD lob#: 2009285.06, dated 11/19/2009 Siterra 412512011 Page 2 of 4 108 Ft Monopole w/10 Ft Extension-Structural Evaluation AT&T USID:5679 Y I� ASSUMPTIONS NNN This structural analysis is based on the theoretical capacity of the members and is not a condition assessment of the tower. This analysis is from information supplied, and therefore, its results are based on and are as accurate as that supplied data. GPD has made no independent determination, nor is it required to, of its accuracy. The following assumptions were made for this structural analysis. 1. The tower shaft sizes and shape are considered accurate as supplied. The material grade is as per data supplied and/or as assumed and as stated in the materials section. 2. The antenna configuration is as supplied and/or as modeled in the analysis. It is assumed to be complete and accurate. All antennas, mounts, coax and waveguides are assumed to be properly installed and supported as per manufacturer requirements 3. Some assumptions are made regarding antennas and mount sizes and their projected areas based on best interpretation of data supplied and of best knowledge of antenna type and industry practice. 4. All mounts, if applicable, are considered adequate to support the loading. No actual analysis of the mount(s) is performed.This analysis is limited to analyzing the tower only. 5. The soil parameters are as per data supplied or as assumed and stated in the calculations. If no data is available,the foundation system is not verified. 6. The tower and structures have been properly maintained in accordance with TIA Standards and/or with manufacturer's specifications. 7. All welds and connections are assumed to develop at least the member capacity, unless determined otherwise and explicitly stated in this report. 8. Tower Mounted Amplifiers are assumed to be installed behind antennas. 9. All existing loading was obtained from the most recent previous structural analysis by GPD Job#: 2009286.49 Rev 1, dated 12/9/2009, site photos and the provided preliminary tower summary and is assumed to be accurate. 10. All proposed coax are assumed to be internal to the monopole. 11. Modifications designed by GPD Associates (Job #: 2009285.06, dated 11/19/09) have been considered in this analysis and consisted of adding a 10'extension to the top of the tower. If any of these assumptions are not valid or have been made in error,this analysis may be affected, and GPD Associates should be allowed to review any new information to determine its effect on the structural integrity of the tower. 4I25I2011 Page 3 of 4 108 Ft Monopole wl 10 Ft Extension-structural Evaluation AT&T USID:5679 DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES GPD GROUP has not performed a recent site visit to the tower to verify the member sizes or antenna/coax loading. It the existing conditions are not as represented on the tower elevation contained in this report, we should be contacted immediately to evaluate the significance of the discrepancy. This is not a condition assessment of the tower or foundation. This report does not replace a full tower inspection. The tower and foundations are assumed to have been properly fabricated, erected, maintained, in good condition,twist free, and plumb. The engineering services rendered by GPD GROUP in connection with this Structural Analysis are limited to a computer analysis of the tower structure and theoretical capacity of its main structural members. All tower components have been assumed to only resist dead loads when no other loads are applied. No allowance was made for any damaged, bent, missing, loose, or rusted members(above and below ground). No allowance was made for loose bolts or cracked welds. GPD GROUP does not analyze the fabrication of the structure (including welding). It is not possible to have all the very detailed information needed to perform a thorough analysis of every structural subcomponent and connection of an existing tower. GPD GROUP provides a limited scope of service in that we cannot verify the adequacy of every weld, plate connection detail, etc. The purpose of this report is to assess the feasibility of adding appurtenances usually accompanied by transmission lines to the structure. It is the owner's responsibility to determine the amount of ice accumulation, if any, that should be considered in the structural analysis. The attached sketches are a schematic representation of the analyzed tower. If any material is fabricated from these sketches, the contractor shall be responsible for field verifying the existing conditions, proper fit, and clearance in the field. Any mentions of structural modifications are reasonable estimates and should not be used as a precise construction document. Precise modification drawings are obtainable from GPD GROUP, but are beyond the scope of this report. Miscellaneous items such as antenna mounts, etc., have not been designed or detailed as a part of our work. We recommend that material of adequate size and strength be purchased from a reputable tower manufacturer. GPD GROUP makes no warranties, expressed and/or implied, in connection with this report and disclaims any liability arising from material, fabrication, and erection of this tower. GPD GROUP will not be responsible whatsoever for, or on account of, consequential or incidental damages sustained by any person, firm, or organization as a result of any data or conclusions contained in this report. The maximum liability of GPD GROUP pursuant to this report will be limited to the total fee received for preparation of this report. 412512011 Page 4 of 4 108 Ft Monopole w/10 Ft Extension-Structural Evaluation AT&T USO:5679 APPENDIX A Tower Analysis Summary Form 4/2512011 Tower Analysis Summary Form General lMo N; tiosne Name _ _ Maitnu<K _sfi'9 _ _ The informa n rontairretl in this summary report is not to ba used Numo FA Number - - toe", independently from the PE stampetl tower analysis. Daleof Malys's d/SvrIB11 Com0an Pedormin Mal'. GPD Gray Tower Info Descri eon Dab Design Parameters Ma rb Results %Muimum U..W) Tower Tape(G,SST,MP) _MP Dd,n Code UaeA TJ,t0FWZ22i l4basepoRearmeof+Wtero+ MCwMltlon Tower H.,pt(b of steel AGL IOW w/IP Ex_nslan __1006"ISG Tw.er % Tower Aenuac4ver Bummit L_oraliandTortr(County Stenolk.NY le) _ fiu _ Bax Pete % Toyer Abdel _ _ Bask Wind Speed(mph) 85-brteal Foundered % 83 391: Tower Desgn F.F Jab%.1g2CFt?O3 41248001Are Thkknegz lint 0.5 FounAation Mx cote? Ves Fountlalbn Des n rca _ SVucWra Cbssirralpq Q,ll,lr ge0%e na Ea sure Caleawy j6,C,DL— Tower Tower MaPpin9 Gen&Palriol T.— n. 1180B08 To rapM1k Ca 1105 Previous Bneeuml tdnd,. GPD Job A_3009186,49 Rev 1 _ tZ/OM9 • ModR.6d.Draw.s GPU Job%:2049285.05 11I19I20e9 Steal Yn ad Staksi Poe t __ 80 MedfGcanons designed by GPD Aesoclates(Job t 1009185.06.dated Pole EAension _ 41 11119109;lave been coneideretl in an. nalysb and conaismd ofaddinga FlaoW Pete, _ i0 1Denders wt to the lop of the tower. Hands Pont A325 Bax Pale 55 Anchor Rods 75 Ervin..I ReeePratt Loadln rabemrand Nonnt Manna Araclfinent Mlenna Dvrtrar .,ht(it) CL pt) Cannata ]pre Manuecdrrer Medd Azimum ouanrh NOnuaCNrer type DuanNy Moeal size L.WFax inn..: te9 We 6 Panel Declpel 98oF9012E,M 3 Unknawn 11'1 dnns 6 L xr own 1114" Intemel AT&_I'Mo4d1Iv _ 98 102 t_ Dlsh Unkn_obn 2'DisM1 _ _ t Unknown TLP Pfattorn_ 1 lxr own 58 _ lane al AT_&_T_M__Lafiry 98 B3 6 _ Panel KaIDmin 8001011.1 _ _ _ ,same mou�a 11 Unknown 198_ Im_er al AT&T Mot:lit"} 98 98 6 TMA Antlrr:w ET61906-12UB oc same meant Nextef 86 6 Panel Oeeiixl DB644H90A XY 1 Unknown 1)'LP'.5-1n B Unknown 11/4" rnornal Nex41 Be2a 86 4 Panel Dec:bal DBSd6G0oA-%Y en same n+Dunt d Unknown 1-1/4" Imernal Verizon %S ]e __ fi Panel _ al __ ttbl5 _ 1 Unkno3 LP Pla_llormow _ _ S Unknn_ ].d" Internal Yenzon i8 ?6 6 Par:el Jwed tUnknown 13 ALP9011 16 jur.ande. 7.8" Intemai PM11oC1 __ 64 65 4 _ Panel Mtlrew 93ZOLfiC5ft2E8 _ _ 41)/1]02]0 $ U known 4 Sid.A:.:. 12 _ Unknown ]Itl" E4bma1 M T Meade 64 65 3 _ TM.A Mtlrew ETW190YSi1U8 ___ 401]0870 LMOM1e 54 65 1 TMA Redraw ETWZOOY512UB 44,17W270 Dunt Prepared Wdln ..' :'.+a a^ � •5 n: ...w'.-47: �•,u .. .x.�'£) a.< ,q.Y .'o u.i r5c., y.y.. �rt Wun1 Teanam'bdon WlG Abunl Mienne Atadrtnanl Mimna timer MegM le) CL(h) Ouanliy Type Abn'0acbeer Motlel Admum UuanrlY ManefecWrer Type Ouanrh Model Sion LeglFare Keno PCs 111625 6Canal Redrew__ HBXLa160G"VTM o1110/Zbo ) Cammsco 4_T Arms 11 LOF57fk 1/6" Intimal tt Metro PCS 1'.425 6 Z5 t RET table Unknown Internal Futuro Loadin p�r"-; •kr, ".p;. y ".•$ Mount TwnmtmiwrLNe Mlenna Owner .e� M1bunl 1 Manna Ouan14y T>ye Manubcarer Mo0vl AzimuM OuanMy Menubcfurer Tyye Ouanrly Model S. Adadrrrent NegM1lha) CL(a) LaglFac0 AiBT Mobility _ _ 9b 98 ) Pane1 NatfreNr 8o01ot , on ealslln nmum 6It➢FB-SOA 1N4" haemal here:Future bading as In addd.W She donate lghaserved badng at me xme abvafnn. \JTZ _ Vx\ 108 Ft Monopole w/10 Ft Extension-Structural Evaluation AT&T USID:5679 APPENDIX B RISA Tower Output File 4/25/2011 RISA Tower Job Page Y5 5679 MATTITUCK tot 4 GPD Group Project Date 510 S.Ham St.Suite 1531 2011263.95 22:12:31 04/25/11 Akron,OH 44311 Client Designed by Phone:390-572-2221 AT&T MOBILITY FAX 330-572-1235 awestrum Tower Input Data There is a pole section. This tower is designed using the TIA/EIA-222-F standard. The following design criteria apply: Tower is located in Suffolk County,New York. Basic wind speed of 85 mph. Nominal ice thickness of 0.5000 in. Ice density of 56 pcf. A wind speed of 74 mph is used in combination with ice. Temperature drop of 50 OF, Deflections calculated using a wind speed of 50 mph. A non-linear(P-delta)analysis was used. Pressures are calculated at each section. Stress ratio used in pole design is 1.333. Local bending stresses due to climbing loads,feedline supports,and appurtenance mounts are not considered. Feed Line/Linear Appuftenances - Entered As Area Description Face Allow Component Placement Total CIA, Weight or ,SGYeld Type Number LDFS-SOA(7/8 FOAM) A No CaAa(OW Of 64.00-8.00 2 No Ice 0,11 0.33 Face) 1/2"Ice 0.21 1.30 LDF5-50A(7/8 FOAM) A No CaAa(Out Of 64.00-8.00 10 No Ice 0.00 0.33 Face) 1/2"Ice 0.00 1.30 LDF5-50A(7/8 FOAM) A No Inside Pole 78.00-8ur, 12 No Ice 0.00 0.33 1/2"Ice 0.00 0.33 LDF6-50A(1-1/4 B No Inside Pale 8R00-8.00 12 No Ice 0.00 0.66 FOAM) 1/2"Ice 0.00 0.66 LDF4.5-50(5/8 FOAM) C No Inside Pole 9X00-8.00 1 No fee 0.00 0.15 1/2"Ice 0.00 - 0.15 LDF7-50A(1-5/8 C No Inside Pole 9900-8,00 12 No Ice 0.00 0.82 FOAM) 1/2"Ice 090 0,82 LDF6-SOA(1-1!4 C No Inside Pole 98.00-9.00 6 No Ice 0.00 0.66 FOAM) 12"Ice 0.00 0.66 LDF6-50A(1-1/4 B No InsidePale 108.00-800 6 Not. 0.00 0.66 FOAM) 1/2"Ice 0.00 0.66 LDF5-50A(7/8 FOAM) C No Inside Pole 116.25-8.00 12 No Ice 0.00 0.33 1/2"Ice 0.00 0.33 RET Cable C No Inside Pole 116.25-9.00 1 No Ice 0.00 0.08 1/2"Ice 0.00 0.08 Discrete Tower Loads Dererlplion Face Offset Offsets: Azrn ah Placement C.A_, C,A, Weight or Y)pe Harz Adjustment Front Side Leg Lateral Vert P It R' ft' K ft ft .... _. ... 932QLG65VTEB w/Mwnt A From Leg 3,06 40.0000 6400 No Ice 8.80 5.67 0.06 Pipe 2.57 1/2"Ice 9.53 6.79 0.13 1.00 RISA ower Job Page 5679 MATTITUCK 2 of 4 GPD Group Project Date 510 S.Main S1,Suite 2531 2011263.95 22:12:31 04/25/11 Akron,OH44311 Client Designed by Phone 330-521-2221 AT&T MOBILITY awestrum FAX 3.40-571-1135 Dereriptian Face Ofjrel Offsets: Azimuth placement C,A, CA, Weight or Type Horz Adjustment Front Side Leg Loterai Vert J? ft fr fr' g ft __ 1t - _-_ 932QLG65VTEB w/Mount B From Leg 2.57 50.000 64.00 No Ice 8.80 5.67 0.06 Pipe 3.06 1/2"Ice 9.53 6.79 0.13 1.00 932QLG65VTEB w/Mount C From Leg 3.46 300000 64.0 No Ice 8B0 5.67 0.06 Pipe 2.00 1/2"Ice 9.53 6.79 0.13 L0 4'Side Ann A From Leg L53 40.000 64,0 No Ice 0.82 2.87 0.08 129 1/2'fee 1.02 3.33 0.11 0.00 4'Side Ami B From Leg 1.28 50.000 64.00 No Ice 0.82 2-87 008 1.53 1/2"Ice 102 3.33 0.11 0.00 4'Side Arm C From Leg 1.73 30.000 64.00 No Ice 0.82 2.87 0.08 1.00 1/2"Ice 1.02 3.33 0.11 0.0 ETW 190VS 12UB A From Leg 3.06 40.0000 64.0 No Ice 0.00 0.35 0.01 2.57 1/2"Ice 0.00 0.44 0.02 1.00 ETW 190V5l2UB B From Leg 2.57 50.000 64.00 No Ice 0.0 0.35 0.01 3.06 1/2"Ice 0.00 0.44 0.02 1.00 ETW190VS12UB C From Leg 3.46 300000 64.00 No Ice 0.00 0.35 0.01 2,00 1/2"Ice 0.00 0.44 0.02 1.0 F,TW200VS12UB A From Leg 3.06 40.000 6400 No Ice 0.00 0.18 0.01 0.00 1/2"Ice 0.00 0.25 0.01 1.00 FTW200VS12UB B From Leg 2.57 50.0000 64.00 No Ice 0.00 0.18 0.01 3.06 1/2"Ice 000 025 0.01 1.00 ETW20OVS12UB C From Leg 3.46 30,000 64.00 No Ice 0.00 018 0.01 200 1/2"Ice 0.00 2125 0.ol 1.00 (2)7184.15 A From 4.00 0.000 78.0 No lee 3.31 2.63 0.03 Centroid-Le 0.00 1/2"Ice 3.69 3.28 0.06 g 00 (2)7184.15 B From 4.0 0.000 78.00 No Ice 3.31 263 003 Centroid-Le 0.00 1:2"Ice 3.69 3.28 0.06 g 0.00 (2)7184,15 C From 4.00 0,0000 79,00 No Ice 3,31 2.63 0.03 Centroid-Le 0.00 1/2"Ice 3.69 3.28 006 g 000 (2)ALP-9011 A From 4.00 0.000 78.00 No Ice 2.72 3.34 0.02 Centroid-Le 0,00 1/2"Ice 3.04 3.68 0.04 g 0.00 (2)ALP-901 I B From 4.00 0.000 78.00 No Ice 2.72 3.34 0.02 Centroid-Le 000 Irl"Ice 3.04 368 0.04 g 0.00 (2)ALP-901 I C From 4.00 0,000 78.00 No Ice 2.72 3.34 0.02 Centroid-Fa 0.00 1/2"Ice 3,04 3.68 004 cc 0.00 Valmont 13'LP Platform C None 0.000 7800 NO Ice 15.70 15.70 1.10 UY Ice 20.10 20.10 1,76 (4)DB8441190E-XY A From 4.00 0000 88.0 No Ice 2.87 3,73 0.01 Centroid-Le 000 1/2"Ice 3.18 410 004 g 0.00 (4)DB844H90E-XY B From 4.00 0.000 88.0 No Ice 2.87 313 0.01 b RISA Tower Jo5679 MATTITUCK Page 3 of 4 GPD Group Project Date 520s Mon,St,Soto,2531 2011263.95 22:12:31 04/25/11 Akron,OH 44311 Client Designed by Phone:330-572-2221 AT&T MOBILITY FAX:330-sn-n3s awestrum Description Face Offset Offsets: Azfmulh Placemen( CAAA C,AA Weight or Type Ha, Adjustment Front Side Leg Lurerol Veer fi ft )r' lr K ft Centroid-Le 0.00 1/2"Ice 3.18 4.10 0.04 g 0.00 (4)DB846G90A-XY C From 4.00 00000 88.00 No Ice 4.99 5.87 0.02 Centroid-Le 000 1/2"Ice 5.44 6.32 0.05 g 000 Valmont 13'LP Platform C None 0.0000 88.00 No ice 15.70 15.70 130 1/2"Ice 20.10 20.10 1.76 (3)800 10121 A From Leg 4.00 0.0000 98.00 No ice 5.46 339 0.05 0.00 1/2"Ice 5.88 3.64 0.08 0.00 (3)800 10121 B From Leg 4.00 0.00(10 98.00 No Ice 5,46 3.29 0.05 000 1/2"Ice 5,88 3.64 0.08 0.00 (3)800 10121 C From Leg 4.00 0,0000 98.00 No Ice 5.46 339 0.05 0.00 1/2"Ice 5 88 3.64 0.08 0.00 (2)ETB 19G8-12UB TMA A From Leg 4.00 0.0000 98.00 No toe 0.00 0.45 0.02 0.00 I/2"Ice 0.00 0.57 0.03 0.00 (2)ETB19G8-12UB TMA B From Leg 4.00 0.0000 98.00 No Ice 0.00 0-45 0.02 0.00 1/2"Ice 0.00 057 0.03 0.00 (2)ETB19G8-12UB TMA C From Leg 4.00 0,0000 98.00 No Ice 0,00 0.45 0.02 0.00 UY ice 0.00 0.57 0.03 0.00 Valmont 13'LP Platform C None 0.0000 98.00 No Ice 15.70 15.70 1.30 12"Ice 20.10 20.10 1.76 12'T-Arm(p A From Face 2.00 0.0000 109.00 No Ice 4.70 2.33 0.33 0.00 1/2"Ice 5.33 2.96 0.40 0.00 ITT-Arm(1) B From Face 2.00 0.0000 109.00 No Ice 4.70 2.33 0.33 0.00 1/2"Ice 5.33 2.96 0.40 0.00 12'T-Ann(1) C From Face 200 0.0000 109.00 No Ice 4.70 2.33 0.33 0.00 1/2"Ice 5,33 2.96 0.40 0.00 (2)980F90T2E-M A From Face 4.00 0.0000 109.00 No Ice 3.99 2.29 0.01 0.00 1/2"Ice 4.37 2.65 0.03 0.00 (2)980F9oT2E-M B From Face 4.00 0.0000 109-00 No Ice 3,99 2.29 0.01 Un 1/2"Ice 4.37 2.65 0.03 0.00 (2)980F90T2E-M C From Face 400 0.0000 109.00 No Ice 3.99 2.29 0,01 0.00 I/2"Ice 4.37 2,65 0.03 0,00 (2)HBX-6516DS-VTM w/ A From Leg 400 OVO) 116.25 No Ice 3.53 3.17 0.03 mount pipe 0.00 112"Ice 3.91 3.80 0.06 0.00 (2)IIBX-6516DS-VTM w/ B From Leg 4.00 -10.0000 116.25 No Ice 3.53 3.17 0.03 mount pipe 0.00 I/2"Ice 3.91 3.80 0.06 0.00 (2)HBX-6516DS-VTM w/ C From Leg 4.00 0.0000 116.25 No Ice 3.53 3.17 0.03 mount pipe 0.00 1/2"Ice 3.91 390 006 0.00 4'T-Ann(Commscope A From Leg 2.00 0.0000 11625 No Ice 2.87 0.82 0.08 MC-DAI4-11) 0.00 1/2"Ice 3.33 1.02 0.11 0.00 iy y�r� outer Job Page lllr,? I T 5679 MATTITUCK 4 of 4 GPD Group Project Date 510 S.Main St.Suite 253/ 2011263.95 22:12:31 04/25/11 Akron,OH 44311 Client Designed by Phone:330-571-1221 AT&T MOBILITY FA330-572-1135 aWBStrum X, Deycription Face Ojfse( Offsets: Azimuth Placement CA, CAA Weight or Type Han Arljuament Front Side Leg Lateral Vert It .0 fr' /r K It -ft 4'T-Arm(Commscope B From Leg 2.00 -10.0000 116.25 No Ice 2.87 0,82 0.08 MC-DAI4-B) 0.00 1/2"Ice 3.33 1.02 0.11 0.00 4'T-Aram(Commscope C From Leg 2.00 0.0000 116.25 No Ice 2.87 0.82 0.08 MC-DAI4-B) 0.00 1/2"fee 3.33 1.02 0.11 0.00 Dishes Descriptiou Face Dish Offset Offsets: Azimuth 3 dB Elevation Outride Aperture Weight or Type Type Hu, Adjustment Beam Diameter Area Leg Lateral Width Vert - -- - - - - --11 --- -- . - - -1`- - -ft- ------ L--K- 2'Dish A Paraboloid From 4.00 0.0000 98.00 2.00 No Ice 3.14 0.07 w/Shroud(HP) Face 0.00 1,2"Ice 3.41 0.28 4.00 Critical Deflections and Radius of Curvature - Service Wind Elevation Apptmmance Gov. Dellemion Tilt Twist Radiusrf Load Gtrvalure �t Comb _._ In 116.25 (2)1 IBX-6516DS-VTM w/mount 16 21.224 1.3943 0.0048 94607 Pipe 109,00 12'T-Am(1) 36 19.108 1.3904 0.0047 45205 102,00 2'Dish 36 17.078 13784 0.0046 17967 98.00 (3)800 10121 36 15.932 1.3631 0.0045 13337 88.00 (4)DB844119DE-XY 36 13.138 1.2998 0.0040 8111 78.(10- (2)7184.15 36 10.492 1.2043 20035 5827 64.00 932QLG65VTFB /Mount Pipe 30 7.148 1.0259 0.0026 4102 Section Capacity Table $ecfian Elevation Component Size Critical P SF•P,,.,,, % P. Va. ft Type Elemenl K K Capacity Fail LI 118-108.5 Pole �TP 18x 18x0.375 1 --71--99-66-7 49 - 4.6 Pass L2 108.5-109 Pole TP24.2UI8x0375 2 -1.99 704.69 SO Pass L3 108-72.17 Pole TP29.717x24.240.1875 3 -9.03 832,41 52.3 Pass L4 72.17-36.25 Pole TP35.2x28.95980.25 4 -14.17 131229 84.5 Pass L5 36.25-0 Pole TP40.680431270.3125 5 -21.06 1921,41 92.3 Pass Summary Pole(L5) 92.3 Pass RATING 92.3 Pass Program Version 5.4.2 0-6i 17/2010 File:N:/2011/2011263/95/R ISA/5679 MatGmck.erf 108 Ft Monopole w/10 Ft Extension-Structural Evaluation AT&T USID:5679 APPENDIX C Tower Elevation Drawing 4/25/2011 neon U n DESIGNED APPURTENANCE LOADING p o s TYPE - ELEVATIONYP TE ._1 ELEVATION _ ,Yi }{ a 1085fl I 7 (Z)HB%-6516DSV1M I °IPDB 11625 V l %e1Mm - 89 n - w — a $ (z1113x-usl6os.vTM lose s 25 (el oB64+r0RM$r�9oE-ln ss o `V ' 121 HB%-6516D3-VTM wI m°unt pPe 11625 (2)71MIS >e 4'TJam lGurvn9mpa MGDA168) 11835 (2)71M 15 78 T - 4'T-A Cwnmawp°MC-DA 14 ) 116.25 (2)A 9011 78 Am ? 4'T.M (Canmawpe MCW4.5)( 116.35 I(2)AWW11 78 vp 17 T.Amm 1) 109 (2)ALP-9311 78 1 12 T. (1) 109 VtlmOn1131P WIItlm 78 y i 17T-Mm(1) IN (2)7184.is 78 RRR 121900F9m2EM 109 ETWIWVSi2U8 64 12)989F90T2E'M IN 'ETWI9W512La 69 (2)9eWWT2E-M 119 ETWAWSI2UB 61 ] (3) BW 10121 98 ETN'2 SIWB Be m n A HIP 9 (3)80010121 98 ETW2WV812U8 64 12)IN 10121 99 9]2oLG65VTEB wiM tPipe 60 (21 ETB19D8.12UBTAA 98 9920L(NT TES wINaunl Pipe 61 (21ETE19G612UBTMA a0 9B2GLG 6S 8wlMourr Pipe 64 (2)EM1934-12Ue TMA 96 4'SI°e ii 64 Velmanl 13'LP%allolm 96 4'sif. M 70'. 1S..N (h0S ET 98 W1 64 a4HB."E-XV 68 s12UB 81 (4)DlMrWG9M B9 72211 MATERIAL STRENGTH GRADE Fy __- Fu GRADE' Py Fu A5&642 42 kw 63 ksi A572E0 W Wi ]S kai TOWER DESIGN NOTES J 1. Tower is located in Suffolk County,New York. 2. Tower designed for a 85 mph basic wind in accordance with the TIAIEIA-222-F Standard. 3. Tower is also designed for a 74 mph basic wind with 0.50 in IN. 4. Deflections are based upon a 50 mph wind. -. 5. TOWER RATING:92.3% 7 J6.J 11 AXIAL g 27K SHEAR' MOMENT A B 15K , 4 1240 kip-ft TORQUE 1 klp-ft 74 mph WIND-0 5000,n ICE AXIAL 21K SHEAR' MOMENT 18 K ' J 1454 kip-ft con ' TORQUE 2 kip-ft 2 _ g E REACTIONS-85 mph WINO A, GPD Group ° 5679 MATTITUCK ,,G&a 520 S.Main St, Suite 2531 P°"`02011263.95 '11"_1 LJt17VI' Akron, OH 44311 C"w" AT&T MOBILITY 0"'ny awestrum App°i Phone'330-572-2221 OOOG TIAlEIA-222-1` Dee 04125111 spec_ NTS FAX.330-572-1235 Pes' Dw9Nc.E-1 0 Feedline Distribution Chart 0'-118' Y�J RwM Fe APP M face MP WlFeca Twssw, naeo Face A Face B Face C „aae '.. 11625 11625 loam loam 10800 'WW i 96.00 86.00 am aero +I { ]e on 78M 72.17. I 72.17 0 0 oIt o 9 LU _ 9s ` 1 i i ]9.25. ( 06]5 i I � I I I 1 aoo. 960 oro aro -,,.,.. GPD Group 5678 MATTITUCK 520 S.Main St,Suite 2531 P1p 2011263.95 Akron, OH 44311 `"-'AT&T MOBILITY°feMnbeawestrura"O Phone:330-572-2221 ° ' TIAIEIA-222-F .Dale.04125111 spa" NTS FAX:330-572-1235 03in:H�o11�2onxPaswss9w7e P. ..,, ow N°.E-7 Feedline Plan T� R. Fiat apo 1n Face app Out Fare �v ((01PEF56MRSITIC") • (12)LDF5-50A(7/8 FOAM) (10)LDF6-50A(1-114 FOAM) • (12)LDF7-50A(1-518 FOAM) LDF4.5- FOAM)FOAM) GPD Group 5679 MATTITUCK 520 S.Main St,Suite 2531 "°"tl-2011263.95 GI'D"ROLW Akron,OH 44311 c�ien4 AT&T MOBILITY D'a'9n 61 aw trum^00 d' Phone:330-572-2221 cOdBi TIAIEIA-222-F Dai'_0425111 a-e' NTS FAX:330-572-1235 Pat"'Nvst+eo+tzssesa�sa�rscss Mwnmm D"'9"°'E-7 108 Ft Monopole wl 10 Ft Extension-Structural Evaluation AT&T USID:5679 APPENDIX D Base Plate & Anchor Rod Analysis 4/2512011 Anchor Rod and Base Plate Stresses 5679 MATTITUCK GPD GROUP 2011263.95 Overturning Moment=. 454:00 k`ft Axial Force=: 21.00 k Shear Force= 718.0¢k I Acceptable Stress Ratio= h Anchor Rods Base Plate Pole Diameter= -68 in Plate Strength(Fy)= x'.55 ksi Number of Rods= . 12. Plate Thickness= 2:5 in Type= It set Rod Plate Width= 45 in Rod Yield Strength(Fy)= 7 ksi Est.Dist.b/w ea.Rod= 6 in ASIF= 1.333 wwm= 36.902 in Rod Circle= ,. 47in w.,= 24.374 in Rod Diameter= 2.25 in w= 24.37 in Net Tensile Area= 325 m2 S= 25.39 in Max Tension on Rod= 121.85 kips fb= 38.48 ksi Max Compression on Rod= 125.35 kips Fb= 55 ksi Allow.Rod Force= 195.00 kips Base Plate Capacity= 70.0% OK Anchor Rod Capacity= 62.5% OK Vnnx Vcnlc Ruse plot e Anchor Rod 5t CTyp) / s°se P[nte ESlst le Yleld Une GPD Unsuffenes Square Base Plate Stress(Rev F)-V2.07 108 Ft Monopole w/10 Ft Extension-Structural Evaluation AT&T USID:5679 APPENDIX E Flange Bolt and Flange Plate Analysis 4/25/2011 .R -.. Existing Flange Connection @ 108, �i 5679 MATTITUCK Cpf7 2011263.95 03, nN el 3' kips Ptcepfe"SVeea SBear=F--- Mlups Pan0 'nt.m .N VJI � x .v...ed rvm re ur.. lanne Bolo,.e r Flange Plata UPPR nm pBol6- LOcafron= Confi ure8Fron "Peel I Bolt Tyq Plate Slrengm(F,)= 6B ksl F Na Plata Tbicknese= 1.13 In ASIF=r5"T. Outer Diameter in BOX Circle=:- wwk= 23.06 in Balt Dlerrebr= ':6:1:76M xmexm 32.13m 23.06 In Tension B Shear(ASO.Aachen J3.5 S= 11.77'm' F,=J�Iapls Me fp= 2.85 Me Nominal Area= i^ Fe= Solecki f,= ksi UP Capacity• 5.7%OK Appl"i Shear= kipsAllowable Seer= N"FP2-<.39NVA2))`112kai Allowable Sot Snesa Pryilg Achim,Check tall= 41.41 kips 4.ae=1 0.40 in Max C. on BOX• ---27,71,pe Lowar fhn Rete L...r sufteera me.Tank.on Ball= 2.12 kips Loeatlon= on •tenon-f Shen Cepeciry= 0.1% Plate StrenBXi(F,)= $e ne Tensile Ce ac - 5.1% Plate Thickness 1560 ' 'n Boltca epi 5.1 OK Omar Oamelerwtelc= In Ppb Inbrmalbn w in Shaft Diam.(Upper) In = in Thickneu(Upper)= @376 n = mm2 a of See.(Uppen ?Irwed 1,= kaiF,(Upper)= (.:42 kai F,= ksi L Ca aci s 28 K snen Diem.ILpwer)= 24. in Thickness(Lower)= '10181.in a of Side.(Lower) 1' F,(Lower)_ :.'90 is. GGa Flege Rea Stn.me,F)-VI.w 520 South Main Street• Suite 2531 • Akron, Ohio 44311• PHONE 330-572-2100• FAX 330-572-2101 GPD GROUP fob#: 2011263.95 Calculated By: ANW Date: 4/25/2011 GPD GROUPEngineers-Architects- Planners Sheet No 1 Ofd_ Checked By: Date: MAX BOLT FORCE CALCULATIONS 0108, Moment from RISA(M) = 13.42 kip-ft ASIF = 1.33 Axial from RISA(P) = 2.92 kips Bolt Diameter = 1.25 in • Bolt Area(A,.,) = 1.23 in' Bolt Circle(BC,.) = 29.25 in Bolt MOI (1o,) = 0.12 in" Total Area(A.,) = 11.04 in Number Bolts(N;,,.) = 9 Percent Total Area(qij = 100.0% Axial, Bolts(P'qj = 2.92 kips Im.= 118225 in (Nj n *A,en *BC,,, 2/8+1\l;."10,) Im= 1182.25 in (I, + lo,a� + Inj Fsnm= .2.77;.kips (M`(BC,nrd/2)'A,�)/bast + P*%JNi�) Note: "Existing Flange Connection"calculations incorporate(12)total bolts for the purpose of calculcating max bending on the flange plates. • OT 108 Ft Monopole wl 10 Ft Extension-Structural Evaluation AT&T USID:5679 APPENDIX F Foundation Analysis 4/25/2011 CAISSON ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Client:AT&T Mobility Job No.: 2011263-95 wdift- Site ID: 5679 Sheet No: 1 Of 1 Site Name: MATTITUCK Made By: AW Date: 4/25/2011 CPD GROUP Location: Suffolk County,NY ChKd By: Date: Loading Type: Wind Code: F FOUNDATION DATA RISA Reactions(Service) Diameter= 6 IT Moment= 1454 ft-k Length= 21.5 It Axial= 21 kips Rebar Size= #11 Shear= 18 kips . If of bars= 16 Tie Size= #4 Clear Cover= 4 inches Edge to Bar Center= 5205 inches Fc= 3 ksi LPILE TYPE 2 ANALYSIS FOR REINFORCING CAPACITY Mn= 44629.69 m-k Mn= 3719.14 ft-k Load Factor= 1.3 'I ¢(flexure)= 0.9 �Mn= 3347.23 ft-k MOMENT FROM CAISSON PROGRAM USING ADJUSTED S.F.AND ACTUAL CAISSON LENGTH Moment= 1605.5 ft-k(max.moment along caisson) REINFORCING STEEL CAPACITY CapacityLF-Moment from Caisson 2087.15 ft-k • = _ = 62.4% O.K. iIiMn 3347.23 ft-k SOIL CAPACITY FROM CAISSON PROGRAM USING ADDITIONAL 5AFETY FACTORS ADDITIONAL SAFETY FACTOR FROM CAISSON= 240 Safety Factor of 2 2.00 Capacity= _ = 83.3% O.K. Additional Safety Factor 2.40 �� I CAISSON Version 4.46 Mon Apr 25 22:00:34 2011 U.W. Short Course - 1998 - * * PIER FOUNDATIONS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN - (C) 1995, POWER LINE SYSTEMS,. INC.* *** ANALYSIS IDENTIFICATION : 5679 MATTITUCK NOTES : 2011263.95 *** PIER PROPERTIES CONCRETE STRENGTH (ksi) = 3.00 STEEL STRENGTH (ksi) = 60.00 DIAMETER (ft) = 6.000 DISTANCE FROM TOP OF PIER TO GROUND LEVEL (ft) = 0.50 *** SOIL PROPERTIES LAYER TYPE THICKNESS DEPTH AT TOP OF LAYER DENSITY CU KP PHI • (ft) (ft) (pcf) (psf) (degrees) 1 C 3.00 0.00 100.0 0.0 2 S 12.00 3.00 100.0 2.770 28.00 3 S 3.00 15.00 100.0 3.000 30.00 4 S 5.00 18.00 100.0 3.000 30.00 *-* DESIGN (FACTORED) LOADS AT TOP OF PIER MOMENT (ft-k) = 1454.0 VERTICAL (k) = 21.0 SHEAR (k) = 18.0 ADDITIONAL SAFETY FACTOR AGAINST SOIL FAILURE = 2.40 *** CALCULATED PIER LENGTH (ft) = 21.500 *** CHECK OF SOILS PROPERTIES AND ULTIMATE RESISTING FORCES ALONG PIER TYPE TOP OF LAYER BELOW TOP OF PIER THICKNESS DENSITY CU KP FORCE ARM !� (ft) (ft) (pcf) (psf) (k) (ft) C 0.50 3.00 100.0 0.0 0.00 2.00 S 3.50 12.00 100.0 2.770 538.45 10.83 S 15.50 0.54 100.0 3.000 44.26 15.77 S 16.04 2.46 100.0 - 3.000 -223.04 17.30 S 18.50 3.00 100.0 3.000 -315.90 20.04 *** SHEAR AND MOMENTS ALONG PIER • SII WITH THE ADDITIONAL SAFETY FACTOR WITHOUT ADDITIONAL SAFETY FACTOR DISTANCE BELOW TOP OF PIER (ft) SHEAR (k) MOMENT (ft-k) SHEAR (k) MOMENT (ft-k) 0.00 43.8 3657.2 18.2 1523.8 2.15 43.8 3751 .3 18.2 1563.0 4.30 30.2 3640.2 12.6 1600.1 6.45 -22.0 3853.1 -9.2 1605.5 8.60 -97.3 3728.9 -40.6 1553.7 10.75 -195.7 3418.0 -81.5 1424.2 12.90 -317.1 2670.9 -132.1 1196.2 15.05 -461.5 2038.0 -192.3 849.2 17.20 -437.7 976.8 -182.4 407.0 U.W. Short Course - 1998 Page 1/2 �� 19. 35 -231.3 253.2 -96.4 105.5 21.50 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 *** TOTAL REINFORCEMENT PCT = 0.30 REINFORCEMENT AREA (in^2) = 12.21 *** USABLE AXIAL CAP. (k) = 21.0 USABLE MOMENT CAP. (ft-k) = 1660.5 *** US Standard Re-Bars (Select one of the following) : 62 BARS 44 (AREA 0.20 in^2 DIA = 0.500 in) AT SPACING (in) = 3.14 40 BARS 45 (AREA = 0.31 in^2 DIA = 0.625 in) AT SPACING (in) = 4.87 28 BARS #6 (AREA = 0.44 in^2 DIA = 0.750 in) AT SPACING (in) = 6.96 21 BARS #7 (AREA = 0.60 in^2 DIA = 0.875 in) AT SPACING (in) = 9.28 16 BARS 48 (AREA = 0.79 in^2 DIA = 1.000 in) AT SPACING (in) = 12.17 13 BARS #9 (AREA = 1.00 in^2 DIA = 1.128 in) AT SPACING (in) = 14.98 10 BARS #10 (AREA = 1.27 in^2 DIA = 1.270 in) AT SPACING (in) = 19.48 8 BARS #11 (AREA 1.56 in^2 DIA = 1.410 in) AT SPACING (in) = 24 .35 • 6 BARS #14 (AREA = 2.25 in^2 DIA = 1.693 in) AT SPACING (in) = 32.46 *** PRESSURE UNDER CAISSON DUE TO DESIGN AXIAL LOAD (psf) = 742.7 • U.W. Short Course - 1998 Page 2/2 RECEIVED OCT 5 2011 � 07 �D BOARD OF APPEALS 55 Sundance Drive Cos Cob, CT o6807 October z, 2011 Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Dear Sirs: Re: Application#6507 I wish to oppose the variance proposed by MetroPCS "to extend and co-locate" on the subject property. The Building Inspector disapproved the antenna support structures because they were less than 500 feet from adjacent residential property lines. My property line appears to be only about 105 feet from the proposed equipment. Please reject this variance. Sincerely yours, u G Sonia C. Hunter (Chung Ja Choi) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK AFFIDAVIT OF In the Matter of the Application of MAILINGS MetroPCS New York, LLC . (Name of Applicants) SCTM Parcel # 1000- 108-4-11.3 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK I, Marisa Knoth residing at c/o 36 N. New York Avenue, Huntington New York, being duly sworn, deposes and says that: On the 16 day of September 20 111 personally mailed at the United States Post Office in Ha 1 es i to , New York, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in Prepaid envelopes addressed to current property owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the (X) Assessors, or( )County Real Property Office for every property which abuts and is across a public or private street, or vehicular right-of-way of record, surroun ing t applicant's property. (Signature) Sworn to before me this �6 day of.�-epJr m 4u-, - , 20// E ~CAAWN No"rrr•aw a ww nK in,wwuiq" -' OIIYMN MlMIO� (No y l;ublic) PLEASE list on the back of this Affidavit or on a sheet of paper,the lot numbers next to the owner names and addresses for which notices were mailed. Thank you. r 0 MetroPCS New York, LLC(NY7313) Zoning Board of Appeals Application#6507 ;a of Owners Surrounding Subject Property at SCTM# 1000,Section 108, Block 4, Lot 11.3: Section-Bio Owners Names Owners Mailing Address* 108-4-7.3 Sonia C. Hunter 55 Sundance Dr. Cos Cob,CT 06807-1809 108-4-7.43 Raymond Neighley/Sally 245 Rachaels Rd, Mattituck, NY Neighley 11952 108-4-7.44 Katherine M. Pennington 315 Rachaels Rd, Mattituck, NY 11952 108-4-8 Joan P. Hilliard/ Ubaldo 885 Orchard St, PO Box 248, Gonzalez New Suffolk, NY 11956 108-4-11.2 William J.Baxter Jr. 6915 SE Harbor Circle,Stuart, FL 34996 108-4-12 Jason Damianos 535 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952 108-3-5.7 Barbara Hofer 450 Elijah's Lane, PO Box 481, Mattituck, NY 11952 108-3-5.44 AG Joseph P. Shipman/Cathleen L. 985 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY Shipman 11952 108-3-5.45 AG Joseph P.Shipman/Cathleen L. 985 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY Shipman 11952 P.O. Box 198, Peconic,NY 11958 115-7-13.2 AG Fredrick Koehler *Names and Mailing Addresses confirmed with Town of Southold Assessor's office on 9/14/11. u.S. Postal Service •• MAIL.M 1 ' rm� m CERTIFIED (Domestic mail only;No insurance Coverage Provided) Ln , - , NIAL S L �! ' m OFF FICIALI US , Ln M N Postage a `{ Postage $ 0 /0 .p I 61 J 1.17W Certified Fee Ceritied Fee 2-5rS- O Posture C3 Poi�„��(p� 0 Return Receipt Fee 3U '1 Here O RatumReceipt Fee3V '�"•'�QIU O (Endorsement Required) 2, O (Entlorsement Required) 2- Residoted Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee 0 (Entlorsement Required) (Endorsement Required) 1-1 O p r-1 Total Postage&Faaa $ S Total Poatage&Fees $ S7 C C3 Joan P. Hilliard and r-1 Katherine M. Pennington rRS' "I - it a -- Ubaldo Gonzalez o �a 315 Rachaels Rd. s 885 Orchard St, r` O1 Mattituck, NY 11952 c New Suffolk,NY 11956 I ,i i { U.S. Postal CERTIFIED� RECEIPT - - 4 M1 ' (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provide CO N 171 M1 O Ew 1 .` L U — 71 M rrl ._. CO Postage $ • N / �` Postage $Ln s -{ M CemnedFee Z.(SS j Certified Fee C3 `,,y" o 491 Return Recei t Fee ^ P Her 0 p POgy/ �' C3 Return Receipt Fee Her l 0 (Endorsement Requiretl) 2.3b (�. HePCJ,. O (Entloraement Required) Z.�� ! , 0 ResmIXed Delivery Fee JA t: Restricted Delivery Fee C3 (Endorsement Required) S p (EndorsementRegwred) O� Total Postage&Fees $ S- S 9 0 Total Postage&Fees $ rq Raymond and Sally Neighley a se' Sonia C. Hunter C3 ' 245 Rachaels Rd. --"....... o srd S5 Sundance Dr. M1 c [`• ort -- Mattituck, NY 11952 ci Cos Cob, CT 06807-1809 Postal I CERTIFIED ' � m (Domestic CoverageProvided) M1 �. Ln g F F Q I n 1rm CO A- Postage $ e y—/ /Ln o' -y`. co Postage s O certified Fee 2 S— I (� J- O p. I O Return Revel t Fee P� d op Certified Fee (Endorsement Required) Z-3 J G Rehm Rete Fes f /ostmark ResidctedDelive Fee ,� (EntlorsemeMRep�ired) O (Endorsement Required) A'fir �� C3 t f �• r Restricted Delivery Fee \ J, � p \-_ p (Endoraemem Requited) Total Postage&Fees $ S S / '"R V ;. r-1 Total Postage&Fees $. 9 I' a So' ,-R Barbara Hofer s Jason Damianos M1 ori 450 Elijahs Ln. o s .......... - - am Mattituck, NY 11952 535 Elijahs Ln. Mattituck, NY 11952 -------------- Postal •o - t. MAIL,- RECEIPT TIFIED MAIL., RECEIPT iy;No insurance Coverage Provided) (Domestic Mail Only;No insurance coverage Provided) r (Dom stic Mail On nj Ln Q, F FAL Ln 77 FFi CIA !- CO M f�~`.. Postage $ 1 / /' •O Postage $ . y 0 Certified Fee T �ys Q�\ Cedified Fee -�S A O J Ln p 2 Postm�lk =\ Return Receipt Fee 8°simark O Return Receipt Fee jd Here i OO (Endorsement Require d) `z•3� Sere 0 (Endorsement Required) z r;• Restricted Delivery Fee �/ O O (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee ,� C3 (Endorsement Required) ra $� � Total Postage&Fees $ S 4 A Total Postage&Fees Fredrick Koehler a Se, i rl Sem William J. Baxter Jr. P.O. Box 198 6915 SE Harbor Circle oor, Peconic,NY 11958 ------------ M1 c Stuart, FL 34996 -- I -- i I Postal I I . I Coverage Provided) M1 z F L o o $ N- 0 m co Postage $ q -_.'_ \ U c % A 8 2cc C3 Ceretled Fee -i. r ✓ _ nark �� ReturnFee CI 0 (Endorsement ReReceipt lmm 2-3 v N y 1 7 U 13 fU Restricted Deevery Fee `- 2 - 0 0 fM 1Endoraemant Ra4ulred) \,- ` 1 a \ Total Postage&Fees $ Ln rn a s, Joseph P. Shipman V C3 s; Cathleen L. Shipman — - ° CO 985 Elijahs Ln. < x m o � O❑ o� ..----------' C3 E Mattituck, NY 11952 rq e o Ili COMPLETESENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION r-R ■ Complete items 1,2,a� complete A i natwa \ kn M t` item 4 Resbicted Del Is Ia de desired. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. g. Received by(Printed Name) G. Date Del A ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front If space permits. /7 Il z D. Is delivery address di ferem hom ftan l7 13Yw 9 It 1. Article Addressed to: F Q _ If YES,enter delivery address below: f - EL �tT ° '� is E m Joseph P. Shipman 'n M Y Cathleen L. Shipman 8 985 Elijahs Ln. a 3. Service Mattituck, NY 11952 ❑certified Merl ❑Express Mall ❑Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise 17 Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?Pins Fee) [3 Vert'. 2. An Mh PS FL.... 102595-02-W1641) 1 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON OELIVERY ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. SI um item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired. X ■ Print your name and address on the reverse resa� so that we can retum the card to you. - ReceNed by(Printed ) C. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front If space permits. D. la'delivery address dllf erent from Item ly El Y7, 1. Article Addressed to: 14 y nter delivery address below: ❑No Barbara Hofer C- r 450 Elijahs Ln. -0 Mattituck, NY 11952 Mall ❑Express Mail Fxpress Mall Registered O Return Recelpt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail O C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 17 Yes 2. Article Number 7011 0110 0000 5835 7225 (transfer horn service label Ps Forth 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 1025950241-1510 DER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVEPY Complete Mems 1,2,and 3.Also complete a sign re Mem 4 M Reshbted Delivery Is desired. X ❑bent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Addressee so that we can return the cavi to you. ) �r ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, B. R ,{�`)��) C Date of Deliveryor on the tram if space Permits. ►`GU Y� �"�9., 1. Article Addressed to: D. is delivery address dtlfererrt from Ilam 1? ❑Yes If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑No Fre4rick Koehler P-Q�.Box 198 PCOMIlic, NY 11958 S. Service Type ❑Cerdred Mail ❑Express Melt ❑Registered ❑Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mall 13 C.O.D. 4. ResMcted Delivery?(Extm Feet ,❑Yee. .� 2. Article Number I. Rtanslerlron service(a 7011 0110 0000 5835 7201 s PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Recalpt - _ - ❑ ❑E3 13_ taaeee4dattsao EdCOMPLETE THIS SEC 7;ON ON OELIVERY w (j riJ ■ Complete Rams 1,2,and 3.Also complete _ .A IgretG {) V ❑❑❑ Ln Mem 4 M Restricted Delivery is desired. i ❑Agent c m ■ Pdnt your name and address on the reverse X ❑Addressee v m Ln so that we can return the card to you. by C o1 ivory ■ Attach this card to th back ck of the mall lace, .'r r �rt 7 o s or on the front M space permits. p q � 1 vi $$g r3 D. Is dalWay address dRfe t from Rear 1? C3 1. Article Addressed to: 'r_''trTIVrL�_l t : ❑❑ ❑ It YES,enter delivery address below: i ¢ X OE ra I Raymond and Sally Neighley o s 245 Rwbaels Rd. Mattituck, NY 11952 3. Sert,icerype s a o ❑Certlfled Mail ❑Expess Mail .E r` ❑Registered ❑Return Receipt for MercharMise o ❑Insured Mall ❑C.O.D. ",s p 4. Restricted Delivery?(Evhe Fee) ❑Yes € r: � - 2$5 SF 102595-02-rn-,540 S 8 U b A SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECT,ON COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVEPV �«� G 1� ■ Complete Mems 1,2,and 3.Also complete A Signature/ °m a `o Mem 4 M Restricted Delivery Is desired. X 1 ,f ,t _o_ ❑ m ■ ■ a ■ Print your name and address on the reverse V'�1`4%"' Addressee--- - - -- - _ - so that we can return the card to you. R livery ) C. D of ■ Attach this card t the back of the mailpiece, Q �7 or on the front M space permits. D. Is delivery address different from Rem 1? ^yes 1. Article Addressed to: fr ent9t dRlagry� below: No Joan P. Hilliard and A1,� '60'd'd 1X NY 1 H- ,01 Ubaldo Gonzalez t`IGW 7 ` 1 711 -0* - 885 Orchard St, 3. ServWe Type New Suffolk, NY 11956 ❑CertNkd Mail ❑Express Mail ❑Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Meal ❑C.O.D. 4. Restdcted Delivery?(Exse Fee) ❑Yes 2. ArticleNumber from 7011 0110 0000 5835 7256 (lYensler/nom service labs PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 1025951"-1540 i 0 ! 1 RE , NIELSEN,HUBER & COUGHLIN, LLP j ATTORNEYS AT LAW ��rt �U 36 Noaxx NEW Yoga AvaxuE HUNTINGTON, NEW YORK 11743 TELEPHONE: (631) 425-4100 FAuSIMILE: (631) 425-4104 OP OOVN88L WILLIAM J. NIELSEN September 23,2011 i VIA UPS DELIVERY& FACSIMILE i Ms. Vicki Toth, Board Assistant Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Building P.O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 I RE: MetroPCS New York, LLC ("MetroPCS") (Site No. NY7313) Zoning Board of Appeals Application# 6507 Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituck, New York SCTM# District 1000, Section 108, Block 4, Lot 11.3 Dear Vicki: On behalf of our client, MetroPCS,we submit herewith an executed Affidavit of Mailing, together with copies of the Public Hearing Notice and list of all surrounding property owners notified by certified mail. Also enclosed are the certified mailing receipts and green signature cards received to date. We will submit any additional green signature cards received hereafter with your office prior to the Public Hearing. Should you have any questions with respect to the foregoing, please do not hesitate to communicate with the undersigned. Thanking you for your courtesies,we remain. Very truly yours, RE,NIELSEN, HUBER&COUGHLIN, LLP By: JJC:mp Enclosures i • i i i i i 1 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERYCOMPLETE ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete [3 Agent item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X ❑Addressee ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. . Received (Printed ems) C. to of INery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, e. Q or on the front if space permits. D.is.delhwy addnes dHferent Goer ttem 17 ❑Y i. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below. ❑No William J. Baxter Jr. 6915 SE Harbor Circle Stuart, FL 34996 3. Service Type ❑Demaed Mall 0 Expses Mail ❑Registered 13 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Odra Fee) ❑Yea 2. 9rt1doNumber 7011 0110 0000 5835 7249 (rmrmfer from mvice label — — 1025V-02-W1640PS Form 3811,February 2004 DomeDomesticReturn Receipt 9 Aev fix p A__ Shore 2 Shore Wireless, Inc. 5550 Merrick Road, Suite 302 Massapequa, NY 11758 (516) 557-2398 office (516) 557-2397 fax October 3, 2011 Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 Southold NY 11971 Attn.: Ms. Vicki Toth RE: MetroPCS New York, LLC - Site: NY7313 Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing Sign Posting—confirmation Zoning Board of Appeals Application# 6507 Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck,NY SCTM# District 1000, Section 108, Block 4, Lot 11.3 Dear Ms. Toth, This letter is to confirm that on Wednesday, September 28`h 2011 a Notice of Public Hearing Sign was placed on the above referenced property. Enclosed please find the following: 1) Signed Affidavit of Posting 2) Photos of the sign. Please feel free to call me with any questions. Thank yopu,� Doug Hall Shore 2 Shore Wireless, Inc. 516-312-1462 cell Notice of Public Hearing—MetroPCS New York, LLC—site#NY7313 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck,NY District 1000, Section 108, Block 4, Lot 11.3 ZBA Application # 6507 s. a4rr�44E�€!fRµ� fnM1;a�af ttc�efifiV� i nRimact wtl l;ykinaCRB RM1TE: � TOWN OF SOUTHOLD b ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK AFFIDAVIT OF In the Matter of the Application of POSTING MetroPCS New York, LLC (Name of Applicants) Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land Identified as SCTM Parcel #1000- 108 - 4 - 11.3 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I 1, _ 1 014 Y 0" residing at 2 1 T✓i (fWoyC 6(V V' M G CC"{J1M tP New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the '!-?j—day of 201 , I personally placed the Town's Official Poster, with the date of hearing and nature of my application noted thereon, securely upon my property, located ten (10) 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 to date �,,� I hereby confirm that the Poster has remained in place for sin days prior to the date of the subject hearing date,which hearing date was shown to be fhurs. , October 6, 2011 at 9:30am (Signature) Sworn to bef�an me s _�Day of a 2011 1 Victoria Brennan, Esq /VT]�� Notary Public,Stat of New York No.02BROO72822 IV (Notary Public) QuaiiBad in Neaaau County Cormniabn mina April 15,201 * near the entrance or driveway entrance of my property, as the area most visible to passerby. BOARD MEMBERS OF sour 0 Southold Town Hall Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson .>�� yO 53095 Main Road •P.O. Box 1179 �� l0 Southold,NY 11971-0959 James Dinizio,Jr. Office Location: Gerard P. Goehringer G Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank George Horning .54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Ken Schneider lY�'Q� �1 Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809•Fax(631)765-9064 LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2011 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Town Code Chapter 280 (Zoning), Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971-0959, on THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2011: 9:30 AM - METRO PCS NEW YORK, LLC (Baxter/Goeller, owners) #6507 - Request for Variances from Article XVII Code Section 280-70J, based on an application for building permit to extend and co-locate on an existing wireless telecommunication facility and the Building Inspector's July 12, 2011 Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed antenna support structures at; 1) more than the maximum code required height of 45 feet, 2) less than the code required distance to adjacent residential property lines of 500 feet. Location: 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituck, NY. SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 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 business hours and prior to the day of the hearing. If you have questions, please contact our office at (631) 765-1809, or by email: Vicki.Toth(&Town.Southold.nv.us . Dated: September 6, 2011 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, CHAIRPERSON By: Vicki Toth 54375 Main Road (Office Location) 53095 Main Road (Mailing/USPS) P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 NOTICE OF HEARING The following application will be heard by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold: NAME METRO PCS NY, LLC #6507 MAP # 108-4- 11 . 3 VARIANCE HEIGHT; SETBACKS REQUEST CO-LOCATE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TOWER DATE : THURS , OCT. 69 2011 9 : 30 AM If you are interested in this project, you may review the file(s) prior to the hearing during normal business days between 8 AM and 3 PM . ZONING BOARD-TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 765- 1809 #10392 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Candice Schott of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County 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 1 week(s), successively, commencing on the 22nd day of September, 2011. UU Principal Clerk i Sworn to before .r„F>,i� �f da of � -^�11. 11E40 A.M..THOMAS R.&WEN- y LEGAL NOTICE DY L. CARLEY #6502 - Request for SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING Variance from Code Article XXIII Seo- BOARD OFAPPEALS tion 280-124 and the Building Inspector's THURSDAY OCTOBER 6,2011 July 8,2011 Notice of Disapproval based PUBLIC HEARINGS on an application for building permit for NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,put- additions to a single family dwelling at: suant to Section 267 of the Town Law and 1)less than the code required front yard Town Code Chapter 280(Zoning),Town setback of 4(1 feet,2)less than the code of Southold,the following public hear- required rear yard setback of 50 feet,to- ings will be held by the SOUTHOLD catedat:350WampumWay(Tepee7}ail), TOWN ZONING BOARD OF AP- Southold,NY,SCTM#1000-87-2-29 PEALS a[ the Town Hall,53(195 Main 11:00 A.M. . JOHN L & JOY E. GALLAGHER #6505 - Request for Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, New ] York 11971-0959,on THURSDAY OC. Variance from Article III Code Section /� TOBER 6-2011: 280-13 based on an application for build- LI�S' L" / �990AM . METROpCSNEWing permit to build an accessory building ?V 1_16' YORK_ Ir (BaserIG n.y rr • on a vacant lot,and the Building lnspec- NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW VORK tot's July 20,201 I Notice of Disapproval 1W-Request for Variances from Ar- stating that an accessory building is not No. 01-V06105050 title XVII Code Section 280-701,based permitted on a vacant lot (without a 12:00 P.M. - TAURIN FAMIIY on an application for building permit to TRUST #6509 - filed In Suffolk County extend and co-locate on an existingwire- view Drive dwelling),located Pond)Bay- Request for Variance view Drive (adj. to Spring Pond) East from Article XXIII Code Section 280- Ilon Expite/fe9lU0tV?#, 9012 leas telecommunication facility and the Marion,NY.SCTM#1000-37-5-4 123 and the Building Inspector's August Building Inspector's July 12,2011 Notice 11:20 A.M.-KENNETHSEIFERTH 16, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based of Disapproval concerning proposed ffiM- Request for Variance from Ar- on an application for building permit antenna support structures at;1) more title XXIII Code Section 280-122,and for as built non-conforming building at; than the maximum code required height Article 111 Code Section 280-15 and the 1) a nonconforming building contain- of 45 feet,2)less than the code required Building Inspector's Lune 2,2011 Notice ing a nonconforming use shall not be distance to adjacent residential property of Disapproval based on an application enlarged, reconstructed, structurally lines of 500 feet. Location:415 0.10'- for building permit for additionsialtera- altered or moved,unless such building Lane Mattituck, NY SCI'M#1000-108- n 4-11.3 tions to a non-conforming accessory than the code required is changed to a conformiside use,2 less and setback 10M AM-HIRAM F.MOODY JR garage at;1) a nonconforming building q Y and SARAH R AUI ARD#649 - containing a conforming use may be en_ of 15 feet, located at: 625 Terry Lane larged as long as the action does not cru (adj. to Southold Bay) Southold, NY. Request for Variance from Art.XXIII, ate any new nonconformance or inc:.-, SCPM#1000.65-1-23 Code Section 280-124 and the Build- of nonconformance with regard 1u the Carryover Hearings,continued from ing Inspector's lune 30,2011 Notice of regulations pertaining to such buildinp. prior meetings and pending additional Disapproval based on an application 2)less than the code required side pard information: for building permit for an addition to a setback of 15 feet,3) second Floor root Adjourned from Public Hearing Sep- single family dwelling at 1)less than the dormers at more than the code required tember 1,2011 code required front yard setback of 35 40% of the roof width,located at.200, 1..U0 P.M__C (PRONE.#6496 feet,located at: Reservoir Road (Win- Nassau Point Road(adj.to Broad,,atcn Aaourned from Public Hearing Au- throp Drive) (adj. to Silver Eel Cove) Cove)Cu(chogue,NY SCI'M#1000-I04- "'.est 4,2011: Fishers Island,NY.SCCM#1(X)1-9-8-3.2 10-11.1. 2M PM — LIPA and T•MORII F 10.20 A.M.•SUSAN M.DUNNING 11:40 A.M. - PHILIP and JENNI• N0R1HFASXt.1.0 f16i1 #6506-Request for Variance from Ar FER STANTON - Request for The Board of Appeals will hear all title XXIII Code Section 290-124 and Variance from Article III Code Section persons or their representatives, desir- the Building Inspector's May 31,2011, 280-15 and the Building Inspector's ing to be heard at each bearing,and/or Dated:Sepleuber 6,2011 updated August 11,2011 Notice of Dis- August 10,2011 Notice of Disapproval desiring to submit written statements ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS approval based on an application for based on an application for building per- before the conclusion of each hearing. LESLIE KANES W EISMAN,CHAIR- building permit for"as built" additionl mit to relocatelconstruct an accessory Each hearing will not start earlier than alterations to a single family dwelling at, barn at;l)height at more than the code designated above.Files are available for PERSON 1)side yard setback of less than the code required maximum of 22 feet,location: review during regular business hours54375 Maio Road BY*.Vkld Toth ft required 15 feet,located at;925 Stephen- 522 Town Creek Lane and 845 Maple and prior to the day of the hearing. If 53095 Main Road Lo ) son Road (adj. to Long Island Sound) Lane(adj.to Town Creek)Southold,NY. you have questions, please contact our fOfaBie�fUllSpS3PS) Orient.NY.SCTM#1000-17-1-2.1 SCTM#1000-64-1-14.7&29 office at, (631) 765-1809, or by email: EO.Box 1179 y H-Tnth@Tnwn So•thQhLnay 10,392 Southold, 11971.0959 • 0 050- - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAILING ADDRESS and PLACE OF HEARINGS: 53095 Main Road, Town Hall Building, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 (631) 765-1809 Fax 765-9064 LOCATION OF ZBA OFFICE: Town Hall Annex at North Fork Bank Building, 1st Floor 54375 Main Road and Youngs Avenue, Southold website: http://southtown.northfork.net September 6, 2011 Re: Town Code Chapter 55 -Public Notices for Thursday, October 6, 2011 Hearing Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Times Review newspaper. 1) Before September 19th: Please send the enclosed Legal Notice, with both a Cover Letter including your telephone number and a copy of your Survey or Site Plan (filed with this application) which shows the new construction area or other request, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, to all owners of property (tax map with property numbers enclosed), vacant or improved, which abuts and any property which is across from any public or private street. Use the current owner name and addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Southold Town Assessors' Office, or Real Property Office at the County Center, Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. If any letter is returned to you undeliverable, you are requested to make other attempts to obtain a mailing address or to deliver the letter to the current owner, to the best of your ability, and to confirm how arrangements were made in either a written statement, or during the hearing, providing the returned letter to us as soon as possible; AND not later than September 26th: Please either mail or deliver to our office your Affidavit of Mailing (form enclosed) with parcel numbers, names and addresses noted, along with the green/white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. When the green signature cards are returned to you later by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us before the scheduled hearing. If any envelope is returned "undeliverable", please advise this office as soon as possible. If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board during the hearing and provide the card (when available). These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all Notices. 2) Not Later September 28th: Please make arrangements to place the enclosed Poster on a signboard such as cardboard, plywood or other material, posting it at the subject property seven (7) days (or more) prior to hearing. (It is the applicant/agents responsibility to maintain sign until Public Hearing) Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, not more than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. If you border more than one street or roadway, an extra sign is supplied for posting on both front yards. Please deliver or mail your Affidavit of Posting for receipt by our office before October 4, 2011. If you are not able to meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank you for your cooperation. (PLEASE DISPLAY YOUR HOUSE NUMBER ALWAYS). Very truly yours, Zoning Appeals Board and Staff Ends. BOARD MEMBERS 0 f SO • Southold Town Hall Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson �0 ti 53095 Main Road • P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 James Dinizio,Jr. Office Location: Gerard E Goehringer ti Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank George Horning �p� 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Ken Schneider COW, Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel.(631)765-1809 •Fax(631)765-9064 MEMO TO: Planning Board AUG 16 2011 FROM: Leslie K. Weisman, ZBA Chairperson DATE: August 16, 2011 SUBJECT: Request for Comments ZBA #6507 — METRO PCS New York, LLC As confirmed with your office, the ZBA is reviewing the following application, and enclosed copies of Building Department's Notice of Disapproval, ZBA application, and latest map. The Planning Board may be involved under the site plan review steps under Chapter 280 (Zoning), and your review and comments are requested at this time. The file is available for review of additional documentation at your convenience for reference if needed. NAME TAX#/ ZBA BD NOD VARIANCE PLANS PREPARER ZONE DATE DATE STAMPED METRO PCS 108-4- #6507 7-12-11 280-70(J) 8/12/11 MTM Design NEW YORK, 11.3 Group LLC Architecture Engineering, Luis Mo lino, RA Your comments are appreciated by September 19, 2011. Thank you. Ends. BOARD MEMBERS • Southold Town Hall Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson SOF S0(/ly 53095 Main Road •P.O. Box 1179 `4� alp Southold,NY 11971-0959 James Dinizio,Jr. Office Location: Gerard P. Gcehringer C, Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank George Horning • �O 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Ken Schneider Ol•YC00 Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631)765-1809• Fax(631)765-9064 August 17, 2011 Mr. Thomas Isles, Director Suffolk County Department of Planning P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 Dear Mr. Isles: Please find enclosed the following application with related documents for review pursuant to Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code: ZBA File #6507 Owner/Applicant: Metro PCS NY, LLC Action Requested: Extension & co-location of an existing wireless communication tower and related equipment Within 500 feet of: ( X) State or County Road ( ) Waterway (Bay, Sound, or Estuary) ( ) Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State, Federal land. (X) Boundary of Agricultural District ( ) Boundary of any Village or Town If any other information is needed, please do not hesitate to call us. Thank you. Very truly yours, Leslie K. Weisman ZBA�Chhairrpp�erson Encls. BOARD MEMBERS EDF so Southold Town Hall Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson .� O 53095 Main Road •P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 James Dinizio,Jr. It Office Location: Gerard P. Goehringer CA ae Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank George Horning :% 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Ken Schneider ��'O Southold,NY 1]971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel.(631)765-1809•Fax(631)765-9064 November 4, 2011 Re,Nielsen, Huber and Coughlin, LLP 36 North New York Avenue Huntington,NY 11743 Re: ZBA File#6507 —Metro PCS Dear Mr. Coughlin: Transmitted for your records is a copy of the Board's November 3, 2011 Findings, Deliberations and Determination, the original of which was filed with the Town Clerk regarding the above application for variances. Before commencing any construction activities, a building permit is necessary. Please be sure to submit an application along with a copy of this determination to the Building Department. If you have any questions,please call the office. \Sincerely V �CY Vicki Toth Encl. Cc: Building Dept., Planning Board 6 Pa No. S A TCM 1 SEE 9EC.N0.101 /— _ — Nn..____ _ ___ _ LINE Nhy—� Z A ° FOR PCL.NO. SEE SEC.NO ° 576A(G < ps n a AW_ i 63 0FOR NO OEVEIOWEM R.GI!!$/ 1 ��® I� SEE SEC.NO. 10301-010.1 A b { I - I 6.2 fl 3A O 48622 b b FOR PCL.NO. p wj0 SEE SEC.NO 109.01-pJ6.7 7.14 t s.1s`o• Ik. I4 0 P� tat 7.13 \p 4?A(q `f 5.15` $ e ]12 PM1P h f ,f. 5.14E eb \ e f e b a aP 5.13 Q' Q. 1 27 ]91 M I 710 , 2M(G w e 4 A Prp.+ Q e b ]'W ].8f v) VO Ah R EOR PCL NO. 5.,2 6�P\ < Q 19.B SEE SEC.NO '7n . 000_g % a $ { 1" +y 4.3µG 12s I 1os6v o { e � s6AG �e f { ]]5 ]26 m, 4 5.11 '� U b ]] e + 19.11 { � ].96 727 � { b 5.10 \\ { 6 4 \ wl F \ 84 7.29 9.4 \ 24A 75 Ell \ b b \ � P 238 7.25� f ]4 b 0 h.0l 13.12 43A Q 10 wl A• ]24 5.6 e4\\ e { m 1� �Q NG NI ]� e �\\ (SOI Z7A 9 7d0 )33 1.0µc) +1 'T 4AA(c) i� a ` f w ' ]A1 113 9.3 5.6 + MSO 11 1 W 1M b 4704`" ^' 52 5.5 fOn 1sin3w 11µc) IA"r. " _ S.R.25 p .m b : RD.) AL z ( ORT MA�INCK-GRE 8ENP uwseet ' 21 MpW V NOTICE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK © K im �m towx or SOI11N01J) SECTION NO Real Property Tax Service Agency r .wnn„or,Ne m K1a 1.08 PENN m m . wm ais[iR.miwry,Mwru wauvlm • Cwnq'GmW NnN�a4.MYt1i1 M1 a� - • alae wam: