The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1000-108.-4-11.3 (6) 51TE INFOP-.MATION: GROUP HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 LI T: T: 7 2.8 7.9o9o ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ P. ~ ~ ~/ ~ I Lou MogBno, MA Robert W. Toms, P.E. I ~ - fi 028992-1 I ~ ' fi 075384 LL.~. ~ ~J~ ~1~ J TH}~ DOGUMZNT I~ THE DEliaN, ~0~ THE ~XGLUSIWE USe ~ THe TITLN OLI~NT. AN~ A~ ~, NI~ ~ l ~IN, ~ CONSENT ON THE OREATOR 15 ~TRIGTLY PROHIDIT~O. O3/~q/15 JPDATED ATTORNEY COMMENT5 - I~T~TION ¢ (6) PA~ AN~ ON ~15~ ~0~ TO~ ~), I - I~T~TION ¢ ¢~ ~1~ F~ ~1~ ~1~ 6~ TO T0~ I~ 03/Oq/I; JPDATED PER ATTORNE~ flPDATED O~N~R'S LIST mj , EL IJAH'5 LANE ,,~ .... ¢" , ' ~1 ~ hi ,,I ~ I ' i : ,,, ~ ~ I: -- TO~AI~, DA~ ,,,,:', ,=, ,, ,, ,,~, ,, ...... ~ ,,,,,,, ,, ,,, ~ .... ' ,', ........ ;~4~, ' OqMP T 020 LOOAT liON MAP: i'--iooo' (llxrl) ( TO~,~ O~ ~ ~: I",~I (~X~) ~ Iii:Illl!III Iii ~)lllI h > '4~ ~ I ' Jif; I ~AP~ROXI MATE I d'~I I "~ I II I 'i~ ~ ' ~I I I I /SI~EiLOCATION I %~ ' i ~ I I I :1 ~:1 ' i i~: i:I IiI Iii i~ I I i i ~]~ , IliI Ii: hi i ~ Ii %% iiiI I .~I~:.I I I ihiII I ¢~ ~ Iii:ii ii I I : ~% ~ :l~I ~ ~ I ":IlIII~ll ii I ii I i~I: :I i / I I ~ % I : I~l IiiI IIi i¢~i ~ ~ i ~ ~liIlII '4 %illllih III ~II Iii I ~ ~ ~ h / !iii ~ I h~ IiiI I ~ ~1~I:I Ii'ii IiI~l~I[YII:~Iii~: Il: I :I~ ~:~lII~l I IiI~lq I~lI~ II ....... Ii IiiI I ~I .... I I I ~ iiI ~ I I ~ / I I I ~ I~ ~ i i ~ ii,ii iiiii~liili ii iiiIlii iiiiIihii~%~a>~ i iIi ~ ~1 ~ ,~ i Iii ILI II~ iI ~ iI I i I~ II II IiiII ?llll ~Ii :I, LI~ ~1 I ~ ~ 1:1 ~: ~ ~1 ~ I?' ~ :~ ~ 1 , ~ I I,,~ ,,,~ ,~,,. _~ ..... W~k ' ' ~""', k I I I i i~¢~ ~1 h i iii i ii[iiiii i¢ii ii iii Ii i~i i ~ii;] ::i i ii~I iI [-~ i~ ~ ~ I I ~ I IiiII I~I[ I lib ~ '~ II~ I I~ ~ ~ i ~ I ~ I ~ II Ill Ill ~l~ ~ ' I ~I I ~ II ~ I i i~ I I il Ii ~l ~I II I i ~l~ ~l I; dl~ III I I illi Illll ~li ii ill i ili I HIll I~:l: I I:~ ! ~ :l~L .... Iii Ill ~l~~ !l! ~l:i I :illI ~liI ~l;:~ :~ ~,~ I: ~i~iid~- Illlilillll~,~Ii I I~ ~I Ii~lllll ~i:il I~i:: Ill II hi iI ]!Ill IIH~IIIIIIIIIi~II ~:lll~lllllIlllill!~:l:ilII i ii~lI ii~ [~ i I ii ~ h~ ill ~ I I i : Ill I ~ I: i ii II I~ i~lli !~:l~ h~ ~l I I illl~l ~ I I ~ I iI II I: ~ I Illl ~ ~ ~ !l Ill Illl~ I ~ II~ Ill ~ i : I:ii: i Ihl II~l II I~ iII:IIIliIHI~I Illl~I I ~ I : : ~:I~ IlllllIJ~ ~:lll ~ I ~ ~l~?l:l i:i I ~ IIilI~III :l ~l i~ III Illl: II I~ I i I II II~ I II iI ii ~ Illlh I I I Ill I~llllI I I I I ~ II ~ ~ I I I h I I I~ ~ I II~ -~l~ ~l I i iI I~ ~ I i ~ ~ i 2Dl? LOT NUMBER LEGEND: TOP NUM. = SECTION No' , MID. NUM. = BLOCK ' ~ E~3TTOIq 5~,¢.,TION OF ~ HO~POL~ RILL BOTTOM NUM. = LOT / / ~ ~ / ~ BA~ L~. ~PO~ F~L ZO~ ,~, ZO~ ~1~. ,,/' N,,N' N,,N,' E N G I N E E R I N G P.O. BOX3 ,'/ &SJ ,_ APPROXIMATE / o8 ~ 4 ', 2,3 ~ '~ _/-' ~.~ ~ FARM ~, ~" ~ ~ LAND ', 115 ; / ,, ', 13.2 X, 7 /", X APPROVED BY HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 T: 732.817.9090 F: 732.847.4335 SEC BLOCK LOT PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNER INFORMATION OWNERADDRESS ZONE EXISTING LAND USE 108 3 5.10 1070 ElUahs Ln Frank C, Toddck ] Nancy A. Todrick t070 Elijahs Ln PO Box 406 Mat,.. 11952 R-40 Family Residence 108 3 5.2 20505 Route 25 Craig Johnson / Laralne Johnson 20505 Route 25, Matfituck, NY 11952 R-80 Family Residence ~,~ ~ 108 3 5.3 20105 Route 25 Noel P. Gawas/;:wen B. Gawas 20108 Route 25, MatUtuck, NY 11952 R-80 Family Residence ,108 3 5.44 892 Elijahs Ln Joseph p. Skipman / Cathleen L Skipman 985 Elijahs Ln, Mattituck, NY 11952 AC Nursery ~YJ~ 108 3 5.45 898 Elijahs Ln Joseph p. Skipman / Cathleen L. Skipman 985 Elijahs Ln, Mattituck, NY 11952 AC Numery 108 3 5.6 260 Elijahs Ln ~oma,s C. Wilton / C'~therine M. Wilton 260 Elijahs Ln, Mattituck, Ny 11952 R-40 Family Residence t08 3 5.7 450 Elijahs Ln Barbara Hofer 450 Elijahs Ln, PO BOx 481, Mattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence 108 3 5~8 590 Elijahs Lo Terrence E. Matthews I Regina B. Matthews 590 Elijahs Ln, Mattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence 108 3 5.9 770 Elijahs Ln William J. Burns / Ratficla C. Burns PO Box 987, Mattltuck, NY t 1952 R-40 Family Residence Lou MoD]Ldo, AL& Robert W. Toms, P.E. ARCHITECT STKUCTUR~L ENGINEER 108 4 2.1 18875 Route 25 Jon Jacobs / Candace Jacobs PO Box 475 Mattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence NJ - ¢/A113345 NJ - # GE 36209 NY-/~ 028992-1 NY - ~ 075384 108 4 2.3 18875 Route 25 NY State Albany, NY 12200 AC / R-40 Flood Contml THIS ~OCLJMENT le THE ZDEeI~N, P~OPE~T'r' 108 4 3 18955 Route 25 Charles B. Gardner Jr. / Meldmd A, Gardner 18955 Route 25, Mattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Fam y Res dence C,OP¥1~I~HT OF "THE MTM [~EeI~N ~f~OUP, ]NC," AND t08 4 5,4 19105 Route 25 Donald L Bergen / Mary C. BerDeh Po Box 1198 Mattituc~., NY 11952 R-40 i Family Residence CONeENT OF THE C.F~EATOR I~ eTRI~,TL'r' 108 4 6 10155 Rbute 25 Louise C~hdellina pO Box 1027 Mattituck, NY 11952 R-4.0 Family Residence 108 ,4 7.23 ,§20 Gabfie,!a C, Robe,d; E~ Bopp PO Box 403 Mattituck, NY t 1952 AC Fam y Res den,ce Ob/OI/12 UPDATED TOhlN / k 108 4 7.24 670 Gabfiella Ct ~omas J. Riley / ,ennifer J. Riley 670 Gabdelra Ct, Mattituck, NY 11952 Ac F,amily Residence 108 4 7.3 645 Elijahs Ln Sonic C. Hunter 55 8undance Dr. Cos Cob, CT 06807-1809 R-40 Res Vac Land ~ 04/I&/I2 UPDATED P~ TOY'IN CO~"4FNT~ 108 4 7.4 i 845 Elijaha Ln Carl A. Skrezec Jr / Lara BaYne 845 Elijahe LnMattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence /4~ 93/Jq/i2 UPDATED PER ATTORNEY 108 4 7.40 665 Gabdella Ct Dallas E. Dodge Sr... Dianne L, Dodge 665 Gabrlella Court~ Matfltuck, NY 11952 AC Family Residence 93/0~/12 UPDATED ATTORNEY CO~HENT5 t08 4 7.41 515 Gabfiella Ct Derek kin'lean PO Box 500, Mattituck, NY 11952 AC Family Residence 108 4 7.43 245 Racheels Rd Raymond Neighle:, / Sally Neighley 245 Rachaels Rd, Mattituck, NY 11952 R~,0 Family Residence ~ 'o5/17/rl UPDATED PEP-. O~'tNEP-.'S LI$T 108 4 7.44 315 Rachaels Rd Kathenne M. PenningS:on 315 Rachaels Rd, Matbtuck, NY 11952 R-40 Fatuity Residence REV C~ATE I~E~C~IPTION 108 4 7.45 365 Rachaels Rd Shawn Loper / Christina Loper 365 Rachaels Rd, Mattituck, NY 1t952 R-40 Family Residence CLIENT, 108 4 7~46 415 Rachaels Rd Jason Wahl / Irene Wahl 415 RaChaels Rd, Matfltuck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence 108 4 7.5 985ElijehsLn Joseph p. Shipman/CathleenLShipmen 985BijehsLn, Mattituck, NY 11952 R40 Family Residenee r le' :n) 108 4 8 19475 Route 25 / Main Rd Joan P. Hilliard / IJbaldo Gonzalez 885 Orchard St, PO Box 248, New Suffolk, NY 11956 R-40 Family Residence ® New York, L.L.C. 108 4 11,2 19625 Route 25 / Main Rd William J. [ .xfer Jr, 6915 SE Harbor Circle, Stuart, FL 34996 LB Automotive ~ PLANNING BOARD 108 4 12 535 Eljah~ Ln Jason Damianos 535 Elijahs Lh, Mattltuck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence I TOWN OF $OUTHOLD 115 7 1 19380 Route 25 Ban7 Murphy / Karen O. Murphy PO Box 1230, Mattituck, NY 11952 R40 Family Residence / ~' ' DATE ~P 1 ,el 2012 CLIENT PROJECT a~ 115 7 3 260 Eastward Ct Raymond J. Zaneski ! C:hfisfine M. Zaneski PO Box 605, Mattituck, NY 11952 R~0 Family Residence '/ ~-~-~--~-~- ' 115 7 6 Eastward Court Town of South01d PO Box 1179, Southhold, NY, 11971 R40 Flood Control ' -, , r'~^ 6 ~lT~ /, I __ ' -',- ,,, 115 7 10 265 Eastward Ct James F. Reidy III I 265 Eastward Ct, MattItuCk, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence I - ~ - ~ 1t5 7 11 55 Eastward Ct Reuben I..= Wright ' 10709 Venetia Mill Circle, Apt. A, Sliver Spring, MD 209011 R-40 Family Residence ~, h'I'ATTI TUC{<,, Nh" / 115 7 12 19450 Route 25 Berhice Bogan J 19450 Route 25, Uattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence I J~ DRAAIN® TITLE: 115 7 J 19.2~ 19500 Route 25 Fredrick Koehler ~ PO Box 198, Peconlc, NY 11958 AC Nursery ' / 115 j 7 14 19100 Route 25 Jacqueline bL Mitchell PO Box 840, Mattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Rasldence RADIO5 HAP ~t5URROUNDIN I NI ORI'-.dAT I ON TOLUN~I41p OF 50UTMOLZ) STreet ~,[D~FEE55 bfl~,F~ N D®G ' 5UF t OLJNIDIN ', OPEF T¥ OUJNEF 5 INFOF I"IAT'ION FT. Fb& ID5 / "/IGINIT¥/KEY Ill×F/5GALE: NOT TO 5GALE \,. ~/ IIxF~ SCALE: I" = 4®~,-®" 24x36 5CAI-E: ~ 24xD& 5CALE: I" = 2¢¢ -®" CHECKED ~¥: o' 2oo' oo' 4O0' A J O&/Oq/lO SEC BLOCK LOT PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNERINFC'RMATION OWNERADDRESS ZONE EXISTING LAND USE 108 3 5.10 1070 EIUahs Ln Frank C. Toddck t Nancy A. Todrick t070 Elijahs Ln PO Box 406 Mat... 11952 R-40 Family Residence 108 3 5.2 20505 Route 25 Craig Johnson / Loralne Johnson 20505 Route 25, Mattituck, NY 11952 R-80 Family Residence 108 3 5.3 20105 Route 25 Noel P. Gawas / ;: ,yen B. Gawas 20105 Route 25, Mattituck, NY 11952 R-80 Family Residence .108 3 5.44 892 Elijahs Ln Joseph p. Skipman / Cathleen L, Skipman 985 Elijahs Ln, Mattituck, NY 11952 AC Nursery 108 3 5.45 898 Elijahs Ln Joseph p. Skipman / Cathleen L. Skipman 985 Elijahs Ln, Mattituck, NY 11952 AC Numery 108 3 5.6 260 Elijahs Ln ~loma,s C. Wilton / C~therine M. Wilton 260 Elijahs Ln, Mattituck, Ny 11952 R-40 Family Residence t08 3 5.7 450 Elijahs Ln Barbara Hofer 450 Elijahs Ln, PO BOx 481, Mattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence 108 3 5,8 590 Elijahs Lo Terrence E. Matthews I Regina B. Matthews 590 Elijahs Ln, Mattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence 108 3 5.9 770 Elijahs Ln William J. Burns / Ratficla C. Burns PO Box 987, MatUtuck, NY t1952 R-40 Family Residence 108 4 2.1 18875 Route 25 Joe Jacobs / Candace Jacobs PO Box 475 Mattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence 108 4 2.3 18875 Route 25 NY State Albany, NY 12200 AC / R-40 Flood Contml 108 4 3 18955 Route 25 Charles B. Gardner Jr. / Meldmd A, Gardner 18955 Route 25, Mattituck, NY 11952. R-40 Faro y Res dence t08 4 5,4 19105 Route 25 Donald L Bergen / Mary C. Bereeh Po Box 1198 MatStucg, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence 108 4 6 10155 Rbute 25 Louise C&hdellina pO Box 1027 Mattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence 108 .4 7.23 .520 Gabde .!a C. Robe.d; E~ Bopp PO Box 403 Mattituck, NY t 1952 AC Fam y Res den.ce 108 4 7.24 670 Gabdella Ct ~omas J. Riley / ,ennifer J. Riley 670 Gabdelra Ct, Matfituck, NY 11952 Ac F,amily Residence 108 4 7.3 645 Elijahs Ln Sonic C. Hunter 55 8undance Dr. Cos Cob, CT 06807-1809 R-40 Res Vac Land 108 4 7.4 845 Elljaha Ln Carl A. Skrezec Jr / Lara BiltYne 845 Elijahe LnMattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence 108 4 7.40 665 Gabdella Ct Dallas E. Dodge Sr.: Dianne L, Dodge 665 Gabrlella Court~ Matfltuck, NY 11952 AC Family Residence t08 4 7.41 515 Gabdella Ct Derek kin'lean PO Box 500, Mattituck, NY 11952 AC Family Residence 108 4 7.43 245 Racheels Rd Raymond Netghle:, / Sally Neighley 245 Rachaels Rd, Mattituck, NY 11952 R~,0 Family Residence 108 4 7.44 315 Rachaels Rd Kathenne M. PenningS:on 315 Rachaels Rd, Mattltuck, NY 11952 R-40 Fatuity Residence 108 4 7.45 365 Rachaels Rd Shawn Loper / Christina Loper 365 Rachaela Rd, Mattituck, NY 1 t952 R-40 Family Residence 108 4 7,46 415 Rachaels Rd Jason Wahl / Irene Wahl 415 RaChaels Rd, Mattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence 108 4 7.5 985 Elijahs Ln Joseph p. Shipman / Cathleen L. Shipman 985 Elijahs Ln, Mattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence 108 4 8 19475 Route 25 / Main Rd Joan P. Hilfiard / L,,,aldo Gonzalez 885 Orchard St, PO Box 248, New Suffolk, NY 11956 R-40 Family Residence 108 4 11,2 19625 Route 25 / Male Rd William J. [ .xter Jr, 6915 SE Harbor Circle, Stuart, FL 34996 LB Automotive 108 4 12 535 Eljah~ Ln Jason Damianos 535 Elijahs Lh, Mattltuck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence 115 7 1 19380 Route 25 Ban7 Murphy / Karen J. Murphy PO Box 1230, Mattituck, NY 11952 R~49 Family Residence 115 7 3 260 Eastward Ct Raymond J. Zaneski ! ~':hnstlne M. Zaneski PO Box 606, Mattituck, NY 11952 R~0 Family Residence 115 7 6 Eastward Court Town of South01d PO Box 1179, Southhold, NY, 11971 R-40 Flood Control 115 7 10 265 Eastward Ct James F. Reidy III 265 Eastward Ct, Matt[tuCk, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence 1t5 7 11 55 Eastward Ct Reuben I;: Wright 10709 Venetia Mill Circle, ApL A, Silver Spring, MD 209011 R-40 Family Residence 115 7 12 19450 Route 25 Berhice Dogan 19450 Route 25, Mattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence 115 7 19.2 19500 Route 25 Fredrick Koehler PO Box 198, Peconlc, NY 11958 AC Nursery 115 7 14 19100 Route 25 Jacqueline bL Mitchell PO Box 840, Mattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence ZONIN INFORHATION 'LB' I. IMITI~ 5J~INt~:~ ~ THE OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON, FROM THE PROPERTY LINES TO ~ THE STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE THEREFORE THEY ~~ ARE NOT INTENDED TO MONUMENT PROPERTY LINES OR TO GUIDE THE I~M ~UI~D EXISTIN¢ ~UIPMBNT E~Ec=~0~ OF FENCES, ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES OR ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS INST~ATION I~ IN GO~LIANGB HI~, MIN. LOT A~A ~0,000 5Y. ¢0,4~4.15 5.F, NO OHAN¢B 2 CONSULT WITH THE HDIWAY DEPARTMENT BEFORE DESIGNING, INSTALLING OR '~L L~ A~ 5TA~ ~I~IN¢ ~0~:¢. MODIFYING ANY NEW OR EXISTING CURBS, WALKS OR ROADWAYS IN TEE ~ ~PO~D ~ RIN~ A~ E~l~T STREET SNOWN HEREON -~ E~Y ~VATION CONS~TION ~IN. LOT ~IDTH 115 FT Iql.~ ~. NO OHANCE ~ THIS IS TD CERTIFY THAT THERE ARE NO VISIBLE STREAMS OR NATURAL WATER COURSES IN THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ~ OF ~, MIN. LOT DEPTH 250 ~T 415,¢Q PT. NO ~HAN¢~ 4 REFER TO ARTICLE 56 OF THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW AND THEPROVISIONS ~ ~ ~05~ ~ ~M ~ISTIN¢ ~ ~1~ OF INDUSTRIAL CODE PART (RULE NO. 53) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION OR MIN. ~ONT YA~ 5EimAOK(ANIbNNA) IOO FT, ~ ~ ~ DEMOLITION IS COMMENCED, THESE LAWS REQUIRE EACH EXCAVATOR TO GIVE ADVANCE NOT~CE TO ALL OPERATORS OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES OF HIS MtN. ~RONT YA~ SETBACK (BGUI~ENT) I00 ~T. ~ ~ ~ INTENT TO PERFORM EXCAVATION OR DEMOLITION IN THE SPECIFIEO AREAS 5, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN U.S, STANDARD MEASUREMENTS ~ ~OM SECTION OF ~ MONOPOLE ~1~ - ~A~Y INFORMATION 6, PARCEL SUBJECT TO' 5.0 ~T. ~1,55 ~T. ~) DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED 12/4/1992 ~ ~INF~ ~5 ~IN~ ~ ~O~O~IN& MIN. 51DB ~A~ 5b~AOK ONE 2¢ ~T. TOT~ ~N EIDER/REEL 11585 PAGE 3~5 MONOPOLE~ B~AK POINT TO ~ AT ~ ANT~NN~ 45' FT. ~.~ ~T. 1~2.24 FT. ~) GRANT OF EASEMENT RECORDED 1/29/2001 IN LIBER/REEL 11621 PAGE 358 m) MEMORANDUM OF LEASE RECORDED 1/29/2001 IN LIBER/REEL 12099 PAGE 286 ~AS~ O~ THE 2~ ~TION L~A~D55'4" - MIN. 51DB YA~ 5~AOK ONE 20' ~T. EO ~T. 41.55 ~. 7. EASEMENTS NOT SIIOWN ON TRIS SURVEY MAP ARE NOT GUARANTEED ~ B~E ~L. ~PO~ ~ ZO~ D~I~N E~UIPMENT) TOT~ 4D' FT. ~.~ FT. I~.IB FT. ~1~ NLL ~ ~ ~AN ~ISTINe F~ ~O~ANY NY LI~. ~, ON 12-1~-~ MIN. ~AR YA~ DE,ACK (AN I mNN~ ~5' FT. 2qB,ql FT. qO.ql FT. ZO~ ~lUS. MIN. ~AR YA~ DE I~AOK (EGUIPMENT) ~5' FT. 2~5.~1 FT. 22q.0 FT. - 51~ ~A~N~ TA~ BY M~ ~51¢N MIN. LAP'APE A~A 25~ 55.0% 55.4~ ¢~P, I~. AT A MAX. LOT OOVEEA¢E 20~ 15.~ HAX. ~ILDIN¢ ~ICHT / STORIES 55 FT. / 2 ~/2 I0¢ FT - I1¢ FT - TOUR EXISTIN¢ TO~ Il&5 ~ - TOP ¢ ~lTlO~ ~1~ P~ ~ICATIO~ TO~ ~ TO~IP ~ ~Tl¢~ ~11, ~TlO~ ~1 - MAX. H~I~HT ¢0 ~T. IIO~ PT. 12~'-o" BLO¢K,~OTIOH'410¢ ~ BACKBOARDEXIDTIN~ WETER(Dy OTHERS) I APPROVED BY ~AX. E~UIPHBNT A~A 500 5~, FT, I ~A 180 ~. FT. . o L~. ~ o EXIgTIN~ VE~IZON ~ ~6TION. I0¢ I P~NNING BOARD _ 0"E ~ o, . ~d~.~'~/ ~ J EXISTi~ ~POLE = lOC' / ¢ % % 746' ZOm "m , POINT"/ BAS~ OF NO,POLE 5 2~ 5~TION = ~2 4" ~ N EXIS',TI~ ~I~HT OF // 1 HIGH STORY 2~.5~' ~AR YA~ ~K / / g E ~ (~P~E~ ANeNt5 TO ~ LI~ I / N ~ 224.4 ~NT rA ACK ~POS~ ~N~N~5 TO ~ LI~ 2~.45' ~NT YA~ ~ 22~' ~AR YA~ S~A~K (~PO~ E T TO ~ LI~ (~P~ E~I~NT TO ~ LI~ _ ~ % EXISTIN¢ POLE ~ % OABIET EXISTINe ~IVA~ POLE x ~ATE / ~ ~ ~E~U~ ~M PO~ ~ ~ TO NO~: ~ EXlSTIN¢ ~ ~ 'IN5 PRIVATE E~I~NT ~O~OU~ F~ ~0~ ~ P~5 BL~: 4 N ~ ~ EQUIPMENT / / ~ UTILITY POLE E~I~NT INST.~TlON. LOT, Il,2 ~ -~ - 5HEL~ ZOO, LB . 488 DC DEPRESSED CURB ~ 51ON ~ ~ ~% ~ SPRINKLER ~ ELECTRIC MANHOLE Un~uthoHzed dtem[ion or eddEfon to ~ survey m~p ~ ¢ LIOHT POLE e UNKNOWN .ANHOLE CertificcUon indicated hereon srgnify thdt tbs survey w~s /~ / ~ ~ / ~X ST" N~ UTILI%% POLL prepered in ~ccord~nce with the existing Cede of PmcUce SURVEY OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT: ~ UT,LITYALIGHT POLE ~ INLET for Land Surveys adopted bythe New York State ~415 ELIJAH LANE, MA~ITUCK / ~ W CLL3,A SF STEEL FACE CURB cvDFic~tiens shall run only (o [he person For whom the COUNTY OF SUFF(OLK and to the ossiDees of the lendln9 Institution. DSTRICT ...... ~ 0('00, SECTION ..... ~ 08 6ua--~ GAS MARK OUT Certifications are not transferable ko additional ins[itutfons BLOCK 4, T/AX LOT(S) ....... 1 1.3 lIxJ~ 5CALL: ]" : WMO ~ WATER MARK OUT or subsequent Owner, '..... 24.x~ 5GALE: I" = 2¢'-¢" _ESIGN-u ROUP ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING P. O. BOX 3 HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 T: 732.817.9090 F: 732.847.4335 Lou Moglino, AIA ARCHITECT NJ -/~ Al 13345 NY - ~ 028992-1 Robert W. Toms, P.E. STRUCTURAL ENG1NF-ER NJ - # GE 36209 NY - ~ 075384 z~Ob/OI/I; JPDATED PER TOHN CO~MENT5 Z~04/15/I; JPI:DATED PER TOAN COMHENT5 ~ 03/Iq/15 JPDATED PER ATTORNEY COMMENT5 ~03/0~/12 CDATE~ PER ATTORNEY OONHENT5 CLIENT: 05II'Y/II metroPCS New York, L.L.C. CLIENT PROJECT N'r'-tDID /~UG 2 41~ ELIJAH'5 LA, NE NATTITUC. K, Nh" I Iq~::2 ~ I t'-' L.....,"',. N ~ ZONIN~ I NFOt~.MATI ON PMo O~/Oq/lO NOTE= THE E~TTOP. 5FGTION OF: ~ HONOPOLE MILL E~ I~INFOI~,ED 'ThU~ GALVIN6 THE HONOPOLE'S E, EEAK POINT TO BE AT THE BASE OF THE 2ND SECTION LOCA'r~D 55'-q" ABOV~ BASE LEVEL. t~051~ FALL ZONE RADIUS MILL BE LES5 THAN I~XISTINe FALL LEGEND: NOTES: L THE OFFSETS DR DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON, FROM THE PROPERTY LINES TO THE STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO MONUMENT PROPERTY LINES OR TO GUIDE THE ERECTION OF FENCES, ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES OR ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 2 CONSULT WITH TFIE RIGHWAY DEPARTMENT BEFORE DESIGNING, INSTALLING OR MODIFYING ANY NEW OR EXISTING CURBS, WALKS OR ROADWAYS IN TIlE STREET SHOWN HEREON 5 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THERE ARE NO VISIBLE STREAMS OR NATURAL WATER COURSES IN THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY 4. REFER TO ARTICLE 38 OF THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW AND TNE PROVISIONS OF INDUSTRIAL CODE PART (RULE NO, 53) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION OR DEMOEITION 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 IN LIBER/REEL 115B5 PAGE 545 b) GRANT OF EASEMENT RECORDED ~/29/2001 IN LIBER/REEL 11521 PAGE 555 c) MEMORANDUM OF LEASE RECORDED 1/29/2001 IN LIBER/REEL 12099 PAGE 255 7 EASEMENTS NOT SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY MAP ARE NOT GUARANTEED APPROVED BY PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD zoNE - 80,494.15 Sq.F. 1.8478 Acres WOODED AREA Only copies from [he original of [his survey marked with RD ROOF DRAIN E,O,P. EDGE OF PAVEMENT DC DEPRESSED CURB ~ SIGN CB CATCH BASrN A SURVEY POINT ~ UTILITY POLE ® SANITARY MANHOLE ~ FIRE HYDRANT ~ WATER MANHOLE ~ SPRINKLER ~) ELECTRIC MANHOLE ~ WATER VALVE ~) TELEPHONE MANHOLE ~ GAS VALVE ~ DRAINAGE MANHOLE ~ GAS BOX ~ GAS MANHOLE SURVEY OF PRO?EFRTY LOCATED AT. EXISTIN® UTILITY POLE //415 ELIJAH LANE, MATtlTUCK o ¢'LIL~A COUNTY OF SUFFOL~K TOWN OF SOUTHOLDI a~ ~ EXISTIN® UTILITY POLE STATE OF NEW YORK DISTRICT 1000. SECTION 108 BLOCK 4, TAX LOT(S) 11.5 '0 51TE PLAN Ilxlq SCALE: I" = 4¢'-¢" 24x3~ SCALE: I" CerNhcaUon indicated hereon signify [hal [his survey was prepared in accordance with the ex[sUng Code of Practice for Land Surveys adopted by the New York Stale Assoc[oDon ol Prolessionol Land Surveyors, Said cerUficoUons shall run only [o tile person for whom Lhe survey is prepared, and on hfs behalf to the title company, governmental agency and lending Instftutron Nsted hereon, ESI ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING P. O. BOX 3 HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 T: 732.817.9090 F: 732.847.4335 N'F'TDIB t~ ~'{.;, ~" 41E~ ELIJAH'5 LANE I'4ATTITUOK, NY 1l~..~2 DRA~IN® TITLE: ~UIPMENT CHECKED BY'. Pb4o DATE: 0610~/10 O~MPSTS020 PROPODED HETRO PCO GO,a~(I,N. CABLE~ ROUTED ALoN~ NEP~ C,N~LE mIDGE TO EXlcTIN~ POLE ('TO ESE EUN ON OFT~IDE OP POLE) ('DEE DETAIL PP, OPO5t~ HETEO F GP5 UNIT MC~JNTED ON PROPoDE~ GABLE SUPPORT POST (lb'PI®AL OF 2) (DEE DETAIL EXISTIN® CHAIN LINK FENCE PROPODED LANDDCAPIN~ SCREENING At~::XJND HE'E~ PCB FENCED E~UiPt'tENT C4)HPOUND, IOW- HIGH AI~DgRVITAE0 OR At-'t"'t,~VE~ EGflAL, (DEE DETAIL 5/Z-B) GAHHA 1~3" BETA BECTOR / / / / / I0'-0" CONGREI'E BLAB CLEAR PROPOBED 6" THICK 4000 PS1 CONCRETE BLAB IqlTH 2 LAYERS OF 6xb-~/~ PIELDED I~IRE FABRIC, DEE PLAN5 FOR PAD BIZE (TOP TO BE LIGHTLY BRUSHED) PROPODED g4"IAI'.~EI~D EDGE TO mOPODED MoNOPO~ EXTENSION TO BE INBTALLED BY METRO P60 ALPHA DEC, T~'OR PCO ANTENNAS (TYP. OF 2 PEP, BEC, TOR) MOUNTED TO PROPOSED HONOPOLE E~III-I~ION ON I~P{ T-ARM BIG~GKET5 (BEE DETAIL 5TIN® CAISSON (ADANDON) FINISH 4" THICK LAYER OF B/4" DIA. CRU,~dED STONE BASE EXIOTING UNDISTUI~EP VII~,IN 9OIL 24xD6 SCALE: I 1/2II : p_~ll 1'-5 5/,~II orr D 3S Site Network Operation Center, 24/7 acceae Ilne-14J66-672-6727 / / 2 UTILITIEO t:~D. Fi'ED UNI~EF~t~:;~ID TO FTC C, ABINET // / PROPOSED HE~O PCO FTC CABINET BE~D TO PROPODED CONCRETE OLAB ON UNIBTRUT FRAHE MOUNTED TO GALVANIZED POBT5 IqlTH JqORK LIGHT ABOVE (DEE DETAIL 6/Z-4-) EXISTIN® NEXTEL CABLE BRID®E ECULPP'1ENT PLAN / I1×1-~ SCALE= 24xB& SCALE= 5/8" - EXISTIN® NEXTEL SHELTER DETAIL APPROVED BY 8ESiGN TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~.., F N G I N E E R I R G PROPOSED MEI'I~O PG~ GF5 UNIT HC~JNTED ON OF 2) (DEE DETAIL ~/Z-5) f CA~LE BRIDGE ADDEI, ffiLy OR APPROVED E~UAL PROVIDE ~ORT PO5~ · ~'~" ON GEN~ H~l~M COAXIAL CABLE5 1~9UTED ALONG CABLE IlO'rE, ~ ~ BRIDGE GRATING ON I. 51GN SHALL BE MOUNTED ON II TRAPEZE HANGER~ EX~-KiOP, BIDE OF E~IJIPMENT DCK:~. II ,,, 2. HOUNTIN~ HEIGHT TO ~ B'-O" ADOVEH GI~NDE TO CENTEP, LINE OF SleN. U ~ 5 I/2 * ~ULE ~ PO~T, AT e'~" ~ M~I~M ON tENOR EXISTrN® SOIL 1'-4" DIA. CONCf~:'3"E POOTII~, UDE ~'"XC"~Y~" BADE PLATE IqlTH ~" DIA. AltO, HORS FOR MOUNTII~ TO SLAB PROPOSED ~" THICK LAYER 5/4" DIA. CRUE:~-I~D BTONE B~ RADIO FREQU"OY ANTENA8 AT T~OffE PLEASE E~RC~E__T.. CAUTION / B~6K LE~ AROUND ANTE~A8 DO NOT 8TAN~ IN FRON~F ANTENNA8 AE LE f IDC=E DETAIL Ilxl~ SCALE, I/4" = 24xSO SiCALE: I/2" = I'-OII RA~O~ELL FLOOD LIGHT MODEL ~,l~,-,b (OR A~RO~D E~UAL) WITH G~T (I) LIGHT FIXTURE. ~COND LIGHT H~51NG ON FIX~RE MUST EE PL~D. FI~U~ TO PA~HIELD GLA~ VI~ INSTALLED O~R THE PAR L~. L~ ~LDER WITH SHIELD 5HALL BE POSITIVES IN A D~WA~ DI~CTI~ IN A H~NER THAT ~LD ~STI~TE A ~LL ~T-~ L~INAI~ (NO H~ THAN I~ ~ THE L~EN ~T~T I~ AT ~LE5 BE~EN ~D' ~ ~' ~L~ THE L~5T LI~HT-~I~I~ PA~ ~ THE L~INAI~). E~2UIPMENT CABINET LESEND (~) PROPODED LYE CABINET ~1 56" x P 5.~ lB/16" x H 5'-II;[" [] 6.qB 5~. FT. (i EGaJIPt~Nt, i LTE * = EAIII~ CABINET~) ~ ~ ~ PC5 ~6 6~1~ ON BEAM ~O~P (DEE DETAIL 2/Z-2) [ , APPROX~HATE : ~ (~ PROPOSED EGUIPMENT C, ABINET PI 2'-Il B/6" X D Bum IB/16" X H 6I-B 11/16" TYPICAL EQUIPNENT ELEVATION ® BATrER¥ CABINET ~P~ DA~RY G~I~ IIxI~24xSbSC~L~SCAD I/2"1/4" == I'-~"1"~" ~ P. O. BOX3 HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 T: 732.817.9090 F: 732.847.4335 Lou MogIino, AIA ARCHITECT NJ - ~ M 13345 NY - # 028992-1 Robert W. Toms, P.E. STRUCTUI~AL ENGINEER NJ - ~ GE 36209 ~ - ¢/075384 JPDATED PEP-, TOHN COh4MENTS 04/16/I; JPDATED PEP-. TO~N COMMENTS 03/1~/1: JPDATED PER ATTORNEY 60HWENT5 ~ 03/0~/15 f~EV', JPDATED PER ATTORNEY COH"4ENT5 UPDATED PER O~NER'S LrST ~EVI~ION CLIENT= metroPCS® New York, L.L.C. CLIENT PROJEC. T ~= 41~ t=LI,JAI I'~ LAN:F: h4ATTITI.JC.,K, NY I IC::fE:,...2 TITLE: T-- c:~ L..J I ?~-'I~--' NT PLAN ~ :Dr-TAILO D~A~N DY'. O&/Oq/lO OqMPDTSO20 EXISTIN® BEACON LI®HT TO BE RELOCATED TO TOP OF: MONOPOLE EXTENSION ABOVE PROPOSED ANTENNAE EXISTIN® LI®HTNIN® ROD (APPRO.XI"dATE/Y 8' HI®H) TO BE RELOCATED TO TOP OF MONOPOLE EXTENSION ABOVE PRO?OSED ANTENNA8 TOP OF EXISTING RELOCATED LI®HTNIN® ROD (~ pRDpo5ED HETEO PC.O ANTENNAO (TYP. OF 2 '~,, I~-6'-0"+/- ABO* GRADE (~ PER 5EC.TOR., 6 TOTAL.) HOUNTED TO PROPelS2 TOP OF PROPOSED ANTENNa5 HONOPOLE EXTENOION ON PI~2POSED T-AEH II~ ~2TCE ~ BRAC.K,E'r5 (5ER DETAIL 4/Z-5) PRDPOSED I0' HONOPOLE EXTENOION ~ (16" DIAI,,ETER) BY I,,IE'I'~O POe TOP OF PRDPOSED MONOPOLE EXTENSION 116'-0"~ ABOVE CENTER OF PROPO5ED HETRO PC,5 ANTENH~5 ~'~ TOP OF EXiSTIN¢ TO~'IER 18 2024" DIAMETER NOTb A 5TI~C.~ ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING HONOPOLE I'fllTH THE BOTTOM HONOPOLE SECTION REINFORC.ED Pla5 PERPORHED ON JULY BO, 2012 BY ePS ~ bY P.E. DAVID B. GRANGER, LICENSE ~'/15Ert-I) IN C.ONFORHANDE WITH TIA/EIA-222-F AHD HY STATE BUILDII~ coDE5. THE ANALYSIS CONCLUDED THAT THE HONOPOLE AND FOUNDATtOH I~IILL BE ~FFIC.IENT TO SUPPORT ALL PROPO5ED, EXIOTINe AND RE5ERVED LOADIN& TOI,%~ HODIFIGATION DI~IIN~5 AND DETAILO FOR THE PROPOSED EX'T'EHSION ARE PROVIDED !.~2ER SEPARATE COVER C.OHPLE'rED BY eFD A550C.lATES, REPERENC.ED IN APPENDIX H OF THE 5'I'I~C.TURAL ANALY515 REPORT THAT ~ COHPLETED 011 JULY 50, 2012 CENTER OF EXISTING SPRINT ANTENNAS IOq'-O"~ ~-BC~VE 5P-,APE TOP OF EXISTING MONOPOLE 106'-0"± ABOVE ®RASE -(~ CENTER OF EXISTING AT,ST DISH /ANTENNA m~ 102'-0"± ABOVE GRADE CENTER OF EXISTING AT~T ANTEhqNAS qb'-O"± ABOVE GRADE 6ENTER OF EXISTrNG NEXTEL AN%ENNAS 88'-O"±A-DoVE GRADE-- CENTER OF EXISTING ANTENNA5 ?S'-O"± ABOVE GRADE t=~,OpOSED 14¢'r'Eo Pc,5 COAXIAL 6/~LE5 ROUTED UP oLrI'51DE OF HONOPOLE TO ANTENNA5 (SEE DETAIL5 2 ~ 5/A-6) BOTTOM POLE 5EC.TIOH AND POLE TO BE REINFOR.¢,,ED IN ACCORDAI~E I~ITH MODIFIED DEAPIII~5 PREPARED BY ~ A~ClA~5 A~ ~A~P ~LY ~, 2012 EX[STING BUILDING (BEYOND) EXrSTING EGUIPMENT (DY EXISTING CAISSON 24x36 SCALE: I/~" I'-®" eAH'HA BEC.TOE &O' ALPHA 5E6TOE IBC' BETA 5EGTOR ANTENNA Of IENTATION PLAN [Ix1'7 SCALE: ~/l&" = I'-¢" 24x~6 SCALE: D/8" : I'-¢" f4E'rT40 POD ANTENNAS (TYP. OF 2 PER 5EC.TOR, ~ TOTAL) MOUNTEP TO PROPOSEP MONOPOLE Ex'rENsION ON PRGPOSEP T-ARH BRAC.KET5 (SEE DETAIL 4/Z-5) APPROVED BY PLANNING BOARD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CENTER OF EXiSTiNG T-MOBILE ANTENNAS 84'-0"± ABOVE GRADE Pf¢OPOSED HETEO PC,5 ON PROPOSED 6ABLE [~RID~. POST ('rf'PIOAL OF 2)(5ER DETAIL 2/A-4) PROPOSED HETRO PC.5 C.OAXIAL. C..N~,I..E5 RO!.~'~D ALONe NEPI C, AE~LE E~IDeE TO EXISTIN¢ POLE ¢5E EXISTIN~ POET) (SEE DETAIL 1.-4./[A-5) PROPOSED HETRO PC.5 EC~JIPHEIflT 6ABIHE"~ (I'YP. OF' 4.) MOUNTED ON STEEL I~IL5 ANC.HORED TO HEIfl ¢ONC.RETE 5LAB (SEE DRAInINg5 A-5 ~ ES-I) ~T PLATE[ m, oPCEt HC~,T~}~e HAST 11 eF5 UNIT ILT HOLE5 FOR ADJUSTHENT ! (~ I-I/4"e sch. 40 x 16" Le. MIN 55 OR GALV. PIPE (~ PLATE I/4 x 4-1/4 x 16-1/4" LC. eALV.(A-56) (~ 5'1'12. g-BOLT FOE 2"e PIPE Pi/DOUBLE HEX NU'f'5 AND IflASHER, eALV. STD. U.'-BOLT FOP-, 2"e PIPE ~ D~BLE HEX (~ NLtr5 AND PtASHER, eALV. (5t~ NDTE 5) PRDPOSED IO'-.O"+/- HIeH LANDSC.APIN~ 5r...,REENINe EXISTING EGL)IPMENT ~VANI~ P~T5 ~ITH ~ LImHT TOP OP ~ ~ (5~ DETAIL I/A-4) ~ m~ AN~N~ ~ ~ ~1~5 B~N I/2 A~ 2~ ~Y ~. / / / TOP OF ~0~ . ~" HI~H ~LCH H~ TO -- ~ TOP OF ~0~ TOP I~ OF ~OT B~. ~P~D LA~API~ ~NGED ~UI~T CO~, ~LO~ ~E PIT IN " 10%/- HIGH ARBORVITAE5 OR APPROVI~ E~UAL, (SEE DETAIL B/A-4) LUE,ST ELEVATION IIxF~ SCALE: I/1~" = I'-S" ANTENNASPECIFICATIONS Ilxlq SCALE: [/2"I'-®" 24xD& SCALE: I": I'-®" ( Tf EE PLANTINC DETAIL Ilxl-~ 5~CALE: N.T.5. 24xDE, SCALE: N.T.G. DESIGNu GROUP lNG BOX 3 HAZLET, NEWJERSEY 07730 T: 732.817.9090 F: 732.847.4335 Lou Moglino, AIA ARCI~TECT NJ -/~ A113345 IN~ - ~ 028992-1 Robert W. Toms, P,E. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER NJ - # GE 36209 NY - ~¢ 075384 z~Ob/OWI~ )PDATED PER TOkeN COMMENTS ~ O4/Ib/iE UPDATED PER TO~IN COMMENTS Z~ OD/Iq/12 UPDATED PER ATTORNEY COMMENTS ~ 03/0q/12 UPDATED PER ATTORNEY COMMENT~ ~ O5/17/11 UPDATED PE~ O~NER'S LIST DATE ~ESO~IPTION metroPCS IMATTITUC.,K, Nh" I lq~2 TOJ, NE f~. ELEVATION Oqlvl'PSTS020 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSICI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hail Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 September 18, 2012 John Coughlin, Esq. c/o R~, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Re: Approval - Special Exception for MetroPCS @ Baxter Located at 415 Elijahs Lane, on the NW corner of the intersection of Elijah's Lane and NYS Route 25, Mattituck SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 Zoning District: Limited Business (LB) Dear Mr. Coughlin: The Southold Town Planning Board adopted the following resolutions at a meeting held on Monday, September 17, 2012: WHEREAS, an application for a Special Exception & Site Plan for a co-location at an existing wireless communication facility was accepted for review on March 12, 2012, including a site plan prepared by MTM Design Group, LLC, dated June 9, 2010; and WHEREAS, this application is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB Zoning District on Elijah's Lane, Mattituck; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2011, the application was referred to a technical consultant retained by the Town to assist in the review of wireless applications; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2012, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, initiated the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this Unlisted Action; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 2012, the Town of Southold LWRP Coordinator reviewed the above-referenced project and had recommended the proposed project to be consistent with Southold Town LWRP policies; and MetroPCS ~,, Baxter PaRe Two Se~mber 18,2012 WHEREAS, on April 9, 2012, a public hearing was conducted and held open for the applicant to provide additional information on the safety of the existing structure and its ability to withstand the ten foot addition without potentially falling into neighboring residential properties; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2012, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, performed a coordinated review of this Unlisted Action and, as lead agency, made a determination of non-significance and granted a Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2012, the technical consultant responded that the application met the Maximum Permissible Exposure as set by the FCC, as well as proving the need for the proposed antennas, however, the application did not meet structural requirements to ensure that were the structure to fail, it would not fall into the adjacent residential properties; and WHEREAS, on August 21,2012, the applicant submitted revised structural drawings showing modifications to strengthen the base of the monopole to prevent it from falling into the neighboring residential properties should the structure ever fail. WHEREAS, on September 5, 2012, the revised structural drawings were reviewed and corroborated by an independent structural engineer retained by the Town; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2012, the Southold Town Building Inspector reviewed the plan and certified that the proposed action is a permitted use in this Limited Business Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2012, the Planning Board accepted the revised plans and the hearing was closed; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2012, the General Requirements for Wireless Facilities in Town Code §280-70 were met; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2012, the Southoid Town Planning Board made a determination that the applicant has satisfied the requirements for a Special Exception pursuant to Town Code §280-142 based on the following: That the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts. That the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located or of permitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts. That the safety, the health, the welfare, the comfort, the convenience or the order of the Town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location. That the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of this chapter. MetroPCS ~ Baxter Pa,qe Three September 18, 2012 That the use will be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regard to visibility, scale and over-all appearance. That all proposed structures, equipment and material shall be readily accessible for fire and police protection; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2012, the Southold Town Planning Board reviewed the application to determine whether it met the additional standards for Special Exception Approval for a Wireless Communication Facility pursuant to Town Code §280-73B as follows: 1. Construction of the proposed facility or modification of the existing facility is a public necessity in that it is required to meet current or expected demands of the telecommunications provider and to render adequate service to the public. 2. The applicant has made substantial effort to co-locate with existing wireless facilities, or, failing that, has made substantial effort to locate on municipally- owned land or structures, or within or on existing buildings or structures. 3. There are compelling reasons which make it more feasible to construct the proposed facilities rather than alternatives; therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby finds and determines that the standards for Special Exception Approval have been met; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board has determined that the action is consistent under the policies of the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program as outlined in the memo prepared by the LWRP Coordinator; and be it further RESOLVED, that after deliberation of the application and consideration of the above factors, the Southold Town Planning Board grants a Special Exception for the Wireless Facility co-location as shown in the site plan application for "MetroPCS @ Baxter Site #: NY7313", prepared by MTM Design Group, LLC, dated June 9, 2010 and last revised August 1, 2012. Please also note the following requirements in the Southold Town Code relating to Special Exceptions: Any Special Exception Approval granted under this article shall have a term of five years, commencing from the granting of the Special Exception, which may be extended for an additional five-year term upon application to the Planning Board. On a renewal application, the applicant shall demonstrate that the wireless communication facility is in compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations and with all of the conditions of the Special Exception Approval and site plan, that the facility is necessary to provide adequate service, and that there is no reasonable alternative available to the owner which will provide adequate service without the continuing use of the facility. MetroPCS ~ Baxter PaRe Four September 18, 2012 Subsequent Special Exception renewals shall be subject to review by the Planning Board and subject to such standards that shall be included in the Town Code at that point in time. If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this resolution, please contact the Planning Board Office. Very truly yours, Chairman Encl. cc: Town Engineer Building Dept. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSKI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 September 18, 2012 John Coughlin, Esq. c/o R6, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Re: Approval - Site Plan for MetroPCS @ Baxter Located at 415 Elijahs Lane, on the NW corner of the intersection of Elijah's Lane and NYS Route 25, Mattituck SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 Zoning District: Limited Business (LB) Dear Mr. Coughlin: The following resolutions were adopted at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on September 17, 2012: WHEREAS, this site plan is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB Zoning District on Elijah's Lane, Mattituck; and WHEREAS, on September 30, 2011, the agent, John Coughlin, Esq., submitted an application for site plan review and special exception review; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2011, the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) reviewed one (1) request for a variance from the Town Code for the above-referenced application: 1) height variance from the maximum code required height of 45 feet. The ZBA granted the variance as applied for with the following two (2) 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 $outhold Town Planning Board and; 2) Red warning beacon shall be re-installed at the highest point of the pole below the height granted herein; and MetroPCS ~ Baxter PaRe Two September 18, 2012 WHEREAS, at a Work Session on March 12, 2012, the Planning Board accepted the application for review; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2012, the Planning Board, pursuant to Southold Town Code §280-131 C., distributed the application to the required agencies for their comments; and WHEREAS, on March 23, 2012, the Mattituck Fire District determined there was adequate fire protection and emergency access for the site; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 2012, the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Coordinator reviewed the above-referenced project and has recommended the proposed project be found consistent with Southold Town LWRP policies; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2012, a public hearing for the above-referenced site plan was held open and then closed on September 17, 2012 by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2012, the Suffolk County Planning Commission deemed the site plan application a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s); and WHEREAS, on April 23, 2012, the Southold Town Engineer reviewed the above- referenced application and has determined the project to provide adequate drainage and the proposed drainage meets the minimum requirements of Chapter 236 for Storm Water Management; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2012, the Southold Town Chief Building Inspector reviewed and certified the proposed site plan as a permitted use in the Limited Business Zoning District; and WHEREAS, at a Work Session held on September 17, 2012, the Planning Board found that all applicable requirements of the Site Plan Regulations Article XXlV, §280 - Site Plan Approval of the Town of Southold have been met; and WHEREAS, at their public meeting on September 17, 2012, the Planning Board granted approval to the special exception application for this site; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board has determined that this proposed action is consistent with the policies of the Town of Southold LWRP; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grants Approval with One (1) Condition to the site plan entitled "MetroPCS @ Baxter Site #: NY7313", prepared by MTM Design Group, LLC, dated June 9, 2010 and last revised August 1,2012, and authorizes the Chairman to endorse the site plan including the following six (6) plans: MetroPCS ~,, Baxter PaRe Three September 18,2012 1. T-1 Title Sheet 2. Z-1 Radius Map & Surrounding Information 3. Z-2 Site Plan & Zoning Information 4. Z-3 Proposed Equipment Off-sets 5. Z-4 Equipment Plan & Details 6. Z-5 Tower Elevation & Details The condition is as follows: Prior to the receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall provide to the Planning Board documentation from the contractor that the construction and structural modifications to this facility were complied with as approved. Please note the following requirements in the Southold Town Code relating to site plans: 1. Any outdoor lighting shall be shielded so the light source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries. 2. All storm water run-off from grading, driveways and gravel areas must be contained on site. 3. Approved Site Plans are valid for eighteen months from the date of approval, within which time all proposed work must be completed, unless the Planning Board grants an extension. 4. Any changes from the Approved Site Plan shall require Planning Board approval. 5. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Board must inspect the site to ensure it is in conformity with the Approved Site Plan, and issue a final site inspection approval letter. Should the site be found not in conformance with the Approved Site Plan, no Certificate of Occupancy may be issued unless the Planning Board approves the changes to the plan. A copy of the Approved Site Plan is enclosed for your records. One copy will also be sent to the Building Department and the Town Engineer/Highway Department. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Chairman EncI. cc: Building Dept. w/map; Town Engineer w/map PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSKI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMEI~ KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH IH MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 September 18, 2012 John Coughlin, Esq, c/o R~, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 TO'/,'[ OF S0~!~ !0[0 J Re: Approval: Special Exception for New Cingular Wireless/MGH Enterprises Located at 40200 NYS Rt. 25, +400' east of Cedar Beach Rd, Orient SCTM#1000-15-9-8.1 Zoning District: Marine-II Dear Mr. Coughlin: The Southold Town Planning Board adopted the following resolutions at a meeting held on Monday, September 17, 2012: WHEREAS, an application for a Special Exception & Site Plan Approval for a wireless communication facility was accepted for review on January 9, 2012, including a site plan prepared by William F. Collins, dated April 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board reviewed the above-referenced request for a Special Exception for the prOposed construction of a 70' monopole wireless facility having internally mounted antennas at 67' and 57' for New Cingular Wireless along with related base equipment on a 400 s.f. area. The site includes an existing restaurant and boat marina on 4.7 acres in the M-II Zoning District, Orient; and WHEREAS, on January 31, 2012, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, initiated the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this Unlisted Action; and WHEREAS, the submission by the applicant has been reviewed and corroborated with an independent radio frequency engineer retained by the Town to assist in the review process; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2012, a public hearing was held and closed; and WORK SESSION AGENDA SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Monday, September 17, 2012 4:00 p.m. Southold Town Meeting Hall 4:00 p.m. Executive Session - Litigation 4:30 p.m. Applications 5:45 p.m. Review Public Meeting Agenda Project name Ter~ Farm ':' 5~i~ioni 3-t~i~'~'i~ fo~"~ ~:~po~ ~i~uction of a 4,320 s.f. agricultural ~. storage building in a 2.6 acre building envelope on a 32 acre agricultural i 3arce n the R-80 Zon ng D strict. Status i New App cat on :. Action: '. Rev ew for comp!.~enes~ ~, Staff Report Locat on 415 E ~]ah s Lane Matt tuc Description: This site plan is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB ~,. ~n n.g District[: Act on Rev ew rev sed s te Dian. Attachments: ~, Staff Rep0[t P'~0jec{ 'Narne: Colony"Pond i scTM#: ~ 000~52~5~6°.3 Southold Description: This proposal is for a standard subdivision to subdivide a 13.540-acre parcel into five lots where Lot 1 = 0.8 ac., Lot 2 = 7.7 ac., including a 1 ac. building envelope and 6.8 acres of preserved Open Space, and Lots 3. 4 &.5 ~ 0.7 ac. in ~he.R.~80 Zoning DiS~dCt- ~..S~a.t~.i ............ Cg~dit!ohal Sketch ApR[O~I A~Jon; R~view comme0t~ ~[gn~.?~[~e of To~,p. E~gine~[: .... A~achm..en~sl Staff Report Partnership i Location: 4180 New Suffolk Aven~e .Matt!tuck Description: This proposal is to subdivide a standard subdivision into seven lots where Lot 1 equals 36,317 sq. ft; Lot 2 equals 41,746 sq. ft.; Lot 3 equals 64,148 sq. ft.; Lot4 equals 31,000 sq. ft.; Lot 5 equals 32,056 sq. ft.; Lot ~ 6 equals 32,881 sq. ft.; Lot 7 equals 32,945 sq. ft.; and where the Open i Space equa s 379 814 sq ft ocated in the R-80 Zoning District. Status: :, i E~digg , ~ti°n; i ~y!e~ d~!g9 Attachments: None Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Telephone (631 ) 765-1802 Fax (631) 765-9502 BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM TO: Donald J. Wilcenski, Planning Board Chairman FROM: Michael J. Verity, Chief Building Inspector DATE: September 17, 2012 REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE PLAN ELEMENTS & CERTIFICATION Project: Metro PCS- Baxter Location: 415 Eliiah's Lane, Mattituck SCTM# 1000 - Section 108- Block 4 - Lot 11.3 Date: June 09, 2010 Revised Date: August 18, 2010 2. 3. 4. ALL BUILDINGS AND USES SHALL COMPLY WITH CHAPTERS 144 AND 280 OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CODE. OFF STREET PARKING BY AUTHORITY OF THE PLANNING BOARD. ALL FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING BY AUTHORITY OF THE PLANNING BOARD. THE PROPOSED USE* Wireless Co-location IS A PERMITTED USE BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN THIS L.~B DISTRICT AND IS SO CERTIFIEI~ *See ZBA File # 6507 Chief Building Inspector PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSKI Chair WiLLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOTM OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hail Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 September 18, 2012 · John Coughlin, Esq. c/o R6, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Re: Approval - Special Exception for MetroPCS @ Baxter Located at 415 Elijahs Lane, on the NW corner of the intersection of Elijah's Lane and NYS Route 25, Mattituck SCTM~1000-108-4-11.3 Zoning District: Limited Business (LB) Dear Mr. Coughlin: The Southold Town Planning Board adopted the following resolutions at a meeting held on Monday, September 17, 2012: WHEREAS, an application for a Special Exception & Site Plan for a co-location at an existing wireless communication facility was accepted for review on March 12, 2012, including a site plan prepared by MTM Design Group, LLC, dated June 9, 2010; and WHEREAS, this applicatiOn is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and inStall related base equipment in an LB Zoning District on Elijah's Lane, Mattituck; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2011, the appliCation was referred to a technical consultant retained by the Town to assiSt in the review of wireless applications; and WHEREAS, on Mamh 15, 2012, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, initiated the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this Unlisted Action; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 2012, the Town of Southold LWRP Coordinator reviewed the above-referenced project and had recommended the proposed project to be consistent with Southold Town LWRP policies; and THE CE~FER FOR MUNICIPAL SOLUTI~ 70 CAMBRIDGE ROAD 518-439-3079 GLENMONT, NEW YORK 12077 FAX: 518-478-0909 August 31, 2012 Brian Cummings Senior Planner Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 (via email and regular mail) SEP - 5 RE: Southold NY MetroPCS 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituck Dear Mr. Cummings, We have reviewed the structural analysis and modification drawings for this monopole to insure they meet the action items in our letter to you of April 6, 2012 signed by Christopher J. Schrader, PE. In our opinion, they are acceptable as submitted. Please note that the construction / modification drawings require a significant amount of documentation by the contractor. We suggest that the town review, or have us review, a copy of this documentation, when provided by the contractor, as proof that the construction requirements were complied with. Please call to discuss or let me know if you have any questions. CMS Cc: Robert Naumann (via email) Cris Schrader (via emaiI) TlgLEPHO~Ig: (O~31) FAC;$XMIX~E: (631) 42§-4104 August20,2012 BY HAND DELIVERY Town of Southold Planning Board Town Annex Building 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Attn.: Brian A. Cummings, Planner RE: MetroPCS New York, LLC (Site No. NY7313) Site Plan Application and Special Exception Permit Application for Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY SCTM#: 1000-108 4-11.3 AUG 2 I 2012 Dear Mr. Cummings: As you know, we represent MetroPCS New York, LLC ('MetroPCS') with regard to its pending application to colocate at the existing public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the subject property. In response to questions raised by the Board, as detailed in your April 24, 2012 correspondence and accompanying comments of Sustainable Engineering & Environmental Design, PLLC, dated April 6, 2012 ("Seed Letter") (copies attached hereto), we submit herewith the following documents: 2. 3, 4. 5. 6. Four (4) copies of con'espondence of MTM Design Group, inc., dated August 14, 2012 addressing the SEED Letter; Nine (9) sets of revised Zoning Drawings, prepared by MTM Design Group, Inc., revision 6, dated ,~ ugust 1, 2012; Seven (7) copies of Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared by Tectonic Engineering Consultants P.C., dated February 1991 ;* Seven (7) copies of Revised Structural Analysis Report with Modification Design, prepared by GPD Group, dated July 30, 2012;* Seven (7) sets of Structural Reinforcmnent Drawings, prepared by GPD Group, dated July 30, 2012;* and Two (2) sets of revised Construction Drawings, prepared by MTM Design Group, revision 3, dated August 13, 2012.* *Please note that we submitted copies of these updated documents with the Building Department as well. Thanking you for your courtesies, we remain Very truly yonrs, RI2, NIELSEN, HUBER & COUGHL1N, By: ( Jblm J. Coughlin JJC:mk Endosm'es LLP DESIGN GROUPz ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING · PO BOX 3 · HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 · TEL: 732 817 9090 · FAX: 732 847 4335 · August14,2012 Brian A. Cummings Town of Southold Planning Board Office Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 RE: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952 District: 1000, Section: 108, Block: 4, Lot: 11.3 Metro PCS #: NY7313 MTM #: 09MPSTS020 Dear Mr. Cummings, In response to your request in a letter dated April 24, 2012, we have reviewed the letter provided by Cristopher J. Schrader, P.E. and are able to address the first two items listed in that letter. In regard to the first action item to verify the foundation design and actual soil conditions, the original report from February 1991 had been forwarded by the tower engineer and copies are included in this submittal. As for the second action item, we had requested that AT&T Towers proceed with having their engineer (The GPD Group) reinforce the bottom section of the existing monopole as required to limit the stress ratio to 70% at this section. Modification drawings will be provided to include this reinforcement design. As requested, MetroPCS also researched and attempted to obtain a copy of the Mill Certifications and construction / fabrication certifications of the existing monopole, however, no such records exist or were able to be located. We ex--als address all outstanding issues. PleCs~l'p/0~t ~L~k~'~tte/~p,&~t~ct our office should you have any further quest OhS or comments CC: MetroPCS John J. Coughlin / Re, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP File WI!.! J~.M J. KENNETH 1, EDWARDS J,~M~.~ H. RICH I~ MARS~/N H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD M~rf .r~O ADDRES8~ P.O. B~x 1179 Southold, NY 11971 O~ICE ~A~ON: T~ ~ ~ ~75 S~ ~ 25 (~. ~n ~ & Y~ Ave.) ~u~old, ~ T~ ~1 7~19~ ~ ~1 7~188 April 24, 2012 John Coughlin, Esq. c/o R6, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlln, LLP 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Re: Site Plan for MetroPCS Q Baxter 415 Elljahs Lane, Mattituck SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 Dear Mr. Coughlin: I am writing as a follow-up to the Work Session held on April 9, 2012 where the Planning Board discussed the above-referenced site plan and required the following: 1. Provide the three (3) listed items received in the attached letter dated April 6, 2012, from Cristopher Schrader P.E. The required information is vital to completing our review so that the Planning Board can make an informed decision. Please submit this information to the Planning Department at your earliest convenience; if you have any questions regarding this site plan or its process, do not hesitate to call this office. Very truly yours, Brian A. Cummings Planner -seeo (via Richard A. Comi CMS 70 C~mhddge Road (]'l=~i,,,'~_t~ ~ 12077 RE: Southold NY 4.3.12 Conference Call Minutes / Action Items for MetroFCS application 41S Eli]ah's Lnne Mni~inek The purpose of thc call was to have thc angineers discuss options available to address the nonconformm~ee of the fall zone req~ of the ora/mince. The current he/sbt oftbo existing towea' is 108 font tall and the l~uposal by Metro PCS is to in~a-~aac the hciEht to 118 feet in order to ~o~ .a_a~onsl anterm, legal,S that does not exist on the tower today. The Ci~ .pF,~tdiis to work with the applicant to m.lm the exten,aon posm'ble and at the same time reduce the fall zone to the ~ or less th.~ exists at prcscoL It sbould b~ noted that the distance to the nearest rasidcnthd parcci is ~0 feet. The .gplicaut's api~,,ach is to design a break point at the base of the extension (I 08'). They stated that this would reduce the fall zone to the same as exists presently. CMS clarified that the proposed ,da~,~d load rm the cxist~g tower would increase the probability of the existing structo~ ~..ili..g at the base of the existing monopolc. The maxinnlm stress indicated in the strtlctllral nnnlys~ in~r.~ltes 92.3% at the bottom section of the monopole. It was noted that the foamdatlon design and ac~ml geotenhnlcai rabies were shown in the report to be Not Available. CMS quastioaed how the analysis could state thc foundations were acceptable without tmnwing the fotmctation design or without havinE a I~'otechnical rcpot~ to con~nn soil conditinm. Thc applicant said they could not answc~ for C, PD Group (the fn~n that completed the structural nnnlysJs) and that GPD Cn'oup prepamcl the repo~t. CMS asked why GPD was not on the call This was supposed to be a discussion with all of the engineers on the structural capacity of the towe~. Not having OPD Gxoup on thc call left many questions nnanawerable. CMS recommended that thc bottom section of the monopole (36') be rcinfca'ced to a modified stress ratio of appro~imntely 70%. The applicant asked why 70% and said they felt that was too low. CMS stated that this is about 15% less than the monopole section that starts at 36 feet and has a stress ratio of 85%. The 15% takes into consideration variables in material properties (5-8%) ami work~nn.bip deficiencies (5- 8%) during fabrication and construction. Pal~ 2 of 2 April 6. 2012 The purpose of modifying th~ bottom section is to mnke the section that starts st 36 feet the weakest point on the monopole. If tho bottom s~tion is modified to a stoas ratio of 70% and the section thn~ stnrts m 36 feet r~m~h,, at a stress ratio of 85%, that l~av~s 15% to account for the variables ~ above s~a still hav~ assuranoe that the bottom soction is not the w~almst poim on the monopole. The aclic~ it~m~ Meh-u PCS ne~ds to secure and provide ~o Southold / CMS include: i * Verify a~4 document the fOlmdat!o0, d~a~l~ an~ t~ actual ~ coil~itJ, o~. ~ i~ to ~'rmqrql that th~ fou~ct~tions are not the weak point of this tower. If the foundations are the weak point the fall zone would be incrensed with tim p~n! exten~i~u of l0 fee~. ~ · Confirm with GPD that the bottom section of the monopole could be modlfled to reduce the f~l zone. It was also recomm~d~l that a cost estimate be socun:d to allow Metro PCS to .rake an Metro PCS also was to locate Mill Certifications and cor~h uctton / Fabrication ccn-liflcattons of the existing monopole. If these item. can be confirmed, ~ may be considered in the design requir~so Without tho information ide-~ified above C~IS cannot rucotv.~,~d aplauVal of the ~x~en~ion of the existing monopole as it will increase the height / loading / stress on the e0dsli.g monopole which ~s the pot~ial for this rncrnopole to fail a~d ~alill'oae~l on adjae~lt laOpigti~. Crlstopher ;. Schra&r, PE Prin~pei Ensin~r SUSTAINABLE ENG~G & ENVIRO~AL DESIGN, PLLC cc: Robert Naumann (via em,il) 3 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSKI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWAP~DS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O, Box 1179 Southold, NY11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 May 8, 2012 John Coughlin, Esq. cio R~, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY' 11743 Re: Hearing Held Open: Proposed Site Plan for MetroPCS @ Baxter Located at 415 Elijah's Lane, NW corner of Elijah's Lane and S.R. 25, Mattituck SCTM#1000-108.-4-11.3 Zoning District: Limited Business (LB) Dear Mr. Coughlin: A public hearing was held by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, May 7, 2012 regarding the above-referenced Site Plan. The public hearing was held open. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Donald J. Wilcenski Chairman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSICI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES II. RICII III MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 April 24, 2012 John Coughiin, Esq. c/o R6, Nielsen, Huber & Coughiin, LLP 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Re: Site Plan for MetroPCS @ Baxter 415 Elijahs Lane, Mattituck SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 Dear Mr. Coughlin: I am writing as a follow-up to the Work Session held on April 9, 2012 where the Planning Board discussed the above-referenced site plan and required the following: 1. Provide the three (3) listed items received in the attached letter dated Apdl 6, 2012, from Cristopher Schrader P.E. The required information is vital to completing our review so that the Planning Board can make an informed decision. Please submit this information to the Planning Department at your earliest convenience; if you have any questions regarding this site plan or its process, do not hesitate to call this office. Very truly yours, Brian A. Cummings Planner -seeD April 6, 2012 (via email) Richard A. Comi CMS 70 Cambridge Road Glenmont, NY 12077 RE: Southold NY 4.3.12 Conference Call Minutes / Action Items for MetroPCS application 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituck Dear Mr. Coral, The purpose of the call was to have the engineers discuss options available to address the nonconformance of the fall zone requirements of the ordinance. The current height of the existing tower is 108 foot tall and the proposal by Metro PCS is to increase the height to 118 feet in order to accommodate additional antenna loading that does not exist on the tower today. The CMS approach is to work with the applicant to make the extension possible and at the same time reduce the fall zone to the same or less than exists at present. It should be noted that the distance to the nearest residential parcel is 90 feet. The applicant's approach is to design a break point at the base of the extension (108'). They stated that this would reduce the fall zone to the same as exists presently. CMS clarified that the proposed additional load on the existing tower would increase the probability of the existing structure failing at the base of the existing monopole. The maximum stress indicated in the structural analysis indicates 92.3% at the bottom section of the monopole. It was noted that the foundation design and actual geotechnical values were shown in the report to be Not Available. CMS questioned how the analysis could state the foundations were acceptable without knowing the foundation design or without having a geotechnical report to confirm soil conditions. The applicant said they could not answer for GPD Group (the fu'm that completed the structural analysis) and that GPD Group prepared the report. CMS asked why GPD was not on the call. This was supposed to be a discussion with all of the engineers on the structural capacity of the tower. Not having GPD Group on the call left many questions unanswerable. CMS recommended that the bottom section of the monopole (36') be reinforced to a modified stress ratio of approximately 70%. The applicant asked why 70% and said they felt that was too low. CMS stated that this is about 15% less than the monopole section that starts at 36 feet and has a stress ratio of 85%. The 15% takes into consideration variables in material properties (5-8%) and workmanship deficiencies (5- 8%) during fabrication and construction. Page 2 of 2 April 6, 2012 The purpose of modifying the bottom section is to make the section that starts at 36 feet the weakest point on the monopole. If the bottom section is modified to a stress ratio of 70% and the section that starts at 36 feet remains at a stress ratio of 85%, that leaves 15% to account for the variables listed above and still have assurance that the bottom section is not the weakest point on the monopole. The action items Metro PCS needs to secure and provide to Southold / CMS include: i · Verify and document the foundation design and the actual soil conditions. This is to confirm that the foundations are not the weak point of this tower. If the foundations are the weak point the fall zone would be increased with the potential extension of 10 feet. Confirm with GPD that the bottom section of the monopole could be modified to reduce the fall zone. It was also recommended that a cost estimate be secured to allow Metro PCS to make an informed decision. Metro PCS also was to locate Mill Certifications and construction / fabrication certifications of the existing monopole. If these items can be confirmed, they may be considered in the design requirements. Without the information identified above CMS cannot recommend approval of the extension of the existing monopole as it will increase the height / loading / stress on the existing monopole which increases the potential for this monopole to fail and encroach on adjacent properties. Sincerely, Cristopher J. Schrader, PE Principal Engineer SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, PLLC cc: Robert Naumann (via email) SCOTT A. RUSSELL SUPERVISOR TOWN HALL - 53095 MAIN ROAD Fax. (631)-765-9015 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 Tel. (631) -765 - 1560 JAMIE.KICHTER~TOWN.SOUTHOLD.NY.US OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Donald J. Wilcenski Chairman - Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 April 23, 2012 Re: Amended Site Plan for Metro PCS @ Baxter SCTM #: 1000-108-04-11.3 Dear Mr. Wilcenski: : As per a request from your office, I have reviewed a Site Plan, dated 6/09/10 with a revision date of 5/17/11, for the above referenced project. This Site Plan has been prepared by the office of MTM Design Group, Inc. for the 10'-0" extension that will be attached to an existing monopole structure. Please consider the following: The proposed disturbance resulting from construction activities and grading of this site will not be greater than 5,000 SF. As designed, the proposed upgrade to the existing cellular communications equipment will not create a significant increase in storm water quantities that will be generated at the site. In addition, the existing site drainage system currently meets the minimum requirements for Chapter 236 for Storm Water Management. Therefore, at this time, additional site drainage is not required. The planning board should require a structural design certification for all additional antenna or related equipment that will be attached to the existing tower. The Site Plan drawings indicate that a Structural Design Analysis has been performed. A copy of this report should be submitted for the Planning Board Files. If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact my office. · Richter, R.A. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Town of Southold Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Att: Brian Cummings, Planner COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STEVEN BELLONE SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE April 17, 2012 SARAH LANSDALE, AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Dear Mr. Cummings: Pursuant to Section 239 1 & m of the General Municipal Law, the following site plan which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Site Plan MetroPCS ~ Baxter S.C.T.M. No. 1000 10800 0400 011003 Local File No. 415 Elijahs Lane, Mattituck NOTE: Does not constitute acceptance of any zoning action associated therewith before any other regulatory board Very truly yours, AF:aa Sarah Lansdale Director of Plann!ng"~f~ ......... f~ Chief Planner ' ~ 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) 853~1044 04/17/2012 09:23 631-~4044 S C PLANING DE~ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STEVEN BELLONE SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING PAGE 01 SARAH LANSDALE, AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING To: Brian Cummings Town of Southold Planning Board F: (631) 765-3136 From: Andrew Amakawa SC Planning Department of Planning b,?~ ~ '] ~ Date: Re: 4/17/2012 MetroPCS ~ Baxter YOU SHOULD RECEIVE 2 PAGE~'"~LUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (631) 833-5191. Hi Brian: I have attached a copy of the determination letter regarding the above captioned referral. Do not hesitate to contact this office should you have any additional questions. Best, ~ Andrew Amakawa H. Lee Denniaon Building. 100 Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York 11788 T: (631) 853-5191. F: (631) 853~4044 ~4/17/2012 89:29 631-9 4844 S C PLANING PAGE 82 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STEVEN BELLONE SUFFOLK COUN'FY EXECUTIVE Town of Southold Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Ali: Brian Cummings, Planner April 17, 2012 $A1~4 LANSDALE, AICP DIRECTOR Or PL~NUiNG Dear Mr. Cummings: Pursuant to Section 239 1 & m of the General Municipal Law, the following site plan which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local d~tenninafion as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s), A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval, Site Plan MetroPCS ~ Baxter S.C.T.M. No. 1000 I0800 0400 011003 Local File No. 415 Elijahs Lane, Mattituck NOTE: Does not constitute acceptance of any zoning action associated therewith before any other regulatory board Very truly yours, Sarah Lansdale APR 1 7 2012 LOCAI'ION MA~LINO ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. -4TH FLOOR P.O. 8OX 6100 (631) 853-519t 1oo VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788-~0~ TELECOPIER (63t) 851~41044 (518)439-3079 THE CENTER FOR MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS 70 CAMBRIDGE DRIVE GLENMONT, NEW YORK 12077 FAX (518)478-0909 ~( (~ April 6, 2012 (via email and regular mail) Chairman Wilcenski & Planning Board Members Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: MetroPCS New York, LLC (Site No. NY7313) Site Plan Application and Special Exception Permit Application for a proposed wireless telecommunication facility Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, New York SCTM#: 1000- 108-4- 11.3 Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board Members: Our engineers had a conference call with the applicant on April 3, 2012 to discuss structural issues impacting setback of the proposed facility. The attached letter from Cris Schrader, PE summarizes the call and the action items requested of the applicant. As of the time of this letter we have not seen any of the items. Without being provided the action items, CMS cannot recommend approval of the extension of the existing monopole as it will increase the height / loading / stress on the existing monopole which increases the potential for this monopole to fail and encroach on adjacent properties. If you require an,vthing further please give me a call at (518)439-3079. Comi CMS CC: Martin Finnegan (via e-mail) Heather Lanza (via email) Brian Cummings (via email) A1 Tagliaferri (via e-mail) Cris Schrader (via email) Bob Naumann (via email) Attachment -seeD April 6, 2012 (via email) Richard A. Comi CMS 70 Cambridge Road Glenmont, NY 12077 RE: Southold NY 4.3.12 Conference Call Minutes / Action Items for MetroPCS application 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituck De~ Mr. Comi, The purpose of the call was to have the engineers discuss options available to address the nonconformance of the fall zone requirements of the ordinance. The current height of the existing tower is 108 foot tall and the proposal by Metro PCS is to increase the height to 118 feet in order to accommodate additional antenna loading that does not exist on the tower today. The CMS approach is to work with the applicant to make the extension possible and at the same time reduce the fall zone to the same or less than exists at present. It should be noted that the distance to the nearest residential parcel is 90 feet. The applicant's approach is to design a break point at the base of the extension (108'). They stated that this would reduce the fall zone to the same as exists presently. CMS clarified that the proposed additional load on the existing tower would increase the probability of the existing structure failing at the base of the existing monopole. The maximum stress indicated in the structural analysis indicates 92.3% at the bottom section of the monopole. It was noted that the foundation design and actual geotechnical values were shown in the report to be Not Available. CMS questioned how the analysis could state the foundations were acceptable without knowing the foundation design or without having a geotechnical report to confirm soil conditions. The applicant said they could not answer for GPD Group (the firm that completed the structural analysis) and that GPD Group prepared the report. CMS asked why GPD was not on the call. This was supposed to be a discussion with all of the engineers on the structural capacity of the tower. Not having GPD Group on the call left many questions unanswerable. CMS recommended that the bottom section of the monopole (36') be reinforced to a modified stress ratio of approximately 70%. The applicant asked why 70% and said they felt that was too low. CMS stated that this is about 15% less than the monopole section that starts at 36 feet and has a stress ratio of 85%. The 15% takes into consideration variables in material properties (5-8%) and workmanship deficiencies (5- 8%) during fabrication and construction. 2 Page 2 of 2 April 6, 2012 The purpose of modifying the bottom section is to make the section that starts at 36 feet the weakest point on the monopole. If the bottom section is modified to a stress ratio of 70% and the section that starts at 36 feet remains at a stress ratio of 85%, that leaves 15% to account for the variables listed above and still have assurance that the bottom section is not the weakest point on the monopole. The action items Metro PCS needs to secure and provide to Southold / CMS include: Verify and document the foundation design and the actual soil conditions. This is to confirm that the foundations are not the weak point of this tower. If the foundations are the weak point the fall zone would be increased with the potential extension of 10 feet. Confirm with GPD that the bottom section of the monopole could be modified to reduce the fall zone. It was also recommended that a cost estimate be secured to allow Metro PCS to make an informed decision. Metro PCS also was to locate Mill Certifications and construction / fabrication certifications of the existing monopole. If these items can be confirmed, they may be considered in the design requirements. Without the information identified above CMS cannot recommend approval of the extension of the existing monopole as it will increase the height / loading / stress on the existing monopole which increases the potential for this monopole to fail and encroach on adjacent properties. Sincerely, Cristopher J. Schrader, PE Principal Engineer SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, PLLC cc: Robert Naumann (via email) 3 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSKI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hail Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 April10,2012 John Coughlin, Esq. c/o R~, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Re: Hearing Held Open: Proposed Site Plan for MetroPCS @ Baxter Located at 415 Elijah's Lane, NW corner of Elijah's Lane and S.R. 25, Mattituck SCTM#1000-108.-4-11.3 Zoning District: Limited Business (LB) Dear Mr. Coughlin: ^ public hearing was held by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, April 9, 2012 regarding the above-referenced Site Plan. The public hearing was held open. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Donald J. VVilcenski Chairman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSKI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 April 10, 2012 John Coughlin, Esq. R~, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Re: SEQRA Determination: Site Plan for MetroPCS @ Baxter Located on the norwest corner of the intersection of Elijah's Lane & NY State Route 25, Mattituck SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 Zoning District: Limited Business (LB) Dear Mr. Coughlin: The following resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on April 9, 2012: WHEREAS, this site plan is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB Zoning District on Elijah's Lane, Mattituck; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an application for site plan review on September 30, 2011; and WHEREAS, at a Work Session held on March 12, 2012, the Planning Board accepted the application for review; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2012, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, initiated the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this Unlisted Action; therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, performed a coordinated review of this Unlisted Action and, as lead agency, made a determination of non-significance and grants a Negative Declaration. MetroPCS ~ Baxter PaRe Two April 10, 2012 A copy of the Negative Declaration is enclosed for your records. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office. Very truly yours, ~ilcenski Chairman Encl. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WlLCENSKI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination Non-Significance April 9, 2011 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southo]d, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: MetroPCS, NY, LLC/Baxter SCTM#: 1000-108-4-11.3 Location: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck SEQR Status: Type I ( ) Unlisted (X) Conditioned Negative Declaration: Yes ( ) No (X) Description of Action: This site plan is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB Zoning District on Elijah's Lane, Mattituck. Reasons Supporting This Determination: An Environmental Assessment Form has been submitted and reviewed and it was determined that no significant adverse effects to the environment were likely to occur should the project be implemented as planned. The proposed action was granted a height and setback variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 3,201. Special Exception Approval from the Southold Town Planning Board pursuant to Section 280-70(E) of the Southold Town Code is required. The property is currently improved with a 108' flagpole monopole and multi-equipment structures within a fenced compound (see photo below). Figure 1. 108' monopole with antennae arrays The property is zoned Limited Business (LB). Zoning districts located within the vicinity of the parcel include R-40 (Residential) to the north, east, west and south. The zones R-80 (Residential) and AC (Agricultural Conservation) occur to the south and southeast of the parcel. The land use on site is storage and telecommunication facilities. Surrounding land uses within the vicinity of the site are residential and business (an auto parts store is located to the south). Based on the existing use and improved facilities, the proposed action will not cause a substantial intensification of use over the current use. Further, the proposed action will not cause significant impacts to agricultural, open space or recreational resources. No substantial adverse change in existing air quality, ground or surface water quality or quantity, traffic or noise level will occur as a result of the proposed action. The applicant has submitted an Equipment Acoustical Analysis prepared by JRH Acoustical Consulting Inc., dated January 2012. The analysis finds that the proposed action complies with the Town's maximum requirement of 45 dB(A) and, therefore, no further acoustical treatment of equipment is required. The tower is visible from County Route 48 and New York State 25, New York State Scenic Byways and secondary roads. A visual analysis prepared by EBI Consulting, dated January 8, 2011 and last revised August 8, 2011, shows that the proposed action will not result in significant aesthetic impacts over existing conditions. Therefore, the Planning Board has determined that the placement of a cellular antenna on the existing 118' monopole will not result in significant impacts to the view sheds important to the community. Equipment cabinets are located in a fenced compound surrounded by vegetation and are not visible from public areas. A red warning beacon is required to be re-installed on the tower, however, the impacts from the red warning beacon would be negligible. No major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy will occur. The applicant has submitted an assessment of Radio Frequency (RF) Compliance entitled Antenna Site FCC RF Compliance Assessment and Report dated June 30, 2011. The report concluded that the radio frequency emissions from the combination of the existing and proposed antenna to be in compliance with FCC Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits. The report further concluded that the RF level is 109 times below the federal limit established as safe for continued human exposure. Therefore, no known creation of a hazard to human health is expected to occur as a result of the proposed action. The site is cleared and improved, therefore, the proposed action will not result in the significant removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation. The impact to soils resulting form the construction of a 160 square foot concrete pad for equipment cabinets would be negligible. The New York Department of Environmental Conversation in a 2009 policy memorandum entitled Guidelines for Consultation with NY Natural Hedtage regarding Proposed Collocations of Telecommunication Facilities on Existing Towers and Buildings (2009) has determined that proposed actions involving the co-location of new equipment on an existing structure (tower) are not likely to adversely affect Federally- listed species in New York, nor have any significant impacts on migratory birds or other trust resources. Therefore, no substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, significant habitat area or result in adverse impacts to a threatened or endangered species or the habitat of such a species are expected to occur. The proposed action is located within an Archeo-sensitive area (Mapinfo 2011). Minimal ground disturbance through the construction of a 160 square foot concrete pad would result from siting of the equipment cabinets. Therefore, the action would not result in adverse impacts to cultural/historic resources nor impair the character or quality of important historical or architectural resources. The site is currently improved and the proposed action will not result in significant adverse impacts to aesthetic resources or to existing community or neighborhood character or result in a material conflict with the community current plans or goals as officially approved. Based upon such, no significant adverse impacts to the environment are expected to occur should the project be implemented as planned. For Further Information: Contact Person: Address: Telephone Number: cc: Town Board Building Dept. Mark Terry, Principal Planner Southold Town Planning Board 631-765-1938 4 Submission Without a Cover Letter Sender: Subject: SCTM#:IO00- /0 S '-¢- / [' ~ Comments: April 6, 2012 t518)439-3079 THE CENTER FOR MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS ~r 70 CAMBRIDGE DRIVE GLENMONT, NEW YORK 12077 FAX (518)478-0909 (via email and regular mail) Chairman Wilcenski & Planning Board Members Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: MetroPCS New York, LLC (Site No. NY7313) Site Plan Application and Special Exception Permit Application for a proposed wireless telecommunication facility Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, New York SCTM#: 1000 - 108 - 4 - 11.3 Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board Members: Our engineers had a conference call with the applicant on April 3, 2012 to discuss structural issues impacting setback of the proposed facility. The attached letter from Cris Schrader, PE summarizes the call and the action items requested of the applicant. As of the time of this letter we have not seen any of the items. Without being provided thc action items, CMS cannot recommend approval of the extension of the existing monopole as it will increase the height / loading / stress on the existing monopole which increases the potential for this monopole to fail and encroach on adjacent properties. If you require anything further please give me a call at (518)439-3079. Sincerely, ~.~. ~ (electronic signature) Richard A. Comi CMS CCl Martin Finnegan (via e-mail) Heather Lanza (via email) Brian Cummings (via email) A1 Tagliaferri (via e-mail) Cris Schrader (via email) Bob Naumann (via email) Attachment -seeD April 6, 2012 (via email) Richard A. Comi CMS 70 Cambridge Road Glenmont, NY 12077 RE: Southold NY 4.3.12 Conference Call Minutes / Action Items for MetroPCS application 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituck Dear Mr. Comi, The purpose of the call was to have the engineers discuss options available to address the nonconformance of the fall zone requirements of the ordinance. The current height of the existing tower is 108 foot tall and the proposal by Metro PCS is to increase the height to 118 feet in order to accommodate additional antenna loading that does not exist on the tower today. The CMS approach is to work with the applicant to make the extension possible and at the same time reduce the fall zone to the same or less than exists at present. It should be noted that the distance to the nearest residential parcel is 90 feet. The applicant's approach is to design a break point at the base of the extension (108'). They stated that this would reduce the fall zone to the same as exists presently. CMS clarified that the proposed additional load on the existing tower would increase the probability of the existing structure failing at the base of the existing monopole. The maximum stress indicated in the structural analysis indicates 92.3% at the bottom section of the monopole. It was noted that the foundation design and actual geotechnical values were shown in the report to be Not Available. CMS questioned how the analysis could state the foundations were acceptable without knowing the foundation design or without having a geoteclmical report to confirm soil conditions. The applicant said they could not answer for GPD Group (the firm that completed the structural analysis) and that GPD Group prepared the report. CMS asked why GPD was not on the call. This was supposed to be a discussion with all of the engineers on the structural capacity of the tower. Not having GPD Group on the call left many questions unanswerable. CMS recommended that the bottom section of the monopole (36') be reinforced to a modified stress ratio of approximately 70%. The applicant asked why 70% and said they felt that was too low. CMS stated that this is about 15% less than the monopole section that starts at 36 feet and has a stress ratio of 85%. The 15% takes into consideration variables in material properties (5-8%) and workmanship deficiencies (5- 8%) during fabrication and construction. 2 Page 2 of 2 April 6, 2012 The purpose of modifying the bottom section is to make the section that starts at 36 feet the weakest point on the monopole. If the bottom section is modified to a stress ratio of 70% and the section that starts at 36 feet remains at a stress ratio of 85%, that leaves 15% to account for the variables listed above and still have assurance that the bottom section is not the weakest point on the monopole. The action items Metro PCS needs to secure and provide to Southold / CMS include: Verify and document the foundation design and the actual soil conditions. This is to confirm that the foundations are not the weak point of this tower. If the foundations are the weak point the fall zone would be increased with the potential extension of 10 feet. Confirm with GPD that the bottom section of the monopole could be modified to reduce the fall zone. It was also recommended that a cost estimate be secured to allow Metro PCS to make an informed decision. Metro PCS also was to locate Mill Certifications and construction / fabrication certifications of the existing monopole. If these items can be confirmed, they may be considered in the design requirements. Without the information identified above CMS cannot recommend approval of the extension of the existing monopole as it will increase the height / loading / stress on the existing monopole which increases the potential for this monopole to fail and encroach on adjacent properties. Sincerely, Cristopher J. Schrader, PE Principal Engineer SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, PLLC cc: Robert Naumarm (via email) NIELSEN, HUBER & GOUGHLIN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 30 NORTH NEW YORK AVENUE HUNTXNGTON, NEW YORK 11743 TELEPHONE: (031) 4~fi-4100 F~CStMXLE: (631) 425-4104 April 5, 2012 VIA UPS DELIVERY Towu of Southold Planniug Board 'lown Auuex Buildiug 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Ann.: Briau A. Cummings, Planner RE: MetroPCS New York, LLC ("MetroPCS') (Site No. NY7313) Site Plan Application and Special Exception Permit Applicatiou for Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952 SCTM#: 1000-108-4 11.3 Dear Mr. Cummings: On behalf of our client, MetroPCS, we submit herewith an executed Affidavit of Mailing, together with copies of the Public Hearing Notice, Agricultural Data Statement and related maps, aud list of all surrounding property owners notified by certified mail. Also enclosed are tile certified mailiug receipts and green siguature cards received to date. We will submit auy 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 uot hesitate to communicate with tile undersigned. Thankiug you for your courtesies, we remain Very truly yours, R~, NIELSEN, HUBER & COUGHL1N, LLP By: JJC:mk Enclosures MAILING AFFIDAVIT OF ~- 415 Eliiah's Lane. Mattituck~ NY 11~2 SCTM# 1000 - 108 - 4 - 11.3 On. April 2, 2012 I nave sent notices (including the Agricultural Data Statement) by certified mail - return receipt, the receipts and green return receipt cards of which are attached, to the owners of record of every property which abuts and every property which is across on Eltlah's Lan~ Marisa Knoth Your Name (print) Signature c/o 36 North New York Avenue, Huntington, NY 11743 Address April 2, 2012 Date S~orn ilo befo~.e me this 2nd day of April 2012 DOROTHY A. BELARD Notary Public. State of New York No. 01BE603~810 Quatified in Suffolk County ~.~ Commission Expires Feb. 7, 20 2_2 PLEASE RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT, CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS & GREEN RETURN RECEIPT CARDS BY: 12:00 noon, Fri., 4/6112 Re: Proposed Site Plan for MetroPCS New York at Baxter SCTM#s: 1000-108-4-11.3 Date of Hearing: Monday, April 9, 2012, 6:04 p.m. MetroPCS New York, LLC (NY7313) Planning Board Site Plan and Special Exception Permit Application List of Owners Surrounding Subject Property at SCTM# 1000, Section 108, Block 4, Lot 11.3: Section-Block-Lot Owner's Name Owner's Mailing Address(es) 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., New Suffolk, NY Gonzalez 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, 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 115-7-13.2 AG Frederick Koehler P.O. Box 198, Peconic, NY 11958 Southold Town Plannin~l Board Notice to Adjacent Property Owners You are hereby given notice: 1. That the undersigned has applied to the Planning Board of the Town of Southold for a Site Plan; 2, That the property which is the subject of the application is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3; 3. That the property which is the subject of this application is located in the LB Zoning District; That the application is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment. The property is located at 415 Elijah's Lane, on the n/w corner of the intersection of Elijah's Lane and S.R. 25, Mattituck; That the files pertaining to this application are open for your information during normal business days between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. in the Planning Department located in the Town Hall Annex on the corner of Youngs Ave. & NYS Rte. 25, Southold (2nd FI., Capital One Bank). If you have any questions, you can call the Planning Board Office at (631)765-1938. Information can also be obtained via the internet by sending an e-mail message to: CaroI.Kalin@town.southold,ny.us; That a public hearing will be held on the matter by the Planning Board on Monday~ April 9~ 2012 at 6:04 p.m. in the Meetinfl Hall at Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold; that a notice of such hearing will be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in The Suffolk Times published in the Town of Southold; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Petitioner/Owner Name: MetroPCS New York at Baxter Date: 3/13/12 AGRICULTURAL DATA STATEMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD When to use this form: This fo~m mum be completed by the applicant for any special use permit, site plan approval, use varlanse or subdivision approval on property within an agricultural district OR within 500 feet of alerm operation located In an agricultural dis~lot. All applications requldng this form must be ~e;e~ecl to the Suffolk County Planning Commission in ae, cordance with Sections 239-m and 232-n of the General Munlalpel Law. Applicant Name: MetroPCS New York, LLC Addrese: 5 Skyline Drive, Hawthorne, NY 10532 William J. Baxter, Jr., Patricia Baxter, and Robert A. Goeller, Jr. and Land Owner (if other than applicant): J,ne P. Land Owner Address: e/o 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952 Deaorlptlon of [:}rol~::~l~ld Proj~. Applicant proposes to extend the existing monopole and colocate its public otility wireless telecommunications on the extension, and install related equipment on the grmmd. Property Location (road and tax map#): 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck (1000 - 108- 4 - Il Is the parcel within an agricultural district? Yea No x If Yes, Ag District ~ Is this parcel actively farmed? Yea No x Names & addresses of any landowners within the agricultural district containing active farm operations located 500 feet of the boundary of the pmpoesd project: (Information may be available through the Town Assessor or from ) 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. (Please use reverse side of page if more than six property owners are identified.) 1000 - 108 - 3 - 5.44: Joseph P. Shipman / Cathleen L. Shipman, 985 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952 1000 - 108 - 3 - 5.45: Joseph P. Shipman / Cathleen L. Shipman1 985 Eliiah's Lane~ Mattituck, NY 11952 1000 - 115 - 7 - 13.2: Frederick Koehler~ P.O. Box 198~ Peconic~ NY ~ 1958 Attach a tax map or other map showing the site of the property where the project is proposed relative to the location of farm operations Identified above (available online from ) Re, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP By: ,~_'-~.~7_..g.q~ ,,~ .,C"'"'--' /John J. Coughlin ,xttorne~ t~[z ^l~plipa~nt~'Sig n at u re 3 MATCH '<3 NOTICE 7 57 ~A(C) 151 47A(¢) 13¸8 127 20~(c) 5.2 FOR PC~ .o I J 13.12 4.3A 12 5 136 93 SECTION NO 108 Real Pro~ Tax Sewi~ency v -, ,,...~.~,.,,,~ ..... ~,~~ .... 115 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING This is to serve notice that I personally posted the property known as 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952 SCTM# 1000 - 108 - 4 - 11.3 by placing the Town's official poster notice(s) within 10 feet of the front property line facing the street(s) where it can be easily seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for v~t~ days prior to the date of the public hearing on April 9. 2012 ** **Sign posted on Monday, 4/2/12 our Name (print) Signature APR -6 ~ Address April 6, 2012 Date Notary Public PLEASE RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT, CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS & GREEN RETURN RECEIPT CARDS BY: 12:00 noon, Fri. 416/12 Re: Proposed Site Plan for MetroPCS New York at Baxter SCTM#s: 1000-108-4-11.3 Date of Hearing: Monday, April 9, 2012, 6:04 p.m. Sonia C. Hunter or:~iF~f'~'Pi:~'?Po ~ ~o. 55 Sundance Dr. ~';Z~; Cos Cob, CT 06807-~809 ~ William J. Baxter, Jr. fL~?.~.~: ...... 69~5 SE Harbor Circle o~ s~, z~m4 Stua~, FL 34996 Joan P. Hilliard / Ubaldo Gonzalez ~b~:~7-~, PO ~,~ ~, 885 Orchard St. New Suffolk, NY Z~956 Sent TO ~ [ ...................... Frederick Koehler Peconic, HY 11958 ~;~i7~o.; 450 [lijah's lane ~attituck, ~Y 119S2 so,,re Katherine M. Pennington or~[~[ ~:~:F"Po ~ No. 3~5 Rachaels Rd. Mattituck, NY ~Z952 ~ Joseph P. Shipman / CathLeen L. Shipman ~F~[~:~:F-- 985 Elijah's Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Jason Bamiano ~)~:~)~:;~?' 515 Elijah's Lane Mattituck, NY ~952 m Return Receipt Fee ~ T g~ ' ~°stmar~ (Endorsement Required) ~~Here ([ndorsomont ~oquirod) ~ ~agmond & Sallg ~e~ghleg ~[~i:~bT' 245 Rachaels Rd., Mattituck, NY 11952 I · _ on the front If speae permits. Barbara H,ofer :~ I Mattituck, NY 11952 I I ~ ...... 7011 O~.~n I,~ ..... ) ...... -'PS FO~ 3~ 1.F~hnln~ --- ~~ d~m~? I I ~ M~I I I D R~l~e~ 0 R~um R~lpt J ~,.~ ~ ~ c.o.g. I 2, ~c e N~m~r I . 7011(0110 0000 5837 7360 I I ~mpl~e~da.~p~J ~ ( , J J P~edd~ont~ Jl ~' ~ TM t ~'~d~..J I ~ t~ we ~n ~um ~e ~ to you. J J B~ b~ N~) I C. I ~ ~ l~ij~l ~ _ M~tti~ck, ~ ZZg52 }~w,~,~: 7011 0110 OOOO 5837 7414 J Form 8811, Fe~ 20~ ~m.~io n~um OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY 11971 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: Donald Wilcenski, Chair Town of Southold Planning Board From: Mark Terry, Principal Planner LWRP Coordinator Date: April 5, 2012 Re: MetroPCS, New York, Baxter SCTM# 1000-108.-4-11.3 This site plan is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB Zoning District on Elijah's Lane, Mattituck. The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department, the proposed action is CONSISTENT with the LWRP. Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Board shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Cc: Brian Cummings, Planner Town Hall Annex Building Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 April 3, 2012 To the Members of Southold Town Planning Board: We are asking the board to I~ the application involving the extension of the existing cell tower located on Elijah's Lane in Mattituck. When this cell tower was first permitted by the Planning Board, Elijah's Lane only consisted of about twenty five homes. Through the development of Southold Town's Affordable Housing Projects, our residential community has more than doubled in size. Today many young families call Elijah's Lane and Gabriela Court home. There are an estimated ~/~ff¥ children growing and developing close to or around this existing cell tower. We can debate the environmental and health impact cell towers have on our children and community and "safe distance" for days, but where will that get anyone? Currently, there are no conclusive results that can definitely de~ine the future impact. One only has to refer to the FDA's decision to permit High Fructose Corn Syrup to be used in our foods in the 19B0's. Twenty years later, everyone is trying to correct that mistake. Do you, the current board members want to make another decision, which may possibly affect our future town board members, police force, teachers, and business members' health? Is it not time for the members of our community to be put first before profits? This cell tower has no economic benefit for our town. It creates opportunities for the land owner and cell tower company to create revenue, but that is all. We are not opposed to progress and businesses producing money, but is there not an alternative site that this company can rent and build a cell tower on taking it out of residential neighborhoods. We suggest that the town consider permitting this tower and future towers to be constructed on town properties, for example Strawberry Fields, so to create revenue for the town and not affect its community members. ~ We thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Catherine & Thomas Wilton Planninl~Board Site Inspecl~on Record Project Name ~kO~-~ ~ ~J'~ Tax Map# Date ~J~C~ { Attending: Purpose of site visit: Notes: MS4 Reporting Illicit discharge on or near site? If Yes, briefly describe: Yo4b (provide copy of this report to Town Stormwater Manager) Sout~old Planning Department StSReport Site Plan Application Work Session Date Prepared By: September 12, 2012 Brian Cummings I. Application Information Project Title: MetroPCS ~ Baxter II. Action Review all staff and agency comments and schedule for a determination. This site plan is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB Zoning District on Elijah's Lane, Mattituck. III: Analysis 1. Brief timeline: a. Public Hearing held April 9, 2012 and held open at the Planning Board's requirement of additional information regarding soil conditions and the structural integrity of the existing monopole. b. April 10, 2012: letter sent to Applicant requiring further information for three (3) concerns: i. Verify and document the foundation design and the actual soil conditions. This is to confirm that the foundations are not the weak point of this tower. If the foundations are the weak point the fall zone would be increased with the potential extension of 10 feet. ii. Confirm with GPD that the bottom section of the monopole could be modified to reduce the fall zone. It was also recommended that a cost estimate be secured to allow MetroPCS to make an informed decision. iii. MetroPCS also was to locate Mill Certifications and construction/fabrication certifications of the existing monopole. If these items can be confirmed, they may be considered in the design requirements. c. August 21, 2012: Planning Department received a letter from Lou Moglino AIA of MTM Design Group stating that MetroPCS was only able to address the first two (2) items listed in the letter i. MetroPCS "researched and attempted to obtain a copy of the Mill Certifications and construction/fabrication certifications of the existing monopole, however, no such records exist or were able to be located." d. September 5, 2012: CMS recommends that the materials submitted addressing the first two (2) items listed in the April 10, 2012 letter are acceptable as submitted. Revised Map Analysis: a. Monopole reinforcement information and details included in a separate seven- page plan prepared by the GPD Group. i. Reinforcement proposed in three (3) separate sections: 1. Section D: 0'-0" to 3'-0' will contain new transition stiffeners ~ 1-1/4" thick (found on page S-03) 2. Section C: 0'-6" to 16'-6" will contain new flat plates ~ 6-1/2" x 1 - 1/4" thick 3. Section B: 13'-6" to 39'-6" will contain new flat plates ~ 6-1/2" x 1-1/4" thick ii. Reinforcement measures are proposed to range from the base to a height of ±39'-6", which is now proposed to be the weakest point of the monopole and thus decreasing the fall zone. b. New notation on page "Z-2": i. "The bottom section of the monopole will be reinforced thus causing the monopoles break point to be at the base of the second section located 35'- 9" above base level. Proposed fall zone radius will be less than existing fall zone radius." 1. Existing fall zone radius -- 216' 2. Proposed fall zone radius after structural improvements to the base of the monopoles 2nd section (proposing the weakest point at ±39'- 6", essentially creating a monopole 82'-3" tall) = 164'-6" fall zone V: Staff Recommendations 1. Prior to the receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy, it is recommended that the Planning Board require the Applicant to provide documentation from the contractor, that the improvements and structural modifications to this facility were complied with and constructed as approved. a. This requirement would be made known as a condition to the site plan approval resolution. 2. The material presented above appears to satisfy structural concems and has been corroborated by the Planning Board's Technical Consultant; accept the proposed structural reinforcement designs and schedule for a determination. South~old Planning Department Sta~Report Site Plan Application Work Session - Completeness Date Prepared By: December 6, 2011 Brian Cummings I. Application Information Project Title: Applicant: Date of Submission: Tax Map Number: Project Location: Hamlet: Zoning District: MetroPCS ~ Baxter MetroPCS September 30, 2011 108.-4-11.3 415 Elijahs Lane Mattituck LB-Limited Business II. Description of Project Type of Site Plan: Acreage of Project Site: Building Size Wireless Facility 1.85 acres 160s.f. of lease area This site plan is for a proposed 10 fi. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 fi. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB Zoning District on Elijah's Lane, Mattituck. A. Existing: 1. 108ft. monopole 2. 5 antennas arrays, 4 identified carriers: T-Mobile, Nextel, AT&T and Sprint 3. Related base equipment and cabinets B. Proposed: 1. 10ft pole extension to bring monopole height total to 118ft. 2. Co-locate 6 MetroPCS antennas (2 per sector) 3. Relocate 8' lightning rod to top of proposed extension 4. Equipment cabinets, cables, and related hardware are proposed to be located upon a new steel platform mounted above a new concrete slab measuring 10'x 16'. 5. 10' high arborvitaes or approved equal proposed around the equipment area outside the fenced compound 6. 6" x 8" Safety notice sign Surrounding zoning: The parcel is adjacent to R-40 zoning on two sides, LB on the south side, and R-40 across the street. The nearest residential building (single family dwelling) is located 221.08 ft. away. MetroPCS ~ Baxter Approvals required: A. Site Plan There are strict roles for wireless facilities adjacent to residential zones (§280-72 (9)) B. Special Exception Matters to be considered (§280-73 C.) include, but are not limited to the following: 1. The proposed must be the lowest height above the ground feasible to achieve the service needs of the carrier and the "rationale behind the explanation by the application must be corroborated by an independent consultant hired by the Town?' 2. Visual impacts must be minimized. III: Completeness Review A. Summary of Required Wireless Application Items Missing from the Application 'l. Location: Written report documenting why location priority (a) was not possible pursuant to §280-70(D)(l&2) 2. Fall Zone: Written report from structural engineer supporting a fall zone that is smaller than required (§280-70G) 3. Noise levels: Written documentation of noise level of base equipment (§280- 70J(5) 4. Existing Space on the Structure: Propagation maps for locating the new antennas within the apparent gap between existing carders, or an explanation for why they cannot be located there. B. Detailed analysis of Application Completeness Review 1. Location: Proposed wireless facility is proposed to be located on an existing support structure which is considered second (§280-70(D)(1)(b)) on the location priority list. The Applicant has not provided a written report demonstrating why location priority "(a)' is not sufficient. Pursuant to §280-70(D)(1 &2) 2. Fall Zone: The proposed antenna and existing monopole of the proposed colocation does not meet the fall zone requirements according to the Town Code. §280-70G: Fall zone: An antenna support structure must include an area surrounding it that is free of other structures and areas where people congregate, except the base equipment, with the radius equal to a distance of two times the height of the structure. A smaller fall zone may be allowed if supported by a report submitted by a qualified structural engineer. The structural engineer's report shall be submitted to and reviewed by the Planning Board and corroborated by an independent consultant hired by the Town that demonstrates a smaller fall zone is appropriate and safe. Required fall zone including proposed extension: 118' x 2 = 236ft. Proposed antenna is 53.5' to existing structure and 221.08' to nearest residential structure with a residential use. MetroPCS ~ Baxter 3. Noise: (§280-70J(5)): Antenna support structures in the LB zone are subject to the following condition: The noise from the base equipment, including any backup generator, must not exceed 45dB at all adjacent property lines. No information has been provided in the application addressing noise concerns 4. Existing space on the structure: Comments from CMS, the Town's wireless consultant: Provided with the application materials, the applicant has stated that the next available height to co-locate on the monopole is at fifty-five feet (55'), propagation maps have been provided comparing the coverage at 55' and the proposed 118'. CMS disagrees that the next available height is at 55' and believes there is sufficient space to co-locate the proposed antenna between the existing T- Mobile antenna at 64' and the Verizon antennas at 78' which would eliminate the need to extend the structure. Recommendations: i. For the applicant to provide propagation maps, utilizing the same parameters as the maps already provided, for the height of 71 '. (Propagation maps at -85dBm and -95dBm) ii. Applicant to describe in detail any differences at this height for coverage versus the coverage at the proposed height of 118'. iii. In light of the foregoing, CMS cannot confirm the need to extend the existing structure to accommodate a new wireless telecommunications facility. The above information is necessary to complete this preliminary review and provide comments for the Board to make an informed decision, as such, the application material as provided is incomplete. C. Pre-existing antenna support structure analysis Pursuant to §280-76.1, preexisting antenna support structures and antennas may continue (if properly permitted), but may not be altered or added to without being made to comply in all respects with this article. The Planning Board, however, may allow a nonconforming structure to be added to or altered via the waiver ability in §280-76.2 F. It is important to review how an existing structure is noncompliant with the code before considering alteration or additions. The antenna support structure proposed to be added to and altered is nonconforming in the following code requirements: 1. §280-70J (1) Proposed does not meet the minimum area requirement surrounding the proposed location: 200,000 s.f. of contiguous vacant land restricted from future residential development by deed for the duration of the property's use for the wireless facility. 1. :t:181,209s.f. counting both LB zoned lots. Landowner "Baxter" owns adjacent lot to the South. 9. §280-70J (2) Maximum height: 45ft. i. Existing: 108',Proposed: 118' ii. Does not meet height requirements for LB zone MetroPCS ~ Baxter §280-70J (6) Minimum distance of all wireless equipment to adjacent residential property lines or street shall be no less than 500ft. This requirement is not met. Proposed equipment is 90.91' from the R-40 zone to the north and 246.58' to the R-40 zone to the west E. Bulk Schedule Setbacks: Re uired Provided R~.7~d 7~.~ 246:~8 ~ Screening: The Applicant has proposed 10' high Arborvitaes (or approved equal) to screen the SW comer of the subject lease area. i. PB Staffwill assess the proposed landscape screening at a site visit, according to aerial photographs it appears the surrounding area is heavily wooded. ii. §280-72A(6): All antenna support structures which are not concealed inside of buildings or screened by existing trees or buildings must be surrounded by a planted buffer of dense tree growth. An antenna support structure that is located within a scenic landscape or within 300 feet of a scenic road, as designated by the Town, shall not be taller than 10 feet above the height of the trees within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed location, or 35 feet maximum in the absence of trees. See attached checklist for completeness of basic Site Plan Requirements from 280-133. V: Staff Recommendations Find the application incomplete and request the following from the applicant to complete the application: a. Location: Provide written report documenting why location priority (a) was not possible pursuant to §280-70(D)(1 &2) b. Fall Zone: Provide written report from structural engineer supporting a fall zone that is smaller than required (§280-70G) c. Noise levels: Provide written documentation of noise level of base equipment (§280-70J(5) d. Existing Space on the Structure: Provide propagation maps for locating the new antennas within the apparent gap between existing carriers, or an explanation for why they cannot be located there. See below for more details. 4 MetroPCS ~ Baxter Pursuant to §280-73B(3) regarding Special exception approval, the Applicant has not provided a compelling reason(s) that make the proposed pole extension at this location appear more feasible or necessary than the option of siting the new antennas somewhere else on the existing structure. Based on the apparent space available on the existing monopole and the lack of propagation maps provided to justify the pole extension, it is recommended that the following requirements be made: A. Pursuant to §280-73C(1) The proposed antenna support structure must be demonstrated to be the lowest height above the ground feasible to achieve the service needs of the carrier. The rationale behind the explanation by the applicant must be corroborated by an independent consultant hired by the Town. B. Applicant should submit propagation maps relevant to the existing space on the monopole, specifically at 71 '. It is imperative that our consultant and this department can discern any differences in coverage with respect to the height location ora proposed antenna. At this time we cannot confirm the need to extend the existing structure to accommodate a new wireless telecommunications facility at this location. South old Planning Department Checklist for Site Plan Application Completeness -Section 280-133 Project Name: MetroPCS @ Baxter Completed by: Brian Cummings Date: December 7,2011 Received Comment A. Submission of a complete site plan application shall consist of: (1) A completed site plan application form. (2) The site plan review fee, as specified in Subsection B below. Editor's Note: See now § 280-138, Fee schedule for site plan applications. (3) A completed environmental assessment form. (4) Nine copies of the site plan. (5) Four copies of a property survey, certified by a licensed land surveyor. B. Standards. Site plan design shall include the following items: (1) Technical data: (a) The lot, block and section number of the property, taken from the latest tax records. (b)The name and address of the landowner on record: [1] The names and addresses of adjoining landowners. [2] The name and address of the applicant, if not the same as the landowner. (c) The name and address of the person, firm or organization preparing the map, sealed with the applicable New York State license seal and signature. (d) Date, graphic scale and North point, whether true or magnetic; if magnetic, show the date of reading. (e) A survey prepared by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer. The site plan may reference a land surveyor's map or base reference map. All distances shall be in feet and hundredths of a foot. All angles shall be given to the nearest 10 seconds or closer. The error of closure shall not exceed one in 10,000. (f) The locations, names and widths of all rights-of-way within 500 feet of property lines. If none exist within 500 feet of the subject property, indicate the distance to the nearest intersection with a public street. (g) A separate key map showing location and owners of all adjoining lands within 500 feet, as shown on the latest tax records, at a scale of one inch equals 100 feet. 8500 consultant 1000 special ex. 1000 SP App. Full 7 provided 3 provided (h) The location, width and purpose of all existing and proposed easements, setbacks, reservations and areas ~/ dedicated to public use within or adjoining the property. (i) A complete outline of other existing easements, deed N/A Checklist for Site Plan Application Completeness South old Planning Department d) (k) restrictions or covenants applying to the property. Existing zoning, including zone lines and dimensions. Site plans drawn at the scale of one inch equals 20 feet. If all required information cannot be shown clearly on one plan, the information should be separated as follows: [1] Alignment and schedule plan. [2] Grading and drainage. [3] Landscaping. [4] Other, e.g., site utilities. (2) Natural features: Received (a)Existing contours with intervals of two feet or less. referred to mean sea level as per United States X Geological Survey datum. (b)Boundaries of any areas subject to flooding or stormwater overflows, tidal bays, saltwater marshes, beaches and all freshwater bodies, including wetlands N/A and intermittent streams, perimeter boundaries of shoreline bluffs, dunes and beaches. (c) The location of existing natural features, including but not limited to natural drainage swales, watercourses, wooded areas and wetlands, as defined by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Board of Trustees of Sbuthold Town, marshes, N/A ponds, dunes, bluffs, beaches, kettleholes, escarpments, wildlife habitats, flood hazard areas, erosion-prone areas and trees of six inches in diameter at a point three feet above the trunk base. (d) The location of any existing cultural and historical features within 500 feet of the property boundaries. (3) Existing building structures and utilities: (a) The locations, dimensions and outlines of all buildings, as defined in § 280-4 of this chapter, and all uses of the site. (b) Paved areas, inClUding parking areaS' Sidewalks and vehicular access between the site and public streets. (C) The locations, dimensions, grades and flow directions of any existing culverts, waterlines or sewage disposal systems, as well as other underground and aboveground utility poles and utility lines within and adjacent to the property. (d) The location and use of all buildings and structures, including curbcuts, within 200 feet of the boundary of the subject property. Comment Checklist for Site Plan Application Completeness South old Planning Department Received Comment (4) Proposed construction: (a) The location of proposed buildings or structural improvements, indicating setbacks from all property lines and horizontal distances from existing structures~ (b) The location and design of all uses not requiring structures, such as off-street parking and loading areas and pedestrian circulation. (c)The location, direction, power level and time Of use for any proposed outdoor lighting or public address systems. (d)The location and plans for any outdoor signs must be in acc0~dance ~ applicable si~ regu!ati0ns~ (e) The location and details of aprons, curbs, sidewalks, fencing (type and location), and grading, including existing and proposed topography with two-foot contours (on site and 200 feet beyond the property line) and spot elevations for buildings and all structures, drainage calculations, details of drainage structures and watershed areas, where applicable. (f) Grading and drainage plans shall be based upon site stormwater retention, in conformance with Chapter 161, Highway Specifications. (g) The location and listing of landscaping, buffering and street tree plans, including type, material, size, quantity and location. (h) The location of water and sewer mains, electrical service, cablevision and telephone installations, ground transformers, fire wells and fire hydrants and/or any alternate means of water supply and sewage disposal and treatment. (i) Building elevations for all facades and floor plans showing the proposed use of floor area. Notes: N/A = Not Applicable Site Plan Application elements waivers: § 280-133 C. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Planning Board shall have the discretion to waive any or all of the requirements of this § 280-133 by resolution at a duly noticed public meeting, for those applications involving modifications to existing structures with no substantial change to the existing footprint, where the Planning Board determines that such modifications or any change in use will not require significant changes to existing major site design features, as well as applications involving uses strictly related to agriculture (but excepting retail winery operations), if it determines such requirements are not necessary to protect and maintain the public health, safety, or welfare and to further the objectives set forth in § 280-129. Checklist for Site Plan Application Completeness at&t AT&T Towers 5405 Windward Pkwy Alpharetta, GA 30004 (770) 708-6124 GPD GROUP. Kevin Clements 1117 Perimeter Ctr W, Suite W303 Atlanta, GA 30328 (678) 467-7228 kclements@gpdgroup.com GPD# 2012766.53 Rev. 1 July 30, 2012 REVISED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT WITH MODIFICATION DESIGN AT&T DESIGNATION: Site USID: Site FA: Site Name: AT&T Project: 5679 10075046 MATTITUCK MetroPCS Tower Extension 06-15-09 ANALYSIS CRITERIA: Codes: TIA/EIA-222-F & 2006 IBC 85-mph with 0" ice 38-mph with 1/2" ice SITE DATA: Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952, Suffolk County Latitude 40° 59' 58.066" N, Longitude 72° 30' 40.201" W Market: NYC/NNJ 108' Summit Monopole w/10' Proposed Extension Mr. Martin Jelleme, GPD is pleased to submit this Revised Structural Analysis Report with Modification Design to determine the structural integrity of the aforementioned tower. The purpose of the analysis is to determine the suitability of the tower with the existing and proposed loading configuration detailed in the analysis report. Analysis Results Tower Stress Level with Proposed Equipment: Foundation Ratio with Proposed Equipment: 94.3 % Pass 89.3% Pass Note: In order for this analysis results to be valid for the proposed, existing, and reserved loading in Appendix A the modifications referenced in the design drawings by GPD (Project #: 2012766.53 Rev. A, dated 7/30/12) must be installed. We at GPD appreciate the opportunity of providing our continuing professional services to you and AT&T Mobility. If you have any questions or need further assistance on this or any other projects please do not hesitate to call. WARI~NG . IT IS A VIOL~ON OF LAW FO~ III~ PERSON TO ALTER THIS DOCUI~ENT UNLESS H~ ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. 520 South Main Street. Suite 2531 . Akron, Ohio 44311 . 330-572-2100. Fax 330-572 2101 . www. GPDGroup.com Glau$ Pyle 5chorner [~urns and DeHaYen, Inc. Akron. Allanta. Cleveland. Columbus. Indianapolis Louisville. Marion. Phoenix. Seattle Youngstown 108 Ft Monopole w/10' Proposed Extension ~ Structural Evaluation AT&T U$1D:567g SUMMARY & RESULTS The purpose of this analysis was to verify whether the existing modified structure is capable of carrying the proposed loading configuration as specified by Metro PCS to AT&T Mobility. This report was commissioned by Mr. Martin Jelleme of AT&T Mobility. The proposed coax shall be installed internal to the monopole for the results of this analysis to be valid. The proposed modifications by GPD (Project #: 2012766.53 Rev. A, dated 7/30/12) consist of adding a 10' extension to the top of the tower and adding flat plate reinforcement from 0.5' - 39.5', and have been considered in this analysis. See Appendix H for Modification drawings. TOWER SUMMARY AND RESULTS Member Capacity Results Monopole 94.3% Pass Flan~e BoUts 5.6% Pass Flan~e Plates 5.6% Pass Anchor Rods 69.1% Pass Base Plate 23.7% Pass Foundation I 89.3 % ] Pass ANALYSIS METHOD TNX Tower (Version 6.0.4.0), 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 is being completed 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 6/19/2009 Siterra Construction Drawin:~s Not Provided N/A Tower Design Not Provided N/A Foundation Design Not Provided N/A Geotechnical Report Not Provided N/A Previous Structural Analysis PJF Job #: 38508-0002 Rev. 2, dated 2/29/08 Siterra Previous Structural Analysis GPD Project #: 2011263.95, dated 4/25/11 Siterra Tower Mapp~n~ GPD and Patriot Tower Incv dated 3/18/08 Siterra Modification Drawings GPD Proiect #: 2012766.53 Rev. A~ dated 7/30/12 GPD 7/30/2012 Page 2 of 4 108 Ft Monopole w/10' Proposed Extension - Structural Evaluation AT&T USID: 5679 ASSUMPTIONS 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. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. The tower member sizes and shapes are considered accurate as supplied. The material grade is as per data supplied and/or as assumed and as stated in the materials section. 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. 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. 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. The soil parameters are as per data supplied or as assumed and stated in the calculations. Foundations are properly designed and constructed to resist the original design loads indicated in the documents provided. The tower and structures have been properly maintained in accordance with TIA Standards and/or with manufacturer's specifications. All welds and connections are assumed to develop at least the member capacity unless determined otherwise and explicitly stated in this report. All prior structural modifications are assumed to be as per data supplied/available and to have been properly in stall ed. Loading interpreted from photos is accurate to +5' AGL, antenna size accurate to +3.3 sf, and coax equal to the number of existing antennas without reserve. All existing loading was obtained from the previous Structural Analysis by (GPD Project #: 2011263.95, dated 4/25/11), site photos and the provided Preliminary Tower Summary form and is assumed to be accurate. The future loading was modeled per the note uploaded to Siterra under the Notice of Co-location form by Richard Salas dated 2/24/12. The future DC and fiber loading for AT&T has been modeled based on previous experience with similar sites. The proposed coax shall be installed internal to the monopole for the results of this analysis to be valid. The proposed modifications by GPD (Project #: 2012766.53 Rev. A, dated 7/30/12) consist of adding a 10' extension to the top of the tower and adding flat plate reinforcement from 0.5' - 39.5', and have been considered in this analysis. See Appendix H for Modification drawings. If any of these assumptions are not valid or have been made in error, this analysis may be affected, and GPD Group should be allowed to review any new information to determine its effect on the structural integrity of the tower. 7/30/2012 Page 3 of 4 108 Ft Monopole w/10' proposed Extension - Structural Evaluation AT&T USID: 5679 DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES GPD GROUP has not performed a site visit to the tower to verify the member sizes or antenna/coax loading, if 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 sub-component 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 in excess of the specified code recommended amount, 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. 7/30/2012 Page 4 of 4 108 Ft Monopole w/10 Ft Proposed Extension - Structural £valuation AT&T USID:5679 APPENDIX A Tower Analysis Summary Form ~30~012 Tower Analysis Summary Form GenerN I~te Site Name ~asic Wind Speed (mph} 86-fa~tost Exposure Categor~ (B. C, DI Type TmUne 108 Ft Monopo~e w/10 Ft Proposed Extension - Strudural Evaluation AT&T USID: 5679 APPENDIX B TNX Tower Output File 7/30/2012 t~xTower Job Page 5679 M^TTITUCK 1 of 5 GPD Group Project Oate 520 South Main Street Suite 2531 201 2766.53 Rev. 1 1 4:21:1 3 07/30/1 2 Akron, OH 44311 Client Designed by Phone: (330) S72-2/00 AT&T MOBILITY jfields Fax: ~0) ~-2/0/ Tower Input Data There is a pole section. This tower is designed using the TIA/EIA-222-F standard. Thc 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 °F. 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 Appurtenances - Entered As Area LDF5-50A (7/8 FOAM) LDF5-50A (7/8 FOAM) A No LDF5-50A (7/8 FOAM) A No LDF6-50A (I-1/4 FOAM) LDF4.5-50 (5/8 FOAM) LDF7-50A ( 1-5/8 FOAM) 7/8" DC Power Cable 1/2" Fiber Cable LDF6-50A (1-1/4 FOAM) LDFS-50A (7/8 FOAM) LDF5 50A (7/8 FOAM) A I~DF5 50A (7/8 FOAM) A LDFS-50A (7/8 FOAM) B LDF5-50A (7/8 FOAM) B LDF5-50A (7/8 FOAM) C LDF5-50A (7/8 FOAM) C RET Cable C RET Cable Face Allow Component Placement or Shield Type LeS It A No CaAa (Out Of 64.00 8.00 Face) CaAa (Out Of 64.00 - 8.00 Face) Inside Pole 78.00 - 8.00 B No Inside Pole 88.00 - 8.00 C No Inside Pole 98.00 - 8.00 C No Inside Pole 98.00 - 8.00 C No Inside Pole 98.00 - 8.00 C No Inside Pole 98.00 - 8.00 B No Inside Pole 109.00 - 8.00 C No Inside Pole 108.00 8.00 No CaAa I :)ut Of Face) No CaAa I Dut Of Face) No CaAa ~ :)ut Of Face) No CaAa ~ :)ut Of Face) No CaAa ~ Dut Of Face) No CaAa ~ Dut Of Face) No Inside Pole 116.25 - 108.00 116.25 - 108.00 116.25 - 108.00 116.25 108.00 116.25 - 108.00 116.25 - 108.00 108.00 - 8.00 C No CaAa (Out Of 116.25 108.00 Face) Total CaAa Weight Number 2 No Ice 0.11 0.33 1/2" Ice 0.21 1.30 Ill No Ice 0.00 0.33 1/2" Ice 0.00 1.30 12 No Ice 0.00 0,33 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.33 12 No Ice 0.00 0.66 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.66 I No Ice 0.00 0.15 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.15 12 No Ice 0.00 0.82 1/2" ice 0.00 0.82 2 No Ice 0.00 0.60 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.60 I No Ice 0,00 0.15 I/2" Ice 0.00 0.15 6 No 1ce 0.00 0.66 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.66 12 No Ice 0.00 0.33 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.33 2 No Ice 0.11 0.33 1/2" Ice 0.21 1.30 2 No Ice 6.00 0,33 1/2" Ice 0.00 1.30 2 Nolce 0.11 0.33 1/2" Ice 0.21 1.30 2 No Ice 0.00 0.33 1/2" Ice 0.00 1.30 2 Nolce 0.11 0.33 1/2" Ice 021 1.30 2 No Ice 0.00 0.33 I/2" lee 0.00 1.30 I No Ice 0.00 0.08 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.08 I No Ice 0.00 0.08 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.65 tnxTower Job Page 5679 MATTITUCK 2 of 5 GPD Group Project Date 520 South Main Street Suite 2531 2012766.53 Rev. I 14:21:13 07/30/12 Akron. 0H44311 Client Designed by Phone: (330) 572-2100 AT&T MOBILITY jfields FAX: (330) 572-2101 Description Component Placement Total Type Number Face Allow or Shield Le8 Safety Line 3/8 B No CaAa (Out Of 39.50 - 8.00 Face) Safety Line 3/8 B No CaAa (Out Of 118,00 39.50 Face) Step Pegs B No CaAa (Out Of 39.50 - 8.00 Face) Step Pegs B No CaAa (Out Of 118.00 39.50 Face) 6" x 1.25" Plate A No CaAa (Out Of 39.50 - 0.50 Face) 6" x 1.25" Plate B No CaAa (Out Of 39.50 - 0.50 Face) 6" x 1.25" Plate C No CaAa (Out Of 39.50 - 0.50 Face) C~4A Weight No Ice 0.00 0.22 I/2" Ice 0.00 0.75 No Ice 0,04 0.22 1/2" Ice 0A4 0.75 No Ice 0.00 2.72 liT' Ice 0.00 3.51 No Ice 0,08 2.72 I/2" Ice 0.18 3.51 No Ice 0.21 0.00 I/2" Ice 0,32 0.00 No Ice 0.21 0.00 1/2' Ice 0.32 0.00 No ice 0.00 0.00 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.00 Discrete Tower Loads Description Face Offset Offsets: Azimuth or Type Horz Adjustment Leg Lateral Vert J~ ft ft 932QLG65VTEB w/Mount A From Leg 3.06 40.0000 Pipe 2.57 932QLG65VTEB w/Mount B From Leg 2.57 50.0000 Pipe 3,06 932QLG65VTEB w/Mount C From Leg 3.46 30.0000 Pipe 2.00 4' Side Arm A From Leg 1.53 40.0000 1.29 0.00 4' Side Arm B From Leg 1.28 50.0000 1.53 0.00 4' Side Arm C From Leg 1.73 30.0000 0.00 ETWI90VSI2UB A From Leg 3.06 40.000~ 2.57 ETWlg0vsI2UB B From Leg 2.57 50.0000 3,06 ETW190VSI2UB C From Leg 3.46 30.(,~00 2.00 ETW200VS12UB A From Leg 3.06 403)000 0.00 EqVN200VS I2UB B From Leg 2.57 50.0000 3.06 ETW200VS 12UB C From Leg 3.46 30.0000 2.00 Placement C~4a CaAa Weight Front Side ft f? /~ th 64.00 No Ice 8.80 5.67 62.55 1/2" Ice 9.53 6.79 125.49 64.00 No Ice 8.80 5.67 62.55 1/2" Ice 9.53 6.79 125.49 64.00 No Ice 8.80 5.67 62.55 1/2" Ice 9.53 6.79 125.49 64.00 No Ice 0.82 2.87 83.50 1/2" Ice 1.02 3.33 108.55 64.00 No Icc 0.82 2.87 83.50 1/2" Ice 1.02 3.33 108.55 64.00 No Ice 0.82 2,87 83.50 I/2" Ice L02 3.33 108.55 64,00 NO Ice 0.00 0.35 10.00 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.44 15.82 64.00 No Ice 0.00 0.35 10.00 1/2" [ce 0,00 0.44 15.82 64.00 No Ice 0.00 0.35 10.00 1/2" Ice 0,00 0.44 15.82 64.00 No Ice 0.00 0.18 10,00 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.25 14,52 64.00 No Ice 0.00 0.18 10.00 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.25 14.52 64.00 No Ice 0.00 0.18 10.00 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.25 14.52 t~xTo~I~,r Job Page 5679 MATTITUCK 3 of 5 GPD Group Project Date 520 South Main Street Suite 2531 201 2766.53 Rev. 1 14:21:13 07/30/12 Akron, 0H44311 Client Designed by Phone: (330~ 572-2W0 AT&T MOBILITY jfields FAX; (330) $72-2~0! Description Face Offset Offsets: Azimuth Placement C~4a CaAA Weight or Type Hor~ Adjustment Front Side Leg Lateral Vert .ft fi ft2 ft2 lb ft ? (2) 7184.15 w/Mount Pipe A Prom 4.00 0.0000 78,00 No Ice 3.08 2.67 28,92 Centroid-Le 0.00 I/2" Ice 3.48 3.35 55,33 P65-15-XLit-RR w/Mount A From Leg Pipe P65-15-XLH-RR w/Mount B From Leg Pipe P65-15-XLH-RR w/Mount C Prom Leg 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.0000 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.0000 88.00 Nolce 15.70 15.70 1300.00 1/2" Ice 20.10 20.10 1765.00 98.00 No Ice 5,69 4.60 66.08 1/2" Ice 6.18 5.34 111.34 98.00 No Ice 5.69 4.60 66.08 1/2" kc 6.18 5.34 111.34 98.00 No Ice 5.69 4.60 66.08 I/2" 1ce 6.18 5.34 I 11.34 98.00 No Ice 0.190 0.45 20.00 I/2" Ice 0.00 0.57 26.53 98,(X) No Ice 5.97 4.05 56.82 1/2" Ice 6.39 4.64 100.95 98.00 No Ice 5.97 4.05 56.82 1/2" Ice 6.39 4.64 100.95 98.00 No [ce 5.97 4.05 56.82 tnxTower Page 5679 MATTITUCK 4 of 5 GPD Group Project Date 520 South Main Street Suite 253l 201 2766.53 Rev. 1 14:21:13 07/30/12 Akron, OH 4431/ Client Designed by Phone: (s30) 572-2/00 AT&T MOBILITY j.~u='~e"~s FAX: (330) 572-2101 Description Face Offset Offsets: Azimuth Placement C~a C~A~ Weight or Type Horz Adjustment Front Side Leg Lateral Vert fi ft fl2 ft~ lb ft Pipe 0.00 1/2" Ice 6.39 4.64 100.95 0.00 9442 RRH A From Leg 4.00 0.0000 98.00 No Ice 3.53 3.07 50.00 0.00 1/2" Ice 3.80 3.34 78,24 0.00 9442 RRH B From Leg 4.00 0.0000 98,00 No Ice 3.53 3.07 50.00 0,00 1/2" [ce 3.80 3.34 78.24 0.00 9442 RRH C From Leg 4.00 0,0000 98.00 No Ice 3.53 3.07 50.00 0.00 1/2' Ice 3.80 3.34 78.24 0.00 Valmont 13' LP Platform C None 0.0000 98.00 12' T-Arm ( 1 ) A From Face 2.00 0.0000 109.00 0.00 0.00 12'T Arm (1) B From Face 2.00 0,0000 109.00 0.00 0.00 12' q-Arm (I) C From Face 2.00 0.0000 109.00 0.00 0.00 (2) 980Fg0T2E-M w/Mount A From Face 4.00 0.0000 109,00 Pipe 0.00 0.00 (2) 980Fg0T2E M w/Mount B From Face 4.00 0.0000 ] 09.00 Pipe 0.00 0.00 (2) 980F90T2E-M w/Mount C From Face 4.00 0.0000 109,00 Pipe 0,00 0,00 (2) HBX-6516DS-VTM w/ A From Leg 4.00 0.0000 116.25 mount pipe 0.00 0.00 (2) HBX-6516DS VTM w/ B From Leg 4.00 -10.00C~0 116,25 mount pipe 0.00 0.00 (2) HBX-6516DS-VTM w/ C From Leg 4.00 0.0000 116.25 mount pipe 0.00 0.00 4' T-Arm (Commscope A From Leg 2.00 0.0000 116.25 MC-DAI4-B) 0.00 0.00 4' T-Arm (Commscope B From Leg 2.00 - I 0.0000 116.25 MC-DAI4-B) 0.00 0.00 4' T-Am~ (Commscope C From Leg 2.00 0.0000 I ] 6.25 MC-DAI4-B) 0.00 0.00 No Ice 15.70 15.70 1300.00 1/2' Ice 20.10 20.10 1765.00 No Ice 4.70 2.33 333.00 1/2" Ice 5.33 2.96 400.00 No Ice 4.70 2.33 333.00 1/2" Ice 5.33 2.96 400.00 No Ice 3.99 3.72 31.40 1/2" Ice 4,45 4.58 65.21 No Ice 3.99 3.72 31.40 1/2" Ice 4.45 4.58 65.21 No Ice 3.99 3.72 31.40 liT' Ice 4.45 4.58 65,21 Nolce 3.53 3,17 28.15 1/2" Ice 3.91 3.80 58.62 Nolte 3,53 3.17 28,15 1/2" lce 3.91 3.80 58.62 Nolce 3.53 3.17 28.15 1/2" Ice 3.91 3.80 58.62 No Ice 2.87 0.82 83.50 1/2" Ice 3.33 1.02 108.55 No Ice 2.87 0.82 83.50 1/2" Ice 3.33 1.02 108.55 No Ice 2.87 0.82 83.50 1/2" Ice 3.33 1,02 108.55 No Ice 4.70 2.33 333.00 1/2" Ice 5,33 2.96 400.00 tnxrower Job Page 5670 M^TTITUCK 5 of 5 GPD Group Project Date 520 South Main Street Suite 2531 201 2766.53 Rev. 1 14:21:1 3 07/30/1 2 Akron, 0H44311 Client Designed by mo.e: (33m 572 2WO ^T&T MOBILITY jfie~ds F~: (330) 572-2101 Dishes Description Face Dish Offset Offsets: Azimuth 3 dB Elevation Outside Aperture Weight or Type Type Horz Adjustment Beam Diameter Area Leg Lateral Width Vert f ,ft ,ft ,K Ih 2' Dish A Paraboloid From 4.00 0.000~ 98.00 2.00 No Ice 3,14 70.00 w/Shroud (HP) Face 0,00 1/2" Ice 3.41 280.00 4.00 Critical Deflections and Radius of Curvature - Service Wind Elevation Appurtenance Gov. Dqflection Tilt Twist Radius of Load Curvature f~ Comb. in ,~ 116.25 (2) HBX-6516DS-VTM w/mount 30 17.824 1.2473 0.0020 84382 pipe 109.00 12' T-Arm (1) 30 15.931 1,2429 0.0020 56305 102.00 2' Dish 30 14.114 1.2321 0.0020 20930 98.00 (2) 800 10121 w/Mount Pipe 30 13.087 1.2190 0.0020 13625 88.00 (4) DB844H90E-XY w/Mount Pipe 30 10.591 1.1610 0.0021 7275 78.00 (2) 7184.15 w/Mount Pipe 30 8.259 1.0632 0.0021 4969 64.0~ 932QLG65VTEB w/Mount Pipe 30 5.407 0.8568 0.0017 3972 Section Capacity Table Section Elevation Component Size Critical P SF*Patlow % Pass No. fi Type Element lb lb Capaciiy Fail L1 118 108.5 Pole TPI 8xl 8x0.375 1 -2128.87 697494.89 5.1 Pass L2 108.5 - 108 Pole TP24xlSx0.375 2 2129.04 704690.42 5.6 Pass L3 108 - 72.25 Pole TP29,726xPAx0.2188 3 9965.95 964464.12 49.2 Pass IA 72.25 - 35.75 Pole TP35.094x28.7279x0.25 4 -15333.60 1301050.60 94.3 Pass L5 35.75 -0 Pole TP40,28x33.9176x0,528 5 -25681.70 * 70.0* Pass Summary Pole (L4) 70.0* Pass RATING -- 70.0* Pass · See Appendix F for modification calculations. 108 Ft Monopole w/10 Ft Proposed Extension - Structural Evaluation AT&T USID: 5679 APPENDIX C Tower Elevation Drawing 7/30/2012 723ff Iill IJ~ II]1 I~ II 10 III Ifil UI DESIGNED APPURTENANCE LOADING TYPE ELEVATION TYPE ELEVATION (2) HBX 65160,~VTM w/mount pipe 11625 2' Dish ~ (2) HBX 65160,~VTM w/mount pipe 11625 (4) DB844Hg0E. Xy w/Mount pipe 88 (2) HBX 65160,~V~ w/moL~nt pipe 11625 (4) DB844Hg0E. Xy w/~nt pipe 88 MATERIAL STRENGTH ~o?-~oGRADE ~ TOWER DESIGN NOTES 1. Tower is located in Suffolk County, New York. 2. Tower designed for a 85 mph basic wind in accordance with the TIA/EIA-222-F Standard. 3. Tower is also designed for a 74 mph basic wind wilh 0.50 in ice. 4. Deflections are based upon a 50 mph wind. 5. TOWER RATING: 94.3% AXIAL 32764 lb SHEAR ~ MOMENT 18073 lb 1440884 Ib-ft TORQUE 982 lb Jr 74 mph WIND - 0.5000 in ICE AXIAL 25693 lb SHEAR ~ MOMENT 20452 lb 1611702 Ib-ft TORQUE 1098 Ib-ft REACTIONS 85mphWIND GPD Group r~: 5679 MA TTITUCK 520 South Main Street Suite 2531 ]Praiec~: 2012766-53 Rev. 1 Akron, OH 44311 jc,..t: AT&T MOBILITY JOmwnby:jfields App'd J Phone: (330) 572 2100 ~: TINEIA-~2-F idac:07/30/12 ~ale: N~ F~: (330) 572-2101 JPath: .......................... Feedline Distribution Chart 0'- 118' Face A 7225 Face B Face C GPD Group rs: 5679 MA TTITUCK 520 S°uth Main Street Suite 2531fr°l~t: 2°12766'S3 Rev' lI c~ienl: AT&T MOBILITY Drawn bY~jfields Akron, OH 44311 Date: 07)3 Phone: (330) 572-2100 ooe: TIA/EIA-222-F path: FAX: (330) 572-2101 IP ........................ IOwg NO E 7] Feedline Plan 35'9" ~ection @ 35'9" AM) (la) LDF6-50A (1-1/4 FOAM) (12) LDF7 50A (1 5/8 FOAM) (2) 7/8" ~ GPD Group r°~ 5679 MATTITUCK J · Project 201276653 Rev 1 520 South Main Street Suite 2531 ~ : . . ~ Akron OH 44311 jc,e.t= AT&T MOBILITY IDraw"by:jfields I~ C~nsut ng Engir~ers Phone:. i330)572-2100 ~lpath:: TIA/EIA-222-F I :07/30/12 j~ca~e:Dwg No NTSI FAX. (330) 572-2101 Il .......................... ~j~;'wg No E-7~ 108 Ft Monopole w/10 Ft Proposed Extension - Structural Evaluation AT&T USID: 5679 APPENDIX D Base Plate & Anchor Rod Analysis 7/30/2012 Anchor Rod and Base Plate Stresses 5679 MATTITUCK (Anchor Rods Only) 2012766.53 Rev. 1 GPD GROUP Overturning Moment =1 1611.17[k*ft ~ Axial Force = 25.69 k ~ Shear Force = 20.45 k ~ Anchor Rods Pole Diameter = 40.28 ~n Number of Rods = 12 Type = Upset Ro(~ Rod Yield Strength (Fy) - 75 Esi ASIF = 1.333 Rod Circle - 47 n Rod Diameter = 2.22 n Net Tensile Area 3.22 n2 Max Tension on Rod = 134.82 (ips Max Compression on Rod = 139.1C (ips Allow. Rod Force = 195.0C <ips Anchor Rod Capaci~ = 69.1% OK GPD Unstiffened Square Base Plate Stress (Rev F) V2.07 Anchor Rod and Base Plate Stresses 5679 MA'I-rlTUCK (Base Plate Only) 2012766.53 Rev. 1 GPD GROUP I *Overturning Moment:l ~20S'951k'" I Axial Force = 25.69 k ~ Shear Force = 20.45 k [ *Above reactions have been adjusted due to consideration of modifications. See attached hand calculations for determination of anchor rod forces in the analys~s, Base Plate Plate Strength (Fy) =1 55 ksi Plate Thickness =; 2.5 ~n Plate Width = 4~ ~n Est. Dist. b/w ea. Rod = ~ ~in w~= 36.902 n wmax= 24.774 n w= 24.77 n S= 25.81 n3 fb = 34.08 ~si Fb = 55 ~si Base Plate Capaci~ = 62.0% OK Wcaic GPD Unstiffened Square Base Plate Stress (Rev F) V2.07 108 Ft Monopole w/10 Ft Proposed Extension - Structural Evaluation ^T&T USID: 5679 APPENDIX E Flange Bolt and Flange Plate Analysis 7/30/2012 GPD GROUP ~nw~,eru r~aUt ~ nm~-~m N°~el I 520 South Main Street- Suite 2531 · Akron, Ohio 44311 · PHONE 330-572-2100 · FAX 330-572-2101 GPD GROUP Job #: 2012766.53 Rev. 1 Engineers. Architects · Planners Sheet No 1 Of 1 GPD GROUP Calculated By: Checked By: JDF Date: Date: 7/30/2012 MAX BOLT FORCE CALCULATIONS Moment from TNX (M) = Axial from TNX (P) - 108' 13.32 kip-ft ASIF = 1.33 2.13 kips Bolt Diameter = 1.25 in Bolt Area (Ainner) - 1.23 in2 Bolt MOl (lo. inner) = 0.12 in4 Number Bolts (Ninner) = 9 Bolt Circle (BCinner) = 29.25 in Total Area (Atot. in) = 11.04 in2 Percent Total Area (qi,) = 100.0% Axial, Bolts (P*qi,) = 2.13 kips linner = 1182.25 in4 I~ = 1182.~5 in4 Finner - 2.66 kips (Ninner*Ainner* BCinner2/B + Ninner* Io inne~ (linner + Iou~er + Ipl) (M*(gCi.ne/2)*Ainner)/ltotal + P*rlir/Ninner) Note: "Existing Flange Connection" calculations incorporate (12) total bolts for the purpose of calculcatin§ max bending on the flange plates. 108 Ft Monopole w/10 Ft Proposed Extension - Structural Evaluation AT&T USID: 5679 APPENDIX F Modification Calculations 7/30/2012 Reinforced Monopole Analysis ~& 5679 MATTITUCK ........ 20Z2766.53 Rev. ~ AiSF= 108 Ft Monopole w/10 Ft Proposed Extension - Structural Evaluation AT&T USID: 5679 APPENDIX G Foundation Analysis 7/30/2012 I Client: AT&T Mobility Site ID: 5679 Site Name: MAT['ITUCK Location: Suffolk County, NY Loading Type: Wind FOUNDATION DATA Diameter = 6 ft Length = 2t .5 ft Rebar Size = #11 #of bars = 16 Re Size = #4 C)ear Cover = 4 inches Edge to Bar Center = 5.205 inches f'c = 3 ksi CAISSON ANALYSIS WORKSHEET ~ Job No.: 2012766.53 Rev. 1 Sheet No: Of Made By: JDF Date: 7/30/2012 Chk'd By: Date: Code: F RISA Reactions ~Service) Moment = 1611.7 ft-k Axial = 25.69 kips Shear = 20.45 kips LPILE 1YPE 2 ANALYSIS FOR REINFORCING CAPACITY Mn = 44756.39 in-k Mn = 3729.70 ft-k Load Factor = 1.3 (~ (flexure) = 0.9 ~hMn = 3356.73 ~-k MOMENT FROM CAISSON PROGRAM USING ADJUSTED 9.F, AND ACTUAL CAISSON LENGI~I Moment = 1711.0 ft-k (max. moment along caisson) REINFORCING STEEL CAPACITY LF*Moment from Caisson 2224.30 ft-k Capac~, (~Mn 3356,73 ft-k SOIL CAPACITY FROM CAISSON PROGRAM USING ADDITIONAL SAFETY FACTORS ADDITIONAL SAFETY FACTOR FROM CAISSON = 2.24 = 66.3% O.K. Safety Factor of 2 2.00 Capacity = = 89.3% O.K. Additional Safety Factor 2.24 CAISSON Version 4.46 Mon Jul 30 16:29:46 2012 U.W. Short Course - 1998 * PIER FOUNDATIONS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN - (C) 1995, POWER LINE SYSTEMS, INC.* *** ANALYSIS IDENTIFICATION : 5679 MATTITUCK NOTES : 2012766.53 REV. 1 *** PIER PROPERTIES CONCRETE STRENGTH (ksi) = 3.00 STEEL STRENGTH (ksi) = 60.00 DIAS~TER (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) = 1611.7 VERTICAL (k) = 25.7 SHEAR (k) = ADDITIONAL SAFETY FACTOR AGAINST SOIL FAILURE = 2.24 20.4 *** CALCULATED PIER LENGTH (ft) = 21.500 *** CHECK OF SOILS PROPERTIES AND ULTI~TE 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 2.770 538.49 10.83 S 15.50 0.55 100.0 3.000 45.32 15.78 S 16.05 2.45 100.0 3.000 -221.98 17.30 S 18.50 3.00 100.0 3.000 -315.90 20.04 *** SHEAR AND MOMENTS ALONG PIER 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 45.9 3622.9 20.5 1617.4 2.15 45.9 3721.6 20.5 1661.4 4.30 32.4 3815.1 14.4 1703.2 6.45 -19.9 3832.7 -8.9 1711.0 8.60 -95.2 3713.1 42.5 1657.6 10.75 -193.6 3406.8 -86.4 1520.9 12.90 -315.0 2864.2 -140.6 1278.7 15.05 459.4 2035.9 205.1 908.9 17.20 -437.7 976.8 -195.4 436.1 19.35 -231.3 253.2 -103.3 113.0 U.W. Short Course - 1998 Page 1/2 21.50 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 *** TOTAL REINFORCEMENT PCT - 0.32 *** USABLE AXIAL CAP. (k) - 25.7 REINFORCEMENT AREA (in^2) = 13.03 USABLE MOMENT CAP. (ft-k) = 1769.5 *** US Standard Re-Bars (Select one of the following): 66 BARS #4 43 BARS #5 30 BARS #6 22 BARS #7 17 BARS #8 14 BARS #9 11 BARS #10 9 BARS #11 6 BARS #14 AREA - 0.20 in^2 AREA = 0.31 in^2 AP~EA = 0.44 in^2 AREA = 0.60 in^2 ~REA = 0.79 in^2 AREA = 1.00 in^2 AREA = 1.27 in^2 AREA = 1.56 in^2 AREA - 2.25 in^2 DIA = 0.500 in) AT SPACING (in) = 2.95 DIA = 0.625 in) AT SPACING (in) = 4.53 DIA = 0.750 in) AT SPACING (in) = 6.49 DIA = 0.875 in) AT SPACING (in) = 8.85 DIA - 1.000 in) AT SPACING (in) - 11.46 DIA - 1.128 in) AT SPACING (in) - 13.91 DIA = 1.270 in) AT SPACING (in) 17.71 DIA = 1.410 in) AT SPACING (in) 21.64 DIA = 1.693 in) AT SPACING (in) 32.46 *** PRESSURE UNDER CAISSON DUE TO DESIGN AXIAL LOAD (psf) = 908.6 U.W. Short Course - 1998 Page 2/2 108 Ft Monopole w/10 Ft Proposed Extension - Structural Evaluation AT&T USID: 5679 APPENDIX H Modification Drawings 7/3 0/2 012 MATTITUCK USID -/f: 5679 1 08' SUMMIT MONOPOLE W/PROPOSED 10' EXTENSION VICINITY MAP: MAI'rlTUCK, NY / Waterville attituck · SITE AERIAL VIEW ~SITE PROJECT SUMMARY DRAWING INDEX c~"~) ?~-~e~ INTEGRATED DY: GENERAL NOTES CONTRACTOR NOTES MODIFICATION PLATE NOTES WELD NOTES ANTENNA SCHEDULE ,~ COAX ,~I.~AYOUT TOWER ELEVATION DETAIL SECTION SECTION SECTION SECTION GPO GROUP, DE'TAIL GPD GROUP. SECTION DETAIL SECTION SECTION DETAIL Q DETAIL DETAIL GPD GROUP° MODIFICATION INSPECTION CHECKLIST BEFORE CONSTRUCTION DURING CONSTRUC'nON AFTER CONSTRUC3'ION GPD GROUP. MODIFICATION INSPECTION NOTES: RECOMMENDAI3ONS NO. 7504 P. 6/26 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR METRO ONE FACXLITY HATTITUCK; LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK PREPARED FOR: JUENGERT GRUTZMACHER ASSOC, PREPARED BY: TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. FEBRUARY lggz W.O. 755.228,1.3 FILE 166 NUV. lb. ZUUO 1U:i]AM Ma NO. 7504 P. 7/26 TECTONIC SECTION 1.O 2,0 3.O 4.O 4.1 5.0 6.0 6.1 7.0 7.I B.O FIGURE FIGURE APPENDIX I APPENDIX II APPENDIX III GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR METRO ONE FACILII~F MATTITUCK; LONG ISm_AND, NEW YORI( TABLE OF COhr~Ehr~s ITEH PURPOSE AND SCOPE PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE DESCRIPTION SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Borings L~boratory Testing SUBSURFACE DESCRIPTION FOUNOATION RECOMMENDATIONS Monopole Foundation GENERAL EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION CRITEI~IA Honopote Foundation LIHITATIONS PAGE l 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 6 O SITE LOCATION HAP BORING LOCATION PLAN BORING LOGS LABORATORY TESTING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION FOR CAISSON CONSTRUCTION NO. 7504 P. 8/26 1,0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE A geotechnical investigation was subsurface conditions, delineate performed in order to determine the engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials and establish .foundation design criteria for the proposed Metro One facilities to be located in East Mattituck; Long Island, Suffolk county, New York at Site No. 228.1.3 (Mattituck), The investigation consisted of one (1) boring drilled by Soiltesting, Inc. in the vicinity of the proposed monpole. The results of the investigation and associated engineering analysis are discussed herein. 2,0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the construction of a monopole which will be approximately 100 feet tall. A portion of an existing 20 foot by 42 foot oQ9 story block building will be used to house associated telecommunications equipment. The proposed monopole will be located approximately 60 feet west of the existing one story framed barn and approximately 15 feet west of the existing one story block building. Final monopole size, configuration and location are tentative at this time. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed site for the Metro One facility is in East Mattituck, New York. The site is located in the area northwest of the Elijah's Lane and Main Road intersection. The property for the proposed site is the second one north on Elijah's Lane from the intersection {see Figure 1}. -]_ NO. 7504 ?. 9/26 The site is presently occupied by two, one (1) story buildings] The large building is a framed barn structure presently used to house trucks and storage. The smaller structure is a 20 foot by 4~ foot block structure, proposed to be restored and house telecommunications equipment (see Figure 2). The rear half (west end} of the property is vegetated by low brush and grass with stands of, approximately 3 inch diameter, beech trees. 4.0 Topographically the sites lowest elevation is in the vicinity of the proposed monopole location. There was no surface water or wet areas observed in this area. However, seasonal fluctuations and/or during periods of heavy precipitation surface water may accumulate in this SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION The subsurface investigation was comprised of i boring performed by Soiltesting, Inc. on January 28, 1991 at the location indicated on Figure 2. The boring data obtained was supplemented by laboratory testing in ~rder to verify field classification of soil samples, The borings and laboratory testing of soil samples are described herein, 4.1 Bo~inqs. Tectonic Engineering Consultants' geotechnical representative was present during the drilling operations to monitor the work and modify the boring program as necessary to accommodate actuel conditions. Boring MK-I was drilled at the proposed monopole ~Z- NUV, lb.Z[JUg 1U:llA~ I~ai location. methods with a 2 inch hollow stem euger end advanced to a depth of 42 ft. NO, 7504 P. 10/26 The boring was advanced by power auger dr'illing total Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) and split spoon sampling was performed at maximum 5 ft. intervals in accordance with AS~M D 1586. Boring logs are contained in Appendix I. 4.2 Laboratory Testinq Laboratory testing was performed on to verify field classification of properties of the soils. Testing included the following; a. Moisture content, ASll~ D2216 b. Particle Soil Analysis, ASTM 0422 Iq,~all, two (2) samples were tested. contained in Appendix II. representative soil samples samples and establish index Laboratory test results are S,O SUBSURFACE DESCRI, PTION Results of the boring indicates that the subsurface soils generally consist of very loose to dense coastal plain sediment deposits that are predominantly granular in nature underlying e 6 to 8 inch layer of topsoil. The sediment deposits are comprised of a mixture of coarse to fine grained sands that are poorly graded with trace amounts of silt and gravel throughout. The soils generally increase in density with increased depths as indicated by the range of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) or "N" values encountered during the drilling operation, From N0¥.1~.2000 10:llAM Ma NO, 7504 P, ii/26 depths of 0 to 15 feet the soils are very loose with SPT values ranging ,,~m 5 to 9 blows per foot. An increase in SPT valums ranging from 13 to 14 blows per foot frnm 15 to 30 feet was noted, indicating a loose to.medium dense sand stratum for the remaining 5 feet of the boring from 35 to 40 feet, the SPT values ranged from 29 to 70 blows per foot indicating that a medium dense to dense sand stratum was encountered. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 23 feet. Increased static groundwater levels due to seasonal fluctuation and/or during periods of heavy precipitation should be expected. 6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the design considerations, economic feasibility and results of the subsurface investigation, recommended foundation systems for the propose~,.structuras are as follows: 6.1 MonoPole Foundation To accommodate static compressive loads due to the weight of the structure itself and the overturning moments created by wind and ice loading on the monopole, it is recommended that the monopole be supported on a large diameter caisson foundation. The caisson should penetrate tO a minimum depth of 30 ft. below grade to accommodate the overturning and compressive loads on the monopole, An allowable bearing capacity of 3.0 tons per square foot should be assumed for compressive loading of the caisson. -4- NOV. 15. 2000 IO:ltAM Mai NO. 7504 P. 12/26 In determining the available shear strength of insitu soils, the values of internal friction assumed, were 28 degrees from ground level to a depth of 15 fL., 30 degrees from a depth of 15 ft. to 35 ft. and 34 degrees from depths of 35 ft, to 40 ft. For resistance of lateral loads and allowable lateral earth pressure values caisson will vary with depth as follows: DEPTH (FF) LATERAL RESISTANCE (PSF) 0-5 0 5 1250 ]0 2525 15 3800 20 5500 .,,25 6650 30 7475 35 8275 40 9106 ~ Based on a factor safety of 2.5 overturning moments, per foot diameter of Concrete for caissons shall have a minimum compressive strength of 4000 psi. Reinforcing of caissons shall conform with minimum requirements specified by the ACI code. Reinforcing cages shall be provided for the full depth of caisson to accommodate the overturning loads. -5- NOV. 15, 2000 10:I1AM Mai NO. 7504 P. i3/26 7.0 GENERAL EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA Monopole Foundation The caisson shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions contained herein and with the Technical Specifications as indicated in Appendix III. Sidewall stability should be maintained during construction of the caisson. The loose conditions of the granular soils the presence of groundwater provides minimal stability in open excavations and liquefaction of the insitu sand may occur. This can lead to disturbance of the confining soils adjacent to the drilled shaft and the bearing strata as well as inhibiting construction progress. Therefore a lightweight drilling slurry shoulJ be used to prevent caving and maintain sidewall in. tegrity. The drilling slurry level should be kept at a minimum of 10 feet above the groundwater table elevation to ensure an outward pressure on the sidewalls and to eliminate the occurrence of running sands at the base of the drilled shaft excavation. Additional measures which could be implemented to prevent caving and limit sidewall instability include the use of temporary casing along with the drilling slurry. The caisson shall be constructed at the locations noted on the contract drawings. Deviation from plan location should not exceed 1/24 of the shaft diameter or 3 inches, whichever is -6- NOV, 15, 2000 10: 1AM Mai NO. 7504 P, 14/26 ~ess. Out of plumb tolerance fo~ sh~fts should be Z% or less of the shaft length. Drilled shafts shall be excavated to a minimum depth of 30 feet. The bearing stratum should be explored with a probe hole below the bottom geotechnical the stratum. of the drilled caisson at the discretion of the engineer in order to verify the bearing capacity of If test results indicate that the stratum is not capable of providing the required minimum service load bearing pressure, adjustments to the caisson depths shall be made as directed by the geotechnical engineer. Prior to placement of concrete, the bottom of the shaft should be cleared of loose material. Concrete should be placed immediately after completion of excavation and verification of bearing stratum. Shaft excavations should not be left open overnight, Concrete should be placed utilizing tremie methods and should be placed in one continuous operation. If a construction joint is unaveidable, level, roughen and clean the surface prior to recnmmencement of concrete placement. As indicated previously, sidewall stability should be maintained during excavation and construction efforts. Due to the proximity of the existing building foundation to the proposed monopole and the loose soils, temporary casing should be used along with drilling slurry. The minimum outside diameter of the casing -7- NOV. 15.~O00 IO:llAM NO. 7504 P. i5/26 should be equal Io the normal outside diameter of the drilled foundati:.':. Casing may be removed at the option of the contractor. However, contract bid documents shall specify that no additional payment be made' for casing left in place. Casing shall be withdrawn only as the shaft is filled with concrete. Adequate head of concrete shall be maintained to balance outside soil and water pressure above the bottom of the casing at all times during withdrawal. Casing shall be withdrawn while concrete is still fluid and plastic and before initial set. Upward movement shall not exceed 6 inches per 20 feet of shaft length.. If the casing is left in place, the void between the Co~ng and shaft excavation shall be filled with concrete or fluid grout by means of grout pipe and pump pressure as required. All spoil associated with caisson construction should be disposed of offsite or at a suitable onsite location as designated by the Owner. 8.0 LIMITATIONS Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar situations. The interpretation of the Field data is based on good judgement and experience. However, no matter how qualified the geotechnic~l engineer or detailed the investigation, subsurface -8- NOV.}b.~O0~ ]O:llAM Ma NO. 7504 ?, 16/26 T~CTONIC conditions cannot always be predicted between the poiots of 'actual sampling and testing. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report, This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Ouengert Grutzmacher Associetes for the specific application to the proposed Metre One Facility located at Mattituck, Long Island, New York. In the event that any changes in nature, design or location of proposed building and/or site facilities are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions modified or verified in writing by Tectonic Engineering Consultants P.C. It is recommended that Tectonic Engineering be retained to provide construction monitor~,~g and inspection services recommendations contained herein, professional liability. to ensure proper i~plementation of which would otherwise limit our -g- NOV, 15.2000 lO:ilAM NO. 7504 P. i7/26 (~[ -r[o-rt]NiO ~etro One Mattituck Long Island. New York ...... ~5$22a.1. Figure mu',', Ib. ZI)UU IU: IA~ rv~a~ N0, /~04~K i8/26 . 'FRAME BARN MONOPOLE~...~ BLOCK (~1 TGi=TONIC BORING LOCATION PLAN Me.tro One Mattituck Long lalend, New York 7504 P. i9/26 m ~.~,,~.~ · EiOR|NO No. MK--1 (Monopolo) ~OR Soil Tes~n~, In~, - - - - ~A~ON: ~10' ROT. DEIL~ W/MUD: W~A~ TO .,, ~- - ~ -- -- O~'S. O'eHen D~OND CORE TO - o ~ ~ Topso~ 4 S--~ 18 5P M ~ght brown m-f 3_ 4 _ 6 . 6 3 S-~ 14 SP D Ton ~m--f 7 8 _ 1~ 3 . 10 12- 13_ ~4_ ~ _15 17 18_ 19. 3 - 20 22 23_ ~ ~ Ground W~er Table 24_ , ,- ,_ ,,~5 · ~S~ ~ME FOR ~ATIC R~DING ** C~G~ IN ~TA ~E IN~RED ~vv, I~, zuuu IU:lJ~iV1 [v~a NO. /504 P. 20/26 BORINO No. MK-1 (ivlonopole) · °ROdEIb~' ~eti'o O~e --,Ma~cuc~ L~nq ~land~ N.w Yo~ J ~ ~.t 2 OF 2 2~ 4 2~- 30 5 ~ ~u~ g~in9 ~e r~d 31 - 1+ I 22 ~ 40 42 45. . 45 50 _ 51. 52. · E~PSED ~ME FOR ~ATIC R~ING ~* C~G~ IN ~TA ~E IN~ED GRADATION CURVES U'o,% ~J'ANDARD SIEVE O,r, EH, rHG li'J INCHES U,$. STANOARD SIEVE HUMIBER8 I-LYDROMETER Iu' ! z,, ~; 'J~' 3 4 .6 910 14.18 20 :30 40 '6070,100140200 0 ., I t00 soo lOO jo ~'s s i o.s o'.~ o.o~ o.ol o£o~ o.oo~ · ORAJN SIZE MILt-IMETERS C0eaLES_ COAa~E I ~ FINE COARSE ~ MEDIUM I FINE . SILT OR CLAY EAMPLEHO, ELEV. ORDEPTH OCA~IFICATION ~TW~ LL,=, PL FI PflOJEGT Met:o I - Mattituck ~-1/~-6i 25'-27' I~t. bco~n c-~'SANDr 20.4 ~.O. 755.228.1.3 trace Silt, trace Gr~v~. ~A ~ower Location · TE~[-=' ?,T. GTONIG , GRADATIONCURVES .ENGINEERING CDf~ULTANT$ Rri-' U,~. STANDAR .0" Si:EVE OPEN.lNG IN JNCHEE$ U.~. ~DAR D SIEVE NUUgER~ HYD~O~ER 1'~ 1 sZ ~ ~ 3 4 .6 010 14.1620 3040 5070.1~14D2~ _ . ~o ~ .... 4o S0 -- 500 IO0 5o ~o 5 ~ 0,5 o.1 o.os o.01 0.o05 e.0ot GRAIN 6JZE MILLIMETERS SAMP~ENO, EL~.ORDEPTH .., C~5~FICATION ~ATW~ LC PC .PI PR~ECT ~e~o X - .,, (SPt. WII;~-Ff~ From 16-7 NO, 7504 P. 23/26 B TECHNZCAL SPECIFICATION FOR CAISSON CONSTRUCTIO~ The caisson drilling contractor shall be responsible for performing the construction according to the plans and specifications contained herein. Any deviations from the plans and specifications must be approved by the geotechnical engineer. The caisson drilling contractor shall also be respons¢ble for maintaining job safety during construction of drilled shafts and related operations. Contractor shall conform with all OSHA requirements regarding excavation safety for personnel working in confined spaces. Contractor shall provide al7 services as described herein to install straight shaft caissons to depths necessary to achieve the specified bearing capacity. Anticipated penetration depths indicated on the plans are approximate only and shall be adjusted as dictated by actual subsur?ace conditions encountered and as approved by the Gaotechnica? Engineer. 4. The Contractor shall: A, Furnish all labor supervision, tools equipment end material to excavate and install caissons to required dimensions. Furnish install and remove a~l temporary casing as required to complete construction of the caisson and furnish all lightweight drilling slurry as required ~o stabilize caisson excavations to required bearing depth. C. Furnish all labor and equfpment to control and dispose of surface water as required. Furnish all labor tools and equipment required to dewater cession excavations, E. Furnish reinforcing steel and provide all material~ labor, tools, and equipment required to fabricate and install rebar cages to depths indicated on the plans. Furnish concrete and provide al7 labor too~s and equipment required to place concrete by tremie methods. Furnish equipment and labor necessary for bottom cleanout of afsson excavations, Furnish a water supply as required for drilling operations. Furnish all labor and equipment necessary to dispose of drilling slurry and caisson spoil material that is unacceptable for onstte use to an offsfte disposal area. z . uu 'lu:ll, w NO. ?504 P. 2.4/26 -2- 10. 11. Caissons shall be excavated with the use of drilling slurry to stabilize the excavation. Temporary casing may be required if sidewall stability cannot be maintained with drilling slurry.. Temporary casing, when employed, sfiould be of an ample strength to withstand handling stresses and external pressures of the caving soil and/or fluid and shall be water tight. When necessary, the contractor should prepare the bottom of the casing with cutting teeth to facilitate sealing. The casing shall be smooth and its interior clean, The outside diameter of the casing shall not be less than the specf?fed diameter of the drilled shaft, the length of casing shall be sufficient to provide adequate protection and safety against any caving soil and water. Temporary casing shall not be left in place without the permission of the engineer. No additional payment shall be made for casing left in place. The slurry shall be maintained a minimum of 10 feet above the groundwater level in the caisson excavation. Drilling slurry may be reused provided it is processed to remove granular materia7 left in suspension. Caissons shall be advanced to minimum depths as indicated on the drawings. The bearing stratum shall be explored at the discretion of the geotechnfcal engineer with a probe as necessary to confirm that suitable bearing has been achieved. If test results indicate that the ~tratum is not capable of providing the specified bearing the depth of the caisson shall be ~Xtended as directed by the geotechnical engineer. If obstru'ctions such as boulders, stump, concrete, ledgerock, etc. are encountered which will not permit excavation of caissons to the specified depth, the obstructions shall be removed by the caisson drilling contractor and a new caisson shall be excavated in the same location. Payment for removal of obstructions she71 be made by cubic foot of material removed. The caisson drilling contractor should provide suitable lighting and safe access to the surface area of shaft excavations for proper inspection of the completed excavation as required by the engineer. The access should allow the location, dimensions, and alignment of the excavation to be checked. Both construction and inspection should be performed without the need for personnel to enter the excavation, The excavation for a drilled shaft should be made so that the axis of the shaft at the top of the shaft is no more than 1/24th of the shaft diameter or $ in. from its plan location, whichever is less. The drilled shaft shall be within 2 percent of plumb for the total length of the sh~ft, with plumbness measured from the as-constructed position of the top of the excavation, provided the excavation meets the tolerance specified in the first sentence. The top elevation of the shaft should be no more than I inch above or below the top elevation indicated on the ~uv. I~. zuuu lu:/l~,~ I~a FtL). /bO4 P. 25/26 -3- drawings, The diameter o? the stem of the drilled shaft should be no less than the plan dimension. The bottom of the caisson shell not slope more than one half inch foot. The engineer shall provide redesign as required due to drilled shafts which do not meet the above requirements. All corrective measures, including the cost of the engineer's redesign shall be at the caisson drilling contractor's i2. The bottom of excavation shall be maintained clean of all loose and disturbed material prior to concrete placement. Each caisson will be visually inspected From the ground surface immediately before placing concrete. 13. 14. Reinforcing steel shall be deformed bars conforming to ASTtl A615-GR "Deformed and Plain Billet Steel Bars For Concrete Reinforcement" latest edition. Longitudinal and transverse reinforcing Steel for cages shall be of the sizes indicated on the plans. Centering devices shall be provided for all rebar cages to maintain the location of the cages within the tolerances indicated on the plan and ensure adequate cover of the cages with concrete. Reinforcing steel pieces may be used as centering devices provided they are epoxy coated. Alternatively, a precast concrete roller tied into the reinforcing cage and aligned to roll parallel to the long axis of the rebar cage can be used. 15. Ca,~ sha~1 be taken during lifting and handling of rebar cages to prevent damage and/or distortion to the cage during installation. Cages shall be strengtfled if required to prevent damage from occurring . Cage that are ~o long to handle in one section can be assembled fn multiple sections and spliced together fn accordance with ACI requirements, Rebar cages shall be fastened within the caisson hole to prevent lateral and vertical movement during placement of concrete. ~ minimum of 3 inches of cover shall be maintained between the rebar c~ge and the sidewall of the caisson. 17. For caissons where temporary casing is used, casing shall be withdrawn tn a slow uniform manner to prevent movement of the rebar cage. i8. Welding may be employed over the lower portion of the rebar cage For attaching stirrup reinforcement, bands, or lateral reinforcement. The applicable provisions of the American Welding Society must be followed. Welding may not be employed in the top portion of the rebar cage unless a weldable steel is empToyed. 19. Concrete for caissons shall conform to the requirements o? the ACI 336,1. Concrete shall have a minimum compressive strength of 4000 psi at 28 days. NO. 7504 P, 26/26 -4- 20. 21, Concrete shall be placed by the tremie method and the tremie pipe shall be placed at the bottom of the excavation. Concrete shall be pumped in one continuous operation starting from the bottom of the excavation and proceeding upward to the top, to ensure displacement of water, $1urJ, and other Free material within the excavation. Concrete placed by this method shall have a slump of between 4 and 7 inches. The use of super plasticizers will not.be allowed. All concrete placement shall be£1n as soon as posc'~'= after the caisson excavation has been completed. Uncased caisson excavations shall not be left open overnight. Concrete shall be placed in one continuous opera,ion for each caisson. Tops of caissons shall be bush hammered or green cut to ~rovide a roughened surface. File 119 Planner's Report: Proposed metroPCS Telecommunications Facility Located at: 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituek, New York Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, Long Island, NY September 2011 APR 1 0 201Z Prepared by David Karlebach, PP, PC 38 v. Ridgewood Avenue #396 Ridgewood, NJ 07450 David Karlebach, AICP, PP 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 % 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. 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 Iow 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" 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 9280-76.5 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. § Description Required Existin,q Proposed §270J(2) Maximum height 45 ft. 108 ft. 118 ft. 74.6 ff. 224.43 ff. Distance of wireless equipment (antennas) (antennas) §270J(6) to adjacent residential property 500ft. 74.6 ff. 235.43 ff. line (equipment) (equipment) 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. §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? 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.c fm/AID/10323 ~ www.ctia.org/advocacy/researclVindex.c fm/AID/10323 3 www.ctia.org/advocacy/research/index.c fm/A1D/10323 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 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. EBI Consulting Visual Analysis Prepared For: metroPGS. Unlimit Yourself. PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY NY7313 MATTITUCK Provided By: EBI Consulting January 8, 2010 Revised: August, 8, 201 I EBI C 0 N S U L T I N G Creating ~'alue./?~r Your Business. PN: 61096599 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 EBI ('0 N S U L T I N G www. ebiconsulting.com 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 Tek (781) 273.2500 Fax: (781) 273.3311 Letter of Methodology August 10, 2011 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituck, NY ~ 1952 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 4~5 Elijah's Lane, Matt[tuck, 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 wili 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 7% 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 Facihty using 3D soft, rare 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, John Menezes EBI Consulting Office: 781-425-5108 FAX: 781-425-5163 Mobile: 781-572-5173 im en ezes~c~ebicons ultin g.com www.ebicons ulting.¢gm 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 PHOENIX, AZ I PORTLAND OR SAN FRANCISCO, CA I SEATTLE WA [ YORK, PA VISIBILITY ~AP Legend ~ Project Site Photo Location Points 0 180 360 540 720 900 N Non-Visible Locations w~t~ METRQ PCS/NY7313 415 EL1JAHS LANE MATTITUCK, NY I1952 PN 6 ~096599 VEW 'I ViEW Pfq:OPOSE[~ fFETF~O PCS ANTENNAS I I.QOK N(~ SO!. TI~,EAST FRO~ C~'OF~NEF~ OF JE[REM~ANS L,N & N~A ~,. PATH VIE~¥ 2 EXST ~,~G OO~'-~©~T~O~qS LOO~(II,,~G ~-~O/~ THW~:ST F:~OM CQfRNF~ OF W/AI~ t~D & ELkJ/~H$ L~-~ PCS ABTE~!AS ! LOOK~ ,~ORTI~t~?'?EST F~'~OM COR~E~ OF ~¥~A l,a ~D & kL J>~.. =N ViEW 3 t!~X STING CONDiTiONS LOOK NG NORTtIWf2ST FROM CORN~{R OF NE~¥ SU:FO.K AV~! & LOCUST AVE ViEW 3 PROPOSED METRO PCS ANTENNAS ~ LOO~(I~x(G NORT'¢~WEST FROM CORN~'zR OF NEW SI.,~FFOLK AVE & LQCLIS¥ V~EW 4 EXi.,/is!.. ?ONDTOf*4S LOOK N® SOUTh/ FROM ELMAHS L~4 AT S-?,MRO(JK CHRISTMAS TREE FARM V~EW 4 PCS AF~;~TE/NF.~AS ! IOO~¢JNG SOUT FRO~,a E JAHS L~ AT SHAMROCK CHRST~'~AS TRE~ FAR~ ViEW 5 PROPOSED METRO PCS AE,~TEE~,~AS {~;,~OT VIS!E~..E LOO~E~NG NQRI'~--;EAS¥ FROM CORNER OE MACP4 RD & CARD ~,~AL DR 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 April 9, 2012 APR 10 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 April 9, 2012 Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Appraisal Consulting Report 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 possible adverse effects a proposed Communications have on the surrounding community. to study any Facility will This Report is strictly prepared at the request of MetroPCS to present to the Town of Southold Planning Board for a hearing to be held on April 9, 2012. 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 10'0" extension on the Monopole that will raise the height of said structure to 118'0" (AGL). The height to the top of the Antennas will be 118'6" (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 Surroundinq Neiqhborhood 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. adjacent to residences Nearby, along the south in use as a vineyard. The Property is otherwise abutted or on its north, west, and east sides. side of Main Road, is agricultural land 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 addition to comparable Suffolk Counties; Prepared this Report requirements. in the area of the Property in sites throughout Nassau and in conformance with USPAP Report Methodoloqy 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. Two of these studies of note are as follows: Monopole Antenna Site, Cherry Creek Golf Linksf 900 Reeves Avenue Centerville (Riverhead), New York. A 130'± stealth monopole was erected at this golf course in 2003. Subsequent to the monopole, a new development of single-family residences commenced adjoining the golf course and said monopole to its east. This homeowners association, known as the "Highlands at Reeves," had its first sale in 2006. The development includes a community pool, clubhouse, and other amenities typical to a modern homeowners association development on Long Island. The golf course and development are built on former agricultural lands. Our staff looked at sales data within the Highlands at Reeves from 2006--2011, finding 32 sales ranging from $399,000-$850,000, or on a per square foot of building area running from $136/SF- $258/SF. The average and median sale price per square foot was $197/SF and $201/SF, respectively. We then compared this above data to a very similar development located 1.5± miles to the east known as "The Highlands at Aquabogue," situated along the south side of Sound Avenue, 5 adjacent to the east side of the Long Island National Golf Club. The Highlands at Aquabogue had its first sale in 2006, with units still available as of 2012o Our researched sales run from 2006- 2011~ revealing 54 sales ranging from $425~000-$719~000~ or on a per square foot of building area running from $135/SF-$252/SF~ The average and median sale price per square foot was $207/SF and $211/SF~ respectively. The difference between the two groups, utilizing average and median sale prices per square foot of building area, was very close, differing by less than 5%. Therefore, based upon these two groups of data~ it does not appear that the presence of the 130~ monopole had an appreciable effect on the adjacent residential community. Birdseye View of Monopole and Adjacen% New Developmen% Monopole Antenna Site~ Key~pan Operations Center~ Montauk ~.~.ghwa¥, ~.~dgehamp~on~ New York. A 120'± 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 128% higher for the latter ($516,167 vs. $1,179,000), which breaks down to an average of 29%/year market appreciation. This figure compares favorably with the overall market appreciation of 22%/year tabulated from all single-family homes sales over the same time period for all of Bridgehampton. As such, the antennas or monopole did not appear to lead to a devaluation of nearby property values around the site. Conclusions In summary, we offer the following conclusions: The proposed Communication Facility is appropriate for the Property given that the application involves the addition of Antennas to an existing Monopole, one that has housed communications facilities by other carriers as far back as the early 1990s. The Property is well suited for the Communications Facility, given existing conditions, natural screening, land uses, and zoning in the surrounding neighborhood. No correlation was found between the presence of wireless communication facilities and declining property values in the studies we reviewed or carried out on communities in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, including the East End of Long Island. The proposed MetroPCS Communications Facility, therefore, will not negatively affect property values in the surrounding area and will not have any adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood or the pattern of its development. 10 Photo 1: Existing View of Monopole 11 Photo 2: Existing Ground Equipment, Shelters, Etc. Photo 3: View of Garage/Warehouse Building and Monopole at Rear 12 Photo ~: View of Property from Elijah'$ Lane, Looking West Photo 5: Elijah's Lane Looking North 13 Photo 6: View of Abutting Auto Parts Store South of Property along Elijah's Lane Photo 7: View of Abutting Residence to North of Property along Elijah's Lane 14 Photo 8: View of Abutting Residence to Northwest of Property along Rachael~$ Lane w/Monopole in Backdrop Photo 9: View of Abutting Vacant Land to North of Property at Southwest Corner of Elijah's La. & Rachael's Lane 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 16 Photo 12: Birdseye View of Subject Property and Surrounding Neighborhood Looking West 17 TAX MAP & ENGINEERING DRAWINGS DESIGN~ GROUP-2 mPC~ 21 Certification Assumptions & Limiting Conditions & Qualifications of the Appraiser 22 CERTIFICATION 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. I 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. Michael J. Lynch 23 ASS~PTIONS 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. 24 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. 25 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 rea[ 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 lsland 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. 26 Appeared as Expert Witness (cont.): Village of Cedarhurst Board of Zoning Appeals. Village of East 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 Trnstees. Village of Lloyd Harbor Board of Trustees. Village of Lloyd Harbor Planning Board. Village of Lloyd Harbor Zoning Board of Appeals. 27 Appeared as Expert Witness (cont.): 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 #1A-I. Basic Valuation Procedures - Exam #lA-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 #II420 RE, NIELSEN, HUBER & GOUGHLIN, LLP ~ 56 NORTH N~w Yo~ Av~Nmg ~ ,~ ~ · . ' TELEPHONE: (OO1) 425-41OO FA6SI~ILE; (081) 425-4104 March 26, 2012 BY HAND DELIVERY Town of Southold Planning Board Town Annex Building 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Attn.: Brian A. Cummings, Planner RE: MetroPCS New York, LLC (Site No. NY7313) Site Plan Application and Special Exception Permit Application ibr Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY SCTM#: 1000- 108-4- 11.3 Dear Mr. Cummings: As you know, we represent MetroPCS New York, LLC ('MetroPCS') with regard to its pending application to colocate at the existing public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the subject property. This correspondence shall serve as MetroPCS' response to your correspondence of March 14, 2012 (copy attached hereto). The numerical order is reflective of those numbered items in your correspondence. Enclosed please find nine (9) sets of revised Zoning Drawing Z-3 (revision 4, dated 3/19/12), which includes the requested "fall-zones" as well as adjacent property lines, zoning districts and nearby structures, and in further support of MetroPCS' position as to Town Code Section 280-70G. As to your request for "detailed structural engineering specifications of the existing monopole," we respectfully submit that the requested information is included in the Structural Analysis Report prepared by GPD Group, and dated April 25,2011 (seven (7) counterparts of which were included in the original application submission of September 29, 2011, and a pdf copy of which was e-mailed to your attention on March 15, 2012). As noted previously, Mr. Robert W. Toms, New York State P.E., of MTM Design Group, Inc., (and author of the January 27, 2012 correspondence, previously submitted to the Town. which Town of Southold Planning MetroPCS Site Plan/Special Exception Application at 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY March 26, 2012 Page 2 of 2 addresses the "fall-zone" requirements of Town Code Section 280-70G) is available for questioning by the Planning Board, Planning Department and/or an appropriately qualified and credentialed outside consultant in advance of the April 9, 2012 Public Hearing. Please contact my office if you would like to schedule a meeting and/or conference call in advance of the Public Hearing. Thanking you for your courtesies, we remain Very truly yours, NIELSEN, HUBER & COUGHLIN, LLP % ~Jol~n J. ~o~hlin JJC:mk Enclosures PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSKI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR March 14,2012 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD M~ILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 John Coughlin, Esq. c/o R6, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Re; Site Plan for MetroPCS ~ Baxter 415 Elijahs Lane, Mattituck SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 Dear Mr. Coughlin: I am writing as a follow-up to the Work Session held on March 12, 2012 where the Planning Board formally accepted the above-referenced site plan for review with revisions to be made immediately. Please submit the following: Provide a detailed illustration/depiction of the fall zone on a plan that clearly shows the current fall zone and the proposed fall zone of the proposed 118' monopole. Adjacent property lines and any structures must be shown, along with adjacent zoning districts. 2. Provide detailed structural engineering specifications of the existing monopole to facilitate the discussion amongst our consulting engineers. The above-referenced information is vital to completing our review so that the Planning Board can make an informed decision and ensure the proposed meets the requirements of the Town Code. The Planning Board has scheduled the public hearing for the April 9, 2012 public meeting. Please, if you have any questions regarding this site plan or its process, do not hesitate to call this office. Very truly yours, Brian A. Cummings Planner Commissioners Lloyd H. Relsenber~, Chairman William G. Young, Vice Chaln31an David F. Haas Warren W. Jackson Greg Dlckerson , ATI'ITUCK FIRE DISTRIC PO BOX 666, PIKE STREET MATrlTUCK, NEW YORK 11952*0666 John C. Harrison, Secretary Basbam Dlckerson, Treasurer March 21, 2012 Southold Town Planning Board Attn: Brain Cummings P O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Proposed Co-location Site Plan: MetroPCS SCTM#: 1000-108-4-11.3 Dear Mr. Cummings; The Board of Fire Commissioners of the Mattituck Fire District reviewed the above mentioned site plan at their regular meeting on March 20th, 2012; with the purpose to answer your questions. The Board of Fire Commissioners recommends that afl drives and entry ways meet Southold Town Code (280-109c). If you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, John C. Harrison Secretary/Fire District Manager CC: Board of Fire Commissioners Chief Office (631) 298-8837 Facsimile (631) 298-8841 Cummin~ls, Brian A. From: Sent: To: Subject: Fisher, Robert Tuesday, March 20, 2012 2:53 PM Cummings, Brian A. MetroPCS @ Baxter (i08-4-i1.3) Brian: After inspecting the site, I have no reservations about this project. Bob Robert Fisher Fire Inspector robert.fisher~town.southold.ny.us (633_) 765-3_802 Submission Without a Cover Letter Comments: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSK/ Chair WILLIA/VI J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM. MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 To; Suffolk County Planning Commission From: Date: Brian Cummings, Plann~ March 15, 2012 RE: Site Plan Application Review - · Request for comments pursuant to General Municipal Law {}239 (as a referral) and Southold Town Code {}280-131 SEQR Lead Agency request · Coordinated review under SEQR Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this request is to seek comments from your agency, and also to determine lead agency and coordinate review under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act- SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617. Please provide the following, as applicable: 1. Comments or requirements the Planning Board should take into consideration while reviewing the proposed project; 2. Issues of concern you believe should be evaluated; 3. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; and 4. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency under SEQR. The lead agency will determine the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency. The following page contains information pertaining to the project under review. For further information, please feel free to contact this office. Southold Referral & SEQR Coordination Page Two March 15, 2012 Planning Board Position: (x) This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. ( ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. ( ) Other (see comments below) Comments: Project Name: MetroPCS @ Baxter Address: 415 Elijahs Lane, Mattituck Tax Map #: 1000-108-4-11.3 Requested Action: This site plan is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co- locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB Zoning District. SEQRA Classification: ( ) Type I ( ) Type II (X) Unlisted Contact Person: Brian Cummings (631) 765-1938 Enclosures: EnvironmentalAssessment Form · Site Plan Application Form · Site Plan(s) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSKI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH Ill MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southald, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 MEMORANDUM To; From: Date: Re: Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator Brian Cummings, Planne~ March 15, 2012 Proposed Co-location Site Plan for MetroPCS @ Baxter Located at 415 Elijah's Lane, on the northwest corner of the intersection of Elijah°s Lane & NYS Route 25, Mattituck SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 The Planning Board refers this application to you for your information, comments, review, and certification, if applicable. The file is available at your convenience. This site plan is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB Zoning District. Thank you for your cooperation. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSKI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, N-Y Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Re: Michael J. Verity, Chief Building Inspector Brian Cummings, Planne~ March 15, 2012 Proposed Co-location Site Plan for MetroPCS @ Baxter Located at 415 Elijah's Lane, on the northwest corner of the intersection of Elijah's Lane & NYS Route 25, Mattituck SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 The Planning Board refers this application to you for your information, comments, review, and certification, if applicable. This site plan is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB Zoning District. Thank you for your cooperation. Encls.: Site Plan Application Site Plan PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSKI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 March 15, 2012 Mr. John Harrison c/o Mattituck Fire District P.O. Box 666 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Request for Review on: Proposed Co-location Site Plan for MetroPCS @ Baxter Located at 415 Elijah's Lane, on the northwest corner of the intersection of Elijah's Lane & NYS Route 25, Mattituck SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 Dear Mr. Harrison: The enclosed site plan application is being referred to you for your comment on matters of interest to the fire department, including fire department equipment access, emergency services, and any other issue that may be of concern or relevance to this application. Please respond with your recommendations at your earliest convenience. This site plan is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB Zoning District. Please contact me at (631)765-1938 if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Brian Cummings Planner Encls.: Site Plan Application Site Plan Building Specifications PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSKI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 MEMORANDUM To: James Richter, Engineering Inspector From: Date: Brian Cummings, Plannert~) March 15, 2012 Re: Proposed Co-location Site Plan for MetroPCS @ Baxter Application Name: MetroPCS @ Baxter Tax Map Number: 1000- 108-4-11.3 Location: 415 Elijahs Lane, Mattituck Type of Application: Sketch Subdivision Map Preliminary Subdivision Map Final Subdivision Map (Dated: ) (Dated: ) (Dated: ) Road Profiles Grading and Drainage Plans Other (Dated: ) (Dated: ) (Dated: ) Site Plan (Dated: 5-17-11 ) Revised Site Plan (Dated: ) Grading and Drainage Plans Other (AS BUILT) (Dated: ) (Dated: ) Project Description: This site plan is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co- locate a wireless communication facility of $ antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB Zoning District. Additional Comments: Your comments are appreciated by March 29, 2012. Thank you for your cooperation. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSK/ Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hsll Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 MEMORANDUM To: CC: From: Date: Re: Scott A. Russell, Supervisor Members of the Town Board Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk Town Attorney Brian Cummings, Planner-~ March 15, 2012 Proposed Co-location Site Plan for MetroPCS @ Baxter Located at 415 Elijah's Lane, on the northwest corner of the intersection of Elijah's Lane & NYS Route 25, Mattituck SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 The Planning Board refers this application to you for your information, comments, review, and a determination of jurisdiction, if applicable. This site plan is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB Zoning District. Thank you for your cooperation. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSKI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Re: Damon Rallis, Code Enforcement Officer Robert Fisher, Fire Marshall Brian Cummings, Planne~ March 15, 2012 Proposed Co-location Site Plan for MetroPCS (~ Baxter Located at 415 Elijah's Lane, on the northwest corner of the intersection of Elijah's Lane & NYS Route 25, Mattituck SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 The Planning Board refers this application to you for your information, comments, review, and any violations on record, if applicable. This site plan is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB Zoning District on Elijah's Lane, Mattituck. Thank you for your cooperation. #10606 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine 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), successfully commencing on the 29th day of March, 2012. Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this ~-~ day of.j.,~./~_]..._.(~~) 2012. Art ~f Nature, ~LC looated at 234:23 ca ,,~,,~.~ cox ~c Met?o~ New ~ork' at Baxter located SOUTHOLD TOWN CHRISTINA VOLINSK! NOTARY PI~BLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK NO, 01VO6105050 Qualified In Suffolg County My Commllllon Expli'el ~eOruary ~d~, ~01~ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSKI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. S/DOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public Hearing MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NYl1971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, N-Y Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Section 276 of the Town Law and Article XXV of the Code of the Town of Southold, a public hearing will be held by the Southold Town Planning Board, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York on the 9th day of April, 2012 on the question of the following: 6:00 p.m. Proposed Lot Line Change for Alfred & Mary Knapp located at 3425 Soundview Avenue, Peconic, Town of $outhold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-68-1-11 & 13.3 6:02 p.m. Proposed Site Plan for De Art of Nature, LLC located at 23423 CR 48, +900' e/o Cox Lane and CR 48, Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-84-1-10.4 6:04 p.m. Proposed Site Plan for MetroPCS New York at Baxte~ located at 415 Elijah's Lane, on the nlwlclo the intersection of Elijah's Lane and NYS Route 25, Mattituck, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-108-4-11.3 Dated: 3/13/12 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Donald J. Wilcenski Chairman PLEASE PRINT ONCE ON THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2012 AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT TO THIS OFFICE. THANK YOU. COPY SENT TO: The Suffolk Times Page 1 of 1 Kalin, Carol From: Candice Schott [cschott@timesreview.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:11 PM To: Kalin, Carol Subject: RE: Legal Ad for 3/29 Edition of Suffolk Times Hi carol, I have received the notice and we are good to go for the 3/29 issue. Thanks and have a great afternoon/evening! Candice From: KalJn, Carol [mailto:CamI.KalJn@town.southold.ny.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:38 PM To: tr-legals Subject: Legal Ad for 3/29 Edition of Suffolk Times Please print the attached legal ad for the 4/9/12 Planning Board Public Hearings regarding the Knapp Lot Line Change, De Art of Nature Site Plan and the MetroPCS at Baxter Site Plan/Special Exception in the 3129/12 edition of the Suffolk Times. An e-mail confirmation of receipt for our files will be appreciated. Thanks. Carol Kalin, Secretarial Assistant Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Annex, 54375 NYS Rt. 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Phone: (631 )765-1938 Fax: (631)765-3136 Carol.KalinC~_~town.southold.ny.us 3/14/2012 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSKI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public Hearing MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NYl1971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Section 276 of the Town Law and Article XXV of the Code of the Town of Southold, a public hearing will be held by the Southold Town Planning Board, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York on the 9th day of April, 2012 on the question of the following: 6:00 p.m. Proposed Lot Line Change for Alfred & Mary Knapp located at 3425 Soundview Avenue, Peconic, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-68-1-11 & 13.3 6:02 p.m. Proposed Site Plan for De Art of Nature, LLC located at 23423 CR 48, +900' e/o Cox Lane and CR 48, Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-84-1-10.4 6:04 p.m. Proposed Site Plan for MetroPCS New York at Baxter located at 415 Elijah's Lane, on the n/w/c/o the intersection of Elijah's Lane and NYS Route 25, Mattituck, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-108-4-11.3 Dated: 3/13/12 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Donald J. Wilcenski Chairman STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) CAROL KALIN, Secretary to the Planning Board of the Town of Southold, New York being duly sworn, says that on the 13th day of March, 2012 she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board~ Southold Town Hall~ 53095 Main Road~ Southold, New York 4/9/12 Regular Meefin.q: 6:00 p.m. 6:02 p.m. 6:04 p.m. Public Hearing for the proposed Lot Line Change for Alfred & Mary Knapp, SCTM#1000-68-1-11 & 13.3 Public Hearing for the proposed Site Plan for De Art of Nature, SCTM#1000-84-1-10.4 Public Hearing for the proposed Site Plan for MetroPCS New York at Baxter, SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 Carol Kalin Secretary, Southold Town Planning Board Sworn to before me this /~ day of ~~ , 2012. Notary Pu lic~ MELANiE DOROSKI NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 01D04634870 Oualitied in Suffolk County Commission Expires September 30, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSKI Chair W/LLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 March 13, 2012 John Coughlin, Esq. c/o R~, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Re: Set Hearing: Proposed Site Plan for MetroPCS @ Baxter Located at 415 Elijah's Lane, NW corner of Elijah's Lane and S.R. 25, Mattituck SCTM#1000-108.-4-11.3 Zoning District: Limited Business (LB) Dear Mr. Coughlin: The Southold Town Planning Board, at a meeting held on Monday, March 12, 2012, adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, on September 30, 2011, the agent, John Coughlin, submitted a site plan application for review; and WHEREAS, this site plan is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB Zoning District on Elijah's Lane, Mattituck; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board sets Monday, April 9, 2012 at 6:04 p.m. for a public hearing regarding the site plan, dated June 9, 2010, prepared by MTM Design Group, Inc. Please refer to the enclosed copy of Chapter 55, Notice of Public Hearing, in regard to the Town's notification procedure. The notification forms are enclosed for your use. The sign and the post will need to be picked up at the Planning Board Office, Southold Town Annex. Please return the enclosed Affidavit of Posting along with the certified mailin~ receiots AND the signed green return receipt cards before 12:00 noon on Friday~ April 6th. The sign and the post need to be returned to the Planninq Board Office after the public hearinR. MetroPCS ~,, Baxter PaRe Two March 13, 2012 If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this resolution, please contact the Planning Board Office. Very truly yours, Donald J. Wilcenski Chairman Encls. Southold Town Planning Board Notice to Adjacent Property Owners You are hereby given notice: 1. That the undersigned has applied to the Planning Board of the Town of Southold for a Site Plan; 2. That the property which is the subject of the application is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3; 3. That the property which is the subject of this application is located in the LB Zoning District; That the application is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment. The property is located at 415 Elijah's Lane, on the n/w corner of the intersection of Elijah's Lane and S.R. 25, Mattituck; That the files pertaining to this application are open for your information during normal business days between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. in the Planning Department located in the Town Hall Annex on the corner of Youngs Ave. & NYS Rte. 25, $outhold (2nd FI., Capital One Bank). If you have any questions, you can call the Planning Board Office at (631)765-1938. Information can also be obtained via the internet by sending an e-mail message to: Carol. Kalin@town.southold.ny. us; That a public hearing will be held on the matter by the Planning Board on Monda¥~ April 9~ 2012 at 6:04 p.m. in the Meeting Hall at Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold; that a notice of such hearing will be published at least five days prior to the date of such hearing in The Suffolk Times published in the Town of Southold; that you or your representative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Petitioner/Owner Name: MetroPCS New York at Baxter Date: 3/13/12 AGRICULTURAL DATA STATEMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD When to use this form: This 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 an agricultural district. All applications requiring this form must be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission in accordance with Sections 239-m and 239-n of the General Municipal Law. Applicant Name: Address: Land Owner (if other than applicant): Land Owner Address: Description of Proposed Project: Property Location (road and tax map #): Is the parcel within an agricultural district? Yes__ No __ If Yes, Ag District #: Is this parcel actively farmed? Yes__ No Names & addresses of any landowners within the agricultural district containing active farm operations located 500 feet of the boundary of the proposed project: (Information may be available through the Town Assessor or from ) 1. (Please use reverse side of page if more than six property owners are identified.) Attach a tax map or other map showing the site of the property where the project is proposed relative to the location of farm operations identified above (available online from ) Applicant Signature Date Parcels Requiring Agricultural Data Statement Forms for MetroPCS at Baxter: 108-3-5.44 108-3-5.45 115-7-13.2 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING This is to serve notice that I personally posted the property known as by placing the Town's official poster notice(s) within 10 feet of the front property line facing the street(s) where it can be easily seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for seven days prior to the date of the public hearing on I have sent notices (including the Agricultural Data Statement) by certified mail - return receipt, the receipts and green return receipt cards of which are attached, to the owners of record of every property which abuts and every property which is across on Your Name (print) Signature Address Date Notary Public PLEASE RETURN THIS AFFIDAVlT, CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS & GREEN RETURN RECEIPT CARDS BY: 12:00 noon, Fri., 4/6/12 Re: Proposed Site Plan for MetroPCS New York at Baxter SCTM#s: 1000-108-4-11.3 Date of Hearing: Monday, April 9, 2012~ 6:04 p.m. Town of $outhold PC/Codebook for FYindows § 55-1. Providing notice of pubHe hearings. [Amended 6-3-2003 by L.L. No. 12-2003] Whenever the Code calls for a public heating this section shall appIy..Upon determining that an application or petition is complete, the board or commission reviewing the same shall fix a time and place for a public heating thereon. Notice relating to a public hearing en an application or petition shall be provided as follows: A.. Town responsibility for publication of notice. The reviewing board or commission shall cause a notice giving the time, date, place and nature of the hearing to be published in the official .newspaper within the period preacribed by law. B. Appllcant or petitioner reaponsibility for posting and msillng notice. An. application or petition, initiated, proposed or -r~l. ueated by an applicant or petitioner, other than a Town board or commi~ion, shall also be subject to additional notice reqtlirements s~t' forth below: (1) The applicant or petitioner is required to erect the sign provided bythe Town, which shall be prominently displayed on the premisea racine each public or private street which the property involved in the application or petition abuts, giv~n~ notice of the application or petition, the natu~ of tho approval SOught thereby and the time and place of the public -~... ltgiring thercon. 'l~.e sign shall be setback not more than 10 fe~t from tll~ line. · The sign shall be displayed for a period of not leas than seven days immediately preceding the date of tl!.e public hearing, The applicant, petitioner or his/her agent shall ~e an affidaVit that s/he has complied with this provision prior to commencement of the public hearing. (2)· The applicant or petitioner is required to send notice to the owners of record Of every propaly, which abuts and every property which is across from any p .ublic or private street . from the property included in the application or petition. Such notice shall:be made by ceriified mail, return receipt requested, posted at least seven days Prio~' to the date of the initial public hearing on the application or petition and addressed to the owners at the addr~se~ listed for them on the local asseasment roll. The notice shall hiciuda description of the street location and area of the subject property, nature of relief or approval involved, and date, time and place ofi~earing. The applicant, petitioner or agent shall file an affidavit that s/he has complied with this provision prior to commencement of the public hearing. WILLIAM J. BAXTER, JR. METROPCS NY AT BAXTER SITE PLAN 1000-108-4-11.3 This site plan is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, ~d install related base equipment in an LB Zoning District. MONDAY- APRIL 9, 2012- 6:04 P.M. 3 2 ?A(C) LINE 6 9 ~-(c) SEESEC NO 101 MATCH 2 173A(c) 6¸2 0 13¸8 5.2 53 1.1A(c) I 3A(C) 125 136 SEE SEC NO 24A NOTICE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Real prope~'y Tax Service Agenc SECTION NO 108 3 92 13.1 F' r MATCH SEESEC NO 123 FOR PARCELNO SEE SEC NO LINE UNE NOTICE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Real Property Tax Service Agency 115 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCENSKI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III MARTIN H. SIDOR March 14, 2012 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 John Coughlin, Esq. c/o Rd, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Re: Site Plan for MetroPCS @ Baxter 415 Elijahs Lane, Mattituck SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 Dear Mr. Coughlin: I am writing as a follow-up to the Work Session held on March 12, 2012 where the Planning Board formally accepted the above-referenced site plan for review with revisions to be made immediately. Please submit the following: 1. Provide a detailed illustration/depiction of the fall zone on a plan that clearly shows the current fall zone and the proposed fall zone of the proposed 118' monopole. Adjacent property lines and any structures must be shown, along with adjacent zoning districts. 2. Provide detailed structural engineering specifications of the existing monopole to facilitate the discussion amongst our consulting engineers. The above-referenced information is vital to completing our review so that the Planning Board can make an informed decision and ensure the proposed meets the requirements of the Town Code. The Planning Board has scheduled the public hearing for the April 9, 2012 public meeting. Please, if you have any questions regarding this site plan or its process, do not hesitate to call this office. Very truly yours, Brian A. Cummings Planner (518)439-3079 THE CENTER FOR MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS 70 CAMBRIDGE DRIVE GLENMONT, NEW YORK 12077 FAX (518)478-0909 Febmary29,2012 (via email and regular mail) Chairman Wilcenski & Planning Board Members Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 MetroPCS New York, LLC (Site No. NY7313) Site Plan Application and Special Exception Permit Application for a proposed wireless telecommunication facility Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, New York SCTM#: 1000 - 108 - 4 11.3 Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board Members: We have reviewed the supplemental application materials submitted for the above referenced facility with cover letter dated February 2, 2012. Upon review and further discussions we offer the following comments: Pursuant to Town Code Article XVII, Section 280, wireless telecommunications facilities within the Town of Southold, NY, require a Special Exception Permit and Site Plan Approval. Here, the applicant proposes to install a wireless telecommunications facility by co-locating on the existing monopole located at 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY. The applicant proposes to install a ten ft. (10') extension to the existing 108' (AGL) monopole and attach three (3) antenna sectors with two (2) antennas per sector to the extension, thereby increasing the actual height of the overall structure, excluding the lightning rod, to a height of 118' (AGL) and installing a total of six (6) antennas. Equipment cabinets, cables, and related hardware are also proposed to be located upon a new steel platform mounted above a new concrete slab measuring 10' by 16'. The equipment platform is to be located at the base of the monopole within the fenced equipment compound area. Lanscape screening is also proposed around the applicant's equipment area, outside the fenced compound. The existing pole does not meet the codes setback requirements. The applicant has proposed to make the extension the "weakest" part and as such not increase the non-conforming setback. This issue has been reviewed in detail and needs to be resolved to the Board's satisfaction. The "Supplemental Affidavit of Radio Frequency Engineer," provided with the supplemental application material, dated January 19, 2012, and signed by Nicholas Bolzano, as well as additional propagation maps, confirm the need for a site at this location. The applicant currently does not have LTE coverage in the area and the proposed ten fi (10") extension would provide the best coverage at -85 dBm, and -95 dBm. The letter submitted from JRH Acoustical Consulting, Inc. addresses the noise issue and confirms that the proposed facility will comply with the Town Code requirements, pursuant to Section 280-700)(5). As such, we believe that the application material as provided is complete and this matter should be added to your next available agenda. If you require anything further please give me a call at (518)439-3079. CMS cc: Martin Finnegan (via e-mail) Heather Lanza (via email) Brian Cummings (via email) A1 Tagliaferri (via e-mail) 2 (518)439-3079 THE CENTER FOR MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS 70 CAMBRIDGE DRIVE GLENMONT, NEW YORK 12077 FAX (518)478-0909 February 29, 2012 (via email and regular mail) Chairman Wilcenski & Planning Board Members Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: MetroPCS New York, LLC (Site No. NY7313) Site Plan Application and Special Exception Permit Application for a proposed wireless telecommunication facility Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, New York SCTM#: 1000 - 108 - 4 - 11.3 Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board Members: We have reviewed the supplemental application materials submitted for the above referenced facility with cover letter dated February 2, 2012. Upon review and further discussions we offer the following comments: Pursuant to Town Code Article XVII, Section 280, wireless telecommunications facilities within the Town of Southold, NY, require a Special Exception Permit and Site Plan Approval. Here, the applicant proposes to install a wireless telecommunications facility by co-locating on the existing monopole located at 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY. The applicant proposes to install a ten It. (10') extension to the existing 108' (AGL) monopole and attach three (3) antenna sectors with two (2) antennas per sector to the extension, thereby increasing the actual height of the overall structure, excluding the lightning rod, to a height of 118' (AGL) and installing a total of six (6) antennas. Equipment cabinets, cables, and related hardware are also proposed to be located upon a new steel platform mounted above a new concrete slab measuring 10' by 16'. The equipment platform is to be located at the base of the monopole within the fenced equipment compound area. Lanscape screening is also proposed around the applicant's equipment area, outside the fenced compound. The existing pole does not meet the codes setback requirements. The applicant has proposed to make the extension the "weakest" part and as such not increase the non-conforming setback. This issue has been reviewed in detail and needs to be resolved to the Board's satisfaction. The "Supplemental Affidavit of Radio Frequency Engineer," provided with the supplemental application material, dated January 19, 2012, and signed by Nicholas Bolzano, as well as additional propagation maps, confirm the need for a site at this location. The applicant currently does not have LTE coverage in the area and the proposed ten fi (10") extension would provide the best coverage at -85 dBm, and -95 dBm. The letter submitted from JRH Acoustical Consulting, Inc. addresses the noise issue and confirms that the proposed facility will comply with the Town Code requirements, pursuant to Section 280-700)(5). As such, we believe that the application material as provided is complete and this matter should be added to your next available agenda. If you require anything further please give me a call at (518)439-3079. Sincerely, ~. ,~. ~(electronic signature) Richard A. Comi CMS CC~ Martin Finnegan (via e-mail) Heather Lanza (via email) Brian Cummings (via email) Al Tagliaferri (via e-mail) 2 WORK SESSION AGENDA SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Monday, February 27, 2012 2:30 p.m. Executive Board Room, Town Hall Annex Applications: Loca~!en: 34.~5.~Seu ~dY!ew..Ave:,. Pec~)n.i~; Description: This proposed lot line change will transfer 11,578 sq. ft. from Parcel B to Parcel A. Parcel A will increase in size from 377,613 sq. ff. (8.6 acres) to . 389,191 sq. ft. (8.9 acres). Parcel B will decrease in size from 164,878 sg ft (,3 acres) to 153 300 sql ft (3 5 acres R-80 Zonin District Status: Open .... : ~ ................................................ g .......................... g.: ......... Attachments: Staff Report ............i~ Project name: ...................................................................... MetroPCS NY at Baxter 'i ...................... SCTM#: i 1000-108-4-11.3 .L0catipr~; ":4';i'~- E-I~ij':g'l~;~-L~ane U~t-ti~[~'i~ ~ Description: ~13 ~ ~i~"l~i~n'i~ ~: ~ pr~ 1'0 ~ ~i~ ~i~ i~'~:i~i~ ~ ........ wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ff. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB Zoning District. Attachments; Staff R~po~ Location: 21855 CR 48, Cutchogue Description: This amended site plan is for a MetroPCS wireless co-location of antennas on an existing 100'5" monopole with a proposed pole extens on height of 8'6" in the L Zon ng D str ct Status: i Pending Action: Review comments from referra s Attachments: i Staff Report b6~'~ipii6~ i ~i~i~ ~ii6 ~i~'i~ fo~ ~'~6~6~6a ~'~ ~:i:'~aaiii6~"i6"~'~ 6~i~ii~ ~'~~ s.f. glass greenhouse structure and ~o (2) new office trailers ~ 720 s.f. each on a 5 8 acre parcel in the A-C Zon ng D strct RI~, NIELSEN, HUBER & COUGHLIN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 30 NORTH N~:w YORK AVENUE HUNTINGTON, NEW YORI~ llTZb8 TELEPHONE: (081) 425-4100 FA6SII~IILE: (681) 425-4104 February 2, 2012 BY HAND DELIVERY Town of Southold Planning Board Town Annex Building 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Attn.: Brian A. Cummings, Planner RE: MetroPCS New York, LLC (Site No. NY7313) Site Plan Application and Special Exception Permit Application for Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY SCTM#: 1000 108 4 11.3 Dear Mr. Cummings: As you know, we represent MetroPCS New York, LLC ('MetroPCS') with regard to its pending application to colocate at the existing public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the subject property. This correspondence shall serve as MetroPCS' response to those items noted in your correspondence of December 15, 201l (copy attached hereto). The numerical order is reflective of those numbered items in your correspondence. Enclosed please find one (1) original together with seven (7) copies of the correspondence of Robert W. Toms, P.E. of MTM Design Group, Inc., dated January 27, 2012, addressing the "fall-zone" requirements of Town Code Section 280-70G. Enclosed please find one (1) original together with seven (7) copies of the correspondence of John R. Hauenstein of JRH Acoustical Consulting, Inc. dated January 26, 2012, addressing the noise standards of Town Code Section 280-70.1(5). Enclosed please find one (1) original and seven (7) copies of Supplemental Affidavit of Nicholas Balzano, Radio Frequency Engineer, dated January 19, 2012, together with Propagation Maps. We respectfully request that the Public Hearing for this matter be scheduled for the next Town of Southold Planning Board MetroPCS Site Plan/Special Exception Application at 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY February 2, 2012 Page 2 of 2 available date. Should you have any questions with regard to the foregoing, please communicate xvith the undersigned. Thanking you for your courtesies, we remain Very truly yours, RI2, NIELSEN, HUBER & COUGHL1N, LLP By: JJC:mk Enclosures DESIGN ARCHITECTURE EN'GINEERING · PO BOX 3 · HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 · TEL: 732 817 9090 · FAX: 732 847 4335 · Janua~ 27,2012 Brian A. Cummings Town of Southold Planning Board Office Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 RE: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952 District: 1000, Section: 108, Block: 4, Lot: 11.3 Metro PCS#: NY7313 MTM #: 09MPSTS020 Dear Mr. Cummings, As the Architecture & Engineering firm that designed the proposed installation for MetroPCS at 415 Elijah's Lane, please accept this letter in response to the December 15, 2011 Town of Southold Planning Board correspondence that was received and reviewed to address the proposed Metro PCS installation and the tower extension referencing the code requirement for the fall zone; Section 280-70(G); where it indicates a smaller fall zone may be allowed. The exis'dng monopole and its proposed extension were structurally reviewed and designed to meet the requirements as defined by governing code, The New York State Building Code which references the 2006 IntematJonal Building Code, New York edition. Additionally, this installation meets the requirements as specked by the Telecommunication Indust~ Association's TIA/EIA-222-F Standard, Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures as well as the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Standard and the Amedcan Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard. In accordance with TIA/EIA-222-F Specifications, this tower was designed for a basic wind speed of 85 mph and also for a basic wind speed of 74 mph with %" thick radial icing. It must be duly noted that basic wind speeds as specified by this Standard are subsequenfiy increased using several factors taking into account considerations such as exposure, height, and gusting. Wlth regards to Code Section 280-70(G), a radius equal to a distance of two times the height of the structure is to be provided. Given the monopole's existing height, the required fall zone for the existing structure would equate to 216'-0" using the guidelines provided. As is, this cdteda is not met nor could it be met at either the southeast side (pole is setback 71.33') or northwest side (pole is setback 90.91 '). Based on the results of the tower's structural analysis, the highest ratio of actual to allewable stresses were found at the pele's base thus making this section the "weak" part of the existing structure. In the unlikely event that this existing structure ever failed, these structural findings weuld indicate that the existing 108'-0" high monopole w~uld fall over from its base. By increasing the pole's height from 108'-0" to 118'-0', the required fall zone would increase to 236'-0". However, it is proposed that the extension be designed to allow the extension's base to act as the "weakest" part of this pole structure to allow this new extension to "hinge" at the 108'-0" elevation in the unlikely event that it is impacted by an act of god where supadmposed loads far exceed those presentJy set forth by goveming code. In making mention to "weak" and "weakest" parts, please understand that these parts will still meet code and will not fail structurally unless impacted by a natural catastrophe where load conditions far exceed those design conditions defined by code (based on 50 year weather conditJons). Additionally, the steel and concrete parts of this structure were also designed per code to include factors of safety actually enabling allowable stress limits to be overstressed by approximately 50% before full tower failure. Based on the most recent analysis, the pole comes closest to approaching its allowable stress at the base where 92.3% of the allowable capacity is utilized when loaded per Code. As noted, the code requirement specifies a radius equal to a distance of two times the height of the structure but this condition is not even met by the existing monopole. Although MetrePCS is proposing to increase the height of this tower by 10'-0", it is proposed that the extension's base be designed to fail first in the case of an unforeseen natural disaster. By designing the extension is this way, the top 10'-0" would fail and fall to the ground leaving the odginal 108'-0" high pole intact thus allowing the existing as-built fall zone conditions to remain applicable. Additional site conditions for this particular location must also be taken into consideration. The existing tower on the subject lot is located at the approximate center of the property to maximize available property line clearance around this existing structure. The existing tower is largely surrounded by wooded areas; which are depicted on the aerial photo of the existing locale that is included for your reference. For this previously approved tower on the subject property, the conservative fall zone requirement of two times the height can not be applied to the tower due to these site characteristics. In concluding, the existing tower does not meet the fall zone requirements as defined in Section 280-70(G). Given the existing site limitations, MetroPCS proposes to design their extension in a manner that will allow the existing height to not increase the tower's actual fall zone. The two adjacent properties that also fall within the code-defined fall zone are significantly wooded with no inhabited structures located within these areas. It is therefore our opinion that a smaller fall zone is appropriate and safe for the proposed Metro PCS installation with the tower extension. Please ~el~fLhecit. ati~te, contact our office should you have any further questions or comments. Sincerely, Robert W. Toms, PE MTM Design Group, Inc. cc: MetroP-CS John J. Coughlin / Re, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP File ACOUSTICAL CONSULTING, INC. 312 West 51st Street New YCxk, NY 10019 Phone 212-246-6727 Fax 212-246.3142 Emalr:jot~n@Jrhac.c~en w~v.~rhoc.com .1anuary26, 2012 Mr. Pat Mostyn MTM Design Group, Inc. 670 N. Beers St., Bldg 1 Suite 140 Holmde], N.1 07733 Re: Metro PCS Site ZD # NY7313 Equipment Acoustical Analysis 3RHAC 3ob #2794 Dear Pat: In response to your request, we have reviewed the Construction Documents (rev. 2, 05/17/11,) and equipment acoustical data for the cellular communication equipment site ID# NY7313 proposed for a location at 415 Elijah's Lane, Hattituck, NY. The sound-emitting equipment, two battery backup cabinets, one CDHA cabinet, and one LTE equipment cabinet will be located on a new slab on grade and surrounded by an existing 6 ft. high chainlink fence. The property abuts properties to the north, east, south, and west. To evaluate the acoustical impact of this equipment at these property line locations for comparison to the municipality's governing noise ordinance, we analyzed both manufacturer-supplied and field-measured data for the proposed equipment. This report summarizes our findings and comments regarding the acoustical impact at all adjacent property lines. A. Town of Southold Noise Ordinance The hamlet of Mattituck is located in the Town of Southold. The Town's noise provision 280-70.1(5), requires that noise from base station equipment, including any backup generator, must measure less than 45 dB(A) at all adjacent property lines. B. Analysis of Proposed Sound Emitting Equipment The proposed fadlity consists of a total of four sound emitting cabinets. This group includes one LTE equipment cabinet (Ericsson RBS 6101), two battery backup cabinets, (Alcatel Lucent EZBFo), and one Modcell equipment cabinet (Lucent MedCell 4.0/4.0B). The equipment cabinets were evaluated for their acoustical impact at the nearest point along all adjacent property lines. A plan showing the setback distance from the compound to the nearest property line locations is provided in Appendix A. The following sound data was either provided by the equipment manufacturer, or was recently field-measured at other Metro PCS base station locations. Each Battery backup cabinet (Field-measured) .......................................... 61 dB(A) at 3 feet all sides Meqcell equipment cabinet (Lucent Modcell 4.0/4.0B) .............. 59 dB(A) at 5 feet from Front (Hanufacturer's data) ..................................... 65 dB(A) at 5 feet from Back LTE equipment cabinet (Ericsson RBS 6101) .................... 61 dB(A) at 3 feet from Front (Field Measured) ........................................ 54 dB(A) at 3 feet from Back MTM Design Group, Inc. Re: Metro PCS Site ID # NY7313 lanuaP/26, 2012 Page 2 In the calculations, we accounted only for the sound attenuation due to the distance to each property line. The chain link fence and the shrubs proposed around the equipment group will have negligible acoustical screening value and therefore no noise reduction was taken for these elements in the analysis. The expected sound levels at each of the nearest location along all adjacent property lines (worst-case) are summarized in Table 1. Table 1 At North East Property South Property West Equipment Property Une Une Line Prope~/Une (LocaUon A) (LocaUon B) (LocaUon C) (LocaUon D) Expected Expected Expected Expected Sound Level Sound Level Sound Level Sound Level dS(A) dS(A) dS(A) dS(A) (2) Barley/Backup Cabinets ~9 23 3~ 23 Modcell Equipment Cabinet 35 25 42 32 LTE Equipment Cabinet 27 23 33 16 All Equipment Together 37 30 44 33 Based on the analysis results, the combined operation of the equipment at each of the property line locations is expected to be below the Town of Southold's requirement of 45 dB(A), thus complying with provision 280-70.1(5). Therefore, no additional acoustical treatment of the equipment will be required. I trust the above is clear. However, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, john R. Hauenstein President Attachments Appendix A / Line (Location A) 231 Feet to West Property Line $ 77o0~ ~ LEGEND BA'~ ERY CABit,~E r 241 Feet to Eas~}Property Line FIGURE I ~ DISTANCES FROM NEAREST EQUIPMENT CABIfNET TO ADJACENT PROPERTY LifNE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of MetroPCS New York, LLC For Approval to collocate public utility wireless telecommunications SUPPLEMENTAL antennas on a proposed extension on an existing monopole and install AFFIDAVIT OF related equipment at the premises ("Premises"): RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEER 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituck, New York District 1000, Section 108, Block 4, Lot 11.3 [MetroPCS Site No. NY 7313] STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) NICHOLAS BALZANO, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am a radio frequency engineer for MetroPCS New York, LLC (hereinal~er "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 supplemental affidavit in further 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 previously submitted. 3. The Town has requested that MetroPCS prepare and submit propagation maps depicting what coverage MetroPCS could provide if it located its antennas at a centerline height 71' (in between the existing Verizon and T-Mobile antennas). Although we have been advised by AT&T, the owner of the monopole, that this space is not available, I have analyzed and prepared propagation maps showing the coverage that would be afforded at a centerline height of 71 '. These maps are attached. 4. A facility at 71' would provide approximately 1.413 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 1.019 square miles of reliable coverage in the vicinity of the premises and will obviate the need for the construction of a new facility. 5. To further explain the difference in coverage at -85dBm, I analyzed the amount of coverage along some of the roadways in the vicinity of the Premises. The table below identified the roadways, coverage along each roadway with the extension, coverage along each roadway with the site installed at 71', and the difference in coverage along each roadway between the extension and installation at 71'. ROADWAY Coverage with the Coverage at 71' Loss in coverage proposed extension without the extension Middle Road (48) 1.278 miles 0.4 miles 0.878 miles Elijah's Lane 1.470 miles 0.777 miles 0.693 miles Road D 1.210 miles 0.6 miles 0.61 miles Mill Lane 0.7 miles 0.15 miles 0.55 miles These differences are significant and will leave substantial stretches of roadways uncovered in the vicinity of the Premises. 6. A facility at 71' would provide approximately 6.278 square miles of reliable coverage at -95dBm. 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 8.336 square miles of reliable coverage at -95dBm. The proposed extension will allow MetroPCS to provide an additional 2.058 square miles of reliable coverage in the vicinity of the premises and will obviate the need for the construction of a new facility. 2 7. Unless this application is granted as proposed, MetroPCS will be unable to provide reliable service in the vicinity of the Premises. Sworn to before me this · .a~!OTAk~Pu'BL~c --~ i~ICH CAMIE TURUSETA Notary Public, State of New York No, 01TU6216795 Qualified in Westchester County Commission Explre~ 01/25114 mowl~ of Southold Jan. 18, 2012 Site ID NY7313A 415 Elijahs Lane Mattituck, New York Map Scale: 1" = 0,6580 mi Town Boundaries Subject Site Proposed Sites On Air Sites MAP 9 Coverage from Subject Site Prepared by Town of Southold Site ID NY7313A 415 Elijahs Lane N~attituck, New York Map Scale: 1" = 0.6580 mi ® Town Boundaries Subject Site Proposed Sites On Air Sites MAP 10 Coverage from Subject Site and Adjacent Sites Prepared by Town of Southold Site ID NY7313A 415 ElUahs Lane Maffituck, NewYork -95 dEem In VeihcJe at 116' Subject Site Proposed Sites On Air Sites MAP 11 Coverage from Subject Site Prepared by Nico Balzano Town of Southold Jan. 18, 2012 Site ID NY7313A 415 E!~ahs Lane Ma~ituck, New York Map Sca[e: 1 '~ = 0.6580 mi Subject Site Proposed Sites On Air Sites MAP 12 Coverage from Subject Site and Adjacent Sites Prepared by Nico Baizano BOARD MEMBERS Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson James Dinizio, Jr. Gerard P. Goehringer George Homing Ken Schneider Southold Town Hall 9/~ 53095 Main Road · P.O. Box 117 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Qt"rice Location: Town Annex/First Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Soutbold, NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IlE~, ~v£~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~ ~ o< .,~ - Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 ~f'03/~ ~} 2013 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION,t'~.0 - _ ,...~79'~ M?ETING OFNOVEMBER 3,2011 $outhold Town Clerk ZBA FILE: 6507 NAME OF APPLICANT: Metro PCS New York, LLC (Baxter/Goeller, owners) PROPERTY LOCATION: 415 Elijah's Lane, MattiPack, NY SCTM 1000-108-4-11.3 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without further steps under SEQRA. SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application was referred as required under thc 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 ~. 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 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; I) more than the maximum code required height of 45 feet, 2) less than the code required distance to adjacem 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 carder 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 #4022SE dated Aug. 18, 1992 granted Special Exception approval for construction of a monopole telecommunications tower for Metro One. ZBA Appeal #4023 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 p[an review and the granting ora Special Exception permit. 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 cml 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 §267-b{3)(b)(21. 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 §267-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 §267-bf3)('b)~4) No evidence has been submit'ted 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 Iow power wireless radio frequency transmission emission level from all antennas including the proposed additional antennas will be 0.9158 pement, or less than one (1) percent of the FCC MPE (Maximum Permissible Exposure) limit. 5. Town Law §267-b{3)(b)(5). 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 .~267-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 thc 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 Horeing, 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-l, GN- 1, A-1 thru A-6, ES-l, RF-I and E-1 thru E-4. Conditions: I. 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 XBA Fi1¢#6S07- Metro PCS 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 ora 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 oot authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the sul~ject 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 sireilar design that is de reinireis in nature for an alteration thal does not increase the degree of nonconformity Vote of the Board: .dyes: Members l'Feisman (Chairperson), Goehringer, Dinizio, Homing. (Absent was: Member Schneider) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-O}. Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Approved for filing/[ /6/ /2011 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMEHS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III DONALD J. WILCENSKI PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 December 15, 2011 John Coughlin, Esq. c/o Rb, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Re: Site Plan for MetroPCS at Baxter 415 Elijahs Lane, Mattituck SCTM#: 1000-108-4-11.3 Dear Mr. Coughlin: I am writing as a follow-up to the Work Session held on December 12, 2011, where the Planning Board found the above-referenced site plan application incomplete. The application cannot be accepted for full review until the following requirements are met and submitted directly to the Planning Department: The existing monopole and proposed extension do not meet the Code required fall zone; therefore, pursuant to §280-70(G), please provide a letter from a qualified structural engineer explaining why a smaller fall zone of the existing monopole and proposed extension of the antenna support structure is appropriate and safe. Pursuant to §280-70(J)(5) of the Southold Town Code for which this antenna structure applies, please provide written documentation that the noise from the proposed base equipment, including any backup generator(s), measures less than 45dB at all adjacent property lines. Should the proposed equipment not meet the minimum noise requirements, mitigating solutions to bring the proposed equipment into compliance are required. Pursuant to §280-71 Required Approvals, this proposed wireless facility requires Special Exception Approval by the Planning Board because it does not comply with the General Requirements for all wireless communication facilities as listed in §280-70. In particular, the proposed antennas are set at a height that exceeds the maximum allowable height for this zoning district. Metro PCS at Baxter PaRe Two December 15, 2011 As described in §280-73 Special Exception Approval, the Planning Board must find that the proposed modification of the existing facility is a public necessity, and that there are compelling reasons which make it more feasible to construct the proposed rather than any alternative available. Further, the Planning Board must find that the proposed is at the lowest height above the ground feasible to achieve the service needs of the carrier, and that the rationale behind the explanation from the applicant must be corroborated by an independent consultant hired by the Town. Other considerations include, but are not limited to, ensuring that the applicant has maximized the design characteristics to reduce visual impacts and obtrusiveness. Pursuant to §280-74 C(14), the Planning Board has deemed the following additional information necessary to complete the application: Provide written evidence that is acceptable to the Planning Board that the 71' height location that appears vacant on the existing monopole is not available for lease to another carrier (according to your statement at the Work Session). Please provide a copy of the lease (if leased to another carrier), or provide a written explanation as to the reason why the space is not available to Metro PCS; or b= Provide propagation maps, utilizing the same parameters as the maps already provided, at 71', and comparing that height with the proposed 118' height. We would like to see the maps at -85dBm and -95dBm. We must be able to discern on the maps provided any differences in coverage between the proposed height and 71'; and Provide a written detailed description, by the preparers of the propagation maps, explaining the differences in coverage between the 71' height, and the proposed 118' height. The applicant must provide this additional information to demonstrate that the existing location on the monopole is not sufficient, and proving that the additional height is necessary. The above information is vital to completing our review so that the Planning Board can make an informed decision and ensure the proposed meets the requirements of the Town Code. Please, if you have any questions regarding this site plan or its process, do not hesitate to call this office. Very truly yours, Brian A. Cummings Planner WORK SESSION AGENDA SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Monday, December 12, 2011 2:30 p.m. Executive Board Room, Town Hall Annex 2:00 p.m. Executive Session 2:30 p.m. Applications _L_gc_a_ti_oAL ........................... 4_ 1~5 _E_ Iii_a_ h~'s~La._n._e_;__M_a__ttit~u _c k__ Description: This site plan is for a proposed 10 ft. pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 108 ft. monopole, and install related base equipment in an LB ...................................... Zo ni_ng_ Distrigt_. .................................................. ~ ..._S t_a_t_u, s~'. ..................... New_App_.!!_cat~i~on ..................... .................................. Action: Review for completeness. Attachments: Staff Report Project nam_ e~: ............ North Fork Sanitation I SCTM#: I 1000-83-3-4.7 -~cation: 8475 Cox Lane, Cutc~o~.e .............................. I ~-&~l~{~i~'~-i i5[~)~)~i {(;~-~F~'r stati~'~-or con~{~'~:~on demolition, scrap metal, damaged cars; dismantling with shipping off site, refrigerators, stoves, wood, aluminum; parking of sanitation trucks, trucks, cars and ........................ j d u__m...P_.s_ters: Status: ! E_~_ired Site Plan Attachments: ~ Town Eng}~eer's Comments _ _L.9_ .ca_ti_0 n~: ............................. _5_0_ ~C_o_m_ _me_r ce D ~riv~e ,~C~u_.t_c_h og ue Description: This site plan is for the proposed addition of an 1,800 s.f. carport on the existing 3.1 acre North Fork Self Storage site in the LI Zoning District where four existing buildings total 53,425 s.f. The 40' x 45' carport would be used as a staging area for customers to have temporary access to containers. The carport is proposed to be built on an existing asphalt area. p e _n_.d_ i_ng_ ~ Status: Action: ~ Review comments from referrals. ._.A~aqhr~.e..n..t_s. ............... j_.s_.[af~..ReppEt ............................................................................................................ J _~_rgJ ~eAt__~_a.~..e_; ........... j_ _.S_P a _r k_l Ln_g. ?P. i_n_t~__Wa r_eh o u s e .... L.§_C_T__M_~_:_i_.!. g._0g. -6 9 -_3 -_3_ ................................... , L2_.7_...0_._c_B.. .......................................... Descr pt on: Th s s te p an app cat on s for a proposed 46' x 120 warehouse, for I employee use only, with a 16' x 18' accessory office and bathroom on a t 1.002 acre parcel in a Light Industrial Zoning District on Old North Road, ~ Southold. Fo_ur_parkigg_s_talls are~r_oj~_o_sed and an as_p_halt driveway. Action: i Review site p_lan re: comments to ZBA. Southold Town Plannin.q Board Work Session ect name: Location: Mill Main rt ReStaurant and Marina Action: Location , Lane ~ revised ~lete a December12,2011 for this site. 1000-64-1-29 in the R-40 Zoning 3~5/~.m. Review Pul: / / / / ,/ Dr~,l RI , NIELSEN, HUBER & GOUGHLIN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW NORTH NEW YORK AVENUE HUNtINOTON, NEW YORE 1174,'3 November 28, 2011 TELEPHONE: (6111) 425-4100 FA(381MILE: (0111) 425-4104 BY FIRST CLASS MAlL Town of Southold Planning Board Town Annex Building 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: MetroPCS New York, LLC (Site No. NY7313) Site Plan Application and Special Exception Permit Application for Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY SCTM#: 1000 108-4 11.3 NOV 3 0 2011 Dear Chairman Sidor and Members of the Board: As you are aware, we represent MetroPCS New York, LLC ('MetroPCS') with regard to its proposal to collocate at the existing public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the subject property. As we have previously discussed, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, requires wireless applications be processed within certain timeframes. The Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") established the timeframes in its Declaratory Ruling 09-99 ("Declaratory Ruling", copy enclosed). The FCC determined in the Declaratory Ruling that a failure on the part of a municipality to render a decision with respect to a collocation application within 90 days presumptively constitutes a failure to act under 47 U.S.C. Section 332 (C)(7)(B)(v). We write this letter as a courtesy reminder that the deadline established by the Declaratory Ruling is quickly approaching. Complete Site Plan and Special Exception Permit Applications for this proposal were filed with the Planning Board on September 29, 2011. Accordingly, the deadline to process these applications is December 28, 2011, and we respectfully request that the Planning Board take all steps necessary to comply with thc Declaratory Ruling. Very truly yours, NIELSEN, HUBER & COUGHLIN, LLP ~ " (.~~ JJC/mk Encls. cc: Ms. Heather Lanza & Mr. Brian Cummings (Via E-mail) Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 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 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 OFCONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 6 IlL 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 IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 71 V. ORDERING CLAUSES ....................................................................................................................... 72 APPENDIX - A APPENDIX - B I. INTRODUCTION 1. 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.2 47 U.S.C. § 332(cl(7)(B)(ii). See para. 33, infi'a. Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 Accordingly, today we define timeframcs 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.4 3. Wireless services are central to the economic, civic, and social lives of over 270 million Americans.5 Americans are now in the transition toward increasing reliance on their mobile devices for broadband services, in addition to voice services.6 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.''7 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 Iimeframes: (1) 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)(B)(i)(II) of the Communications Act for a State or local govemment 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.for Declaratory Ruling, filed July 11, 2008 ("Petition"). 4 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). 5 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 oJ'lnquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 11357, 11358 ¶ 2 (2009) ("Mobile Wireless Competition NO£'); see also Fostering Innovation and Investment in the Wireless Communications Market, GN Docket No. 09-157, A National Broadband Plan For Our Futura, GN Docket No. 09-51, Notice o~flnquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 11322 ¶ I (2009) ("Wireless communications is one of the most important sectors of our economy and one that touches the lives of nearly all Americans."). 6 Mobile Wirelexs Cotnpetition NOI, 24 FCC Rcd at 11358 ¶ 2. 7 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 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,''9 and personal wireless services are defined in Section 332(c)(7)(C)(i) as "commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common cartier wireless exchange access services.''m 7. Subsection (A) states that nothing in the Act limits such authority except as provided in Section 332(c)(7).~t 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.''~2 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.''~3 Clause (B)(v) permits a person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by the State or local govemment to commence an action in court within 30 days after such final action or failure to act.~4 8. Section 253 of the Communications Act contains provisions removing barriers to entry in the provision of telecommunications services.~s 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?6 Section 253(d) directs the Commission to preempt any State or local statute, regulation, or legal requirement that it determines, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, violates Section 253(a).17 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 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A). Section 332(c)(7) appears in Appendix B in its entirety. 9 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C)(ii). [0 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). ~1 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A). ~2 47 U.S.C. § 332(c){7)(B)(i). ~3 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). ~4 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 enviromnental 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. ~5 47 U.S.C. § 253. ih 47 U.S.C. § 253(a). 17 47 U.S.C. § 253(d). Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 consuming?s The Petition asserts that timely deployment of wireless facilities is essential to achieving the Communications Act's public interest goals? According to the Petition, delays in the zoning process for wireless facility siting applications are impeding those goals.2° 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.'''2t 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.2~ 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)(v).''25 Relatedly, the Petition asks the Commission to find that, ifa 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.27 11. 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.2s The Petitioner asserts that this provision prevents a local zoning authority from denying an application based on one or more carriers already serving the 29 geographic area. 12. Third, the Petition requests that the Commission preempt, under Section 253(a) of the Communications Act,3° local ordinances and State laws that automatically require a wireless service provider to obtain a variance before siting facilities.3~ 13. On August 14, 2008, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) requested ~s Petition at 4. ~9 [d 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 l. 2o Id. at 13. 21 Id. at 18 (citing City p/'Ranchos Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 128 (2005) (Breyer, J., concurring)). 221d at 19. 23 Id. at 20-23. 24 Id. at 24. 25 ld at 25-26. 26 Id at 27-29. 27 Id. at 29-30. 28 Id. at 30-35 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)). 2~ Id, at 31-34. 30 47 U.S.C. § 253(a). 3~ Petition at 35-37. 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, 2008.33 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? 14. Industry commenters generally support the Petition in all respects.3s 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.37 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.38 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).4° 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 time" and when a "failure to act" or a "prohibition of service" has OCCUlTed.42 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 32 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 Rcd 12198 (WTB 2008). 33 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 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 Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 13386 (WTB 2008). 34 See generally WT Docket No. 08-165. The major commenters and the short forms by which they are cited are listed in Appendix A. Brief comments am not listed but are considered in this Declaratory Ruling. 35 See, e.g., 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. 37 See, e.g., MetroPCS Comments at 6-7; NextG Networks Comments at 4. 38 See, e.g., Sprint Nextel Comments at 4-5; CalWA Comments at 2-3; T-Mobile Comments at 6. 39 See, e.g., CalWA Comments at 4; Rural Cellular Association Comments at 4; T-Mobile Comments at 9-10. 4o See, e.&, Rural Cellular Association Comments at 4-5; T-Mobile Comments at 11-12; MetroPCS Comments at 7- 8. 4~ See, e.g., NATOA et al. Comments at 1-5 & 9-11; California Cities Comments at 18-21; Fairfax County, VA Comments at 14-15. 42 See, e.g., Fairfax County, VA Comments at 14-15; Calitbmia Cities Comments at 18-20; City of Dublin, OH Comments at 2-3; Coalition for Local Zoning Authority Comments at 10-11; NATOA et al. Reply Comments at 7-9. Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 preserve State and local government flexibility to process applications within the typical timeframes based on the individual cimumstances of each case.43 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 decisions.4s The EMR Policy Institute (EMRPI) filed a Comment and Cross-Petition that, inter alia, seeks a declaratory ruling relating to the Commission's regulations regarding exposure to radio frequency emissions.46 17. Since the filing of the Petition, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act).47 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.48 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.40 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.5° 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.5~ III. DISCUSSION 18. Under Section 1.2 of the roles, the Commission "may... issue a declaratory ruling terminating a controversy or removing uncertainty.''s2 The Commission has broad discretion whether to 43 See, e.g., NATOA et al. Comments at 12-14; City of Philadelphia Comments at 3-4; Florida Cities Comments at 2-4, 15-20; City of Dublin, OH Comments at 2-3; California Cities Comments at 13-16. 44 See, e.g., California Cities Comments at 17-21; NATOA et al. Comments at 15-18; SCAN NATOA Comments at 11-12. 4s 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. 47 American Recovery and Reinvestinent Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 11 I-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009) (Recovery Act). 4~ Recovery Act § 6001(k). 49 See generally A National Broadband Plan for Our Future, GN Docket No. 09-51, Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 4342 (2009). so 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 lnc. Reply Comments, GN Docket 09-51, at 40-41 (filed July 21, 2009). s~ CTIA Comments, GN Docket No. 09-51, at 18 (filed June 8, 2009). 52 47 C.F.R. § 1.2. 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 issue such a ruling,s3 19. Below, we address the throe 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 pmvider. On the third issue, because the Petitioner has not presented us with any evidence ora 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.54 Wireless providers support the Petition's assertion, arguing that the courts have upheld similar interpretive authority in other contexts. These commcnters rely in particular on Alliance for Community Media v. FCC,ss 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,s? 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.55 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 demonsh-ates 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 terminated.''59 Other State and local government commenters assert that because the courts have exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes 53 See Yale Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 478 F.2d 594, 602 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 914 (1973); Telephone Number Portability; BellSouth Corporation Petition for Declaratory Ruling and/or Waiver, CC Docket No. 95-116, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 6800, 6810 ¶ 20 (2004). 5-* Petition at 20-24. ss 529 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 2821 (2009) ("Alliancefi>r ComrnuniO~ Media"). s6 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-I I; California Cities Comments at 18-21; Fairfax County, VA Comments at 14-15. sa See, e.g., NATOA et al. Comments at lq5. so Id. at 9-10 (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, at 208) (NATOA emphasis removed). NATOA et al. argues that Congress did not mean to address only those mlemakings in play in 1996, but any future rulemakings on personal wireless service facility issues. Id. at 10. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 arising under Section 332(e)(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.'t'° 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.''6~ 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 Sectiun 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).6s 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 RI: 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.''6s 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 1 of the Act directs the Commission to "execute and enforce the provisions of this Act" in order to, inter 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 rnles and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act.''67 Further, Section 303(0 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 .... ,,68 Finally, Section 40) 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 functions.''69 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 £ocal Zoning Authority Comments at 10- l 1. 6~ CTIA Reply Comments at 12. 62 Id. at 12-13 (emphasis in original). 63 Id. The Petitioner also contends that it does not request that the Commission "condition or limit the scope ora 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. 64 Ia( at 21-22. 65/d at 22. 66 47 U.S.C. § 151. 67 47 U.S.C. § 201(b). See also National Cable & Telecomm. Ass'n v. BrandX' Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 980 (2005) ("Congress has delegated to the Commission the authority to 'execute and enfome' the Communications Act, § 151, and to 'prescribe such roles and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions' of the Act, §201 (b).'). 68 47 U.S.C. § 303(r). 6~ 47 U.S.C. § 154(i). 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.TM That decision has been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appcals for the Sixth Circuit in Alliance for Community Media v. FCC. In that case, the court found that the Supreme Court's precedent in A T& T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities BoardTM controlled, and it held that the Commission "possesses clear jurisdictional authority to formulate rules and regulations interpreting the contours of section 62 l (a)(1)" pursuant to its authority under Section 201(b) to carry out the provisions of the Communications Act.TM The Court held that "the statutory silence in section 621 (a)( 1 ) regarding the agency's mlemaking power does not divest the agency of its express authority to prescribe roles interpreting that provision.''73 The same holds true here. Section 332(c)(7) thlls 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 govemments. 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 governments. 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 "la]ny pending Commission rnlemaking concerning the preemption of local zoning authority over the placement, construction or modification of CM[R]S facilities should be terminated.''74 We read the legislative history as intending to preclude the Commission from maintaining a rnlemaking 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 service facilities placement, construction, or 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.''75 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 service 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 "la]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 7o Implementation of Section 62 I(a)(l ) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No. 05-31 I, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 5101, 5128 ¶ 54 (2007) ("Local Franchising Order") (interpreting Section 621(a)(1) of the Act, which prohibits local franchising authorities from "unreasonably refus[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 granted until the franchising authority takes action on the application). 7~ 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (finding, inter alia, 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). 72 529 F.3d at 773-74. 73 Id. at 774. 74 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, 104th Congress, 2nd Sess. 208 (1996). 75 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 competent jurisdiction.''76 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 rejectcd 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 mlemaking authority.''77 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).''78 Accordingly, the fact that Congress provided for judicial 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 "la]ny person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act''so 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.''8~ 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.82 The Petition claims that in the absence of timefmmes, it is unclear when a State or local government has failed to act under 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.88 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, ifa zoning authority fails to act within the prescribed timeframes, the application shall be "deemed granted.''84 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.85 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 .86 28. State and local government commenters assert that both "reasonable period of time" 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 76 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). 77Local Franchising Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 5129 ¶ 56 (2007). 78 Alliance.for Community Media, 529 F.3d at 775 (finding that this conclusion was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in A T&T Corp. v. Iowa UtiL Bd upholding the Commission's authority to issue roles governing the States' resolution of interconnection arbitrations). 70 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). 80 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). Slid' 82 Petition at 20-24. 83 Id. at 20. 84 Id. at 27-28. 88 Id. 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.87 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)ss and to seek collaborative solutions with wireless providers and the surrounding communities impacted by the proposed wireless service facilities.89 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).9° 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 applications.9t 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.92 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 Petition.94 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 facility.% 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 fashion.97 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.98 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 87 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. 88 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) (denial ofa pemonal wireless service facility siting application must be rendered "in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record"). 89 See, e.g., California Cities Comments at 13-16; Florida Cities Comments at 15-20. 00 See, e.g., Fairfax County, VA Comments at 13; City of Bellingham, WA Comments at 1-2; Michigan Municipalities Comments at 19-20. o~ See, e.g., Sprint Nextel Cmnments at 4-5; CalWA Comments at 2-3; T-Mobile Comments at 6-9. 02 See, e.g., CalWA Comments at 4; Rural Cellular Association Comments at 4-5; T-Mobile Comments at 9-10. 0.7 See, e.g., Rural Cellular Association Comments at 6; T-Mobile Comments at 11-12; MetroPCS Comments at 7-8. 94 S~e, e.g., California Cities Comments at 17-21; SCAN NATOA Comments at 10-12. o~ See, e.g., Florida Cities Comments at 6; University of Michigan Comments at 3-4. ~ See, e.g., Stokes County, N.C. Comments at 2. ,~7 Sprint Nextel Comments at 9-11 (citing Local Franchising Order, 22 FCC Rcd 5101, 5 139 (2007)). 08 CTIA Reply Comments at 26. 11 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 reasounbleness..9 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.~°° "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. 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.~°2 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 .... ti s ~o3 range from 28 to 36 months tn several Cahfomm commum e. Vefizon Wireless asserts that "in Northern Califomia, 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.'"°4 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 · 105 tw sought to replace old eqmpment. Moreover, o 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.~°6 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 aathority'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, infra. ~c~ Petition at 15. 1ol ld (emphasis in original). ~02 Id. The Petition claims that in "many jurisdictions' it was taking longer to obtain personal wireless service facility approvals than in prior years. Id. ~03 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. 104 Verizon Wireless Comments at 6-7. T-Mobile 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. ~05 NextG Networks Comments at 5-8. ~06 T-Mobile Comments at 6. in its comments, T-Mobile also references a collocation application submitted in LaGmnge, 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.I°7 34. This record evidence demonstrates that unreasonable delays in the personal wireless service facility siting applications process have obstructed the provision of wireless services,t°8 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,~°9 and that there is insufficient evidence on the record as a whole to justify Commission action.~t° 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. TM (...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, Inc. v. Town 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. m7 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 mom than three years. Id. Verizon Wireless states that data it gathered "indicates that of the over 400 collocation requests reported as pending, over 30% 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 mom than 6 months, and nearly 100 of those applications [were] pending for more than one year." Id. ms We note that very late in the process, Petitioner and its supporters submitted new evidence in the form of letters and affidavits from cartier representatives that discuss specific experiences. See Ex Parte Letter from Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA -- The Wireless Association, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 08-165, filed November 10, 2009, Attached Letters from Michael S. Giaimo, Thomas C. Gminer, Jr., Scott P. Olson, Paul 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 Dortch, 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 ora response. Under the circumstances here, we do not give the record evidence contained in Petitioner's November 10 submission weight in our analysis. ~0o NATOA et al. Comments at 22; Stokes County, N.C. Comments at 1. 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. ~o See, e.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. ~l 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,n2 Wireless providers currently are in the process of deploying broadband networks which will enable them to compete with the services offered by wireline companies.~3 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. ~4 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.''~s Similarly, we expect that the winners of recent spectrum auctions will need facility siting approvals in order to deploy their services to consumers.~6 At least one Advanced Wireless Service (AWS) licensee with nationwide reach already is implementing its new network in the AWS band.*~7 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.~ ~8 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. ti2 See Petition at 8-10. ~13 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. CostQuest Associates, Inc., U.S. Ubiquity Mobility Study, April 17, 2008 at 4, filed as attachment to CTIA Ex Parte, GN Docket No. 09-51, WT Docket Nos. 08-165, 08-166, 08-167, 09-66 (filed Aug. 14, 2009). 114 Sprint And Clearwire To Combine WiMAX Businesses, Creath~g A New Mobile Broadband Company, News Release, Sprint Nextel and Clearwim Corp., May 7, 2008 ("Sprint/Clearwire 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 Rcd 17570, 17619 ¶ 128 (2008) (approving Clearwire and Sprint Nextel's plan to combine their 2.5 GHz wireless broadband businesses into one company). ~5 Sprint/Clearwire News Release. Clearwire's wireless broadband service is now available in 14 markets. Clearwire Introduces' CLEAR(TM) 4G }ViMax Internet Service in 10 New Markets, Press Release, Clearwire, Sept. 1,2009. 116 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 Rcd 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 (tel. Mar. 20, 2008). ~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"). }:s See Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 06-150; Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 E~nergency 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, lnc. (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~ ~9 and more recently in the Recovery Act.~2° 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.~2~ 37. Right to Seek Reliefi Given the evidence of unreasonable delays and the 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 terms 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.~22 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 Rcd 15289, 15342-55 ~l~] 141-177 (2007). ~9 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. ~20 See supra note 47. 121 NENA Comments at 1-2. 122 We recognize that there am 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 cimumstances. 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.''~23 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)/24 However, the case law does not establish that an injunction granting the application is always or presumptively appropriate when a "failure to act" occurs.~25 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.126 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 time" 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 govemments' 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)(B)(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 of such request.''t27 Moreover, these commenters rely upon the Conference Agreement, which states that "the time 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].''~28 ~2~ 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). 124 See Petition at 28; CTIA Reply Comments at 23-25. ~25 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. City of Saginaw, 301 F.3d 390, 399-400 (6th Cir. 2002); Nat 'l Tower, LLC v. Plainville ZoningBd. of Appeak, 297 F.3d 14, 24-25 (lst Cir. 2002); PreJkrred Sites, LLC v. Troup County, 296 F.3d 1210, 1222 (1 lth Cir. 2002). 126 See Tennessee ex rel. Wireless Income Props. v. Chattanooga, 403 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 2005); Masterpage Comrnnnications, Inc. v. Town t~f Olive, NY, 418 F.Supp.2d 66 (N.D.N.Y. 2005). 127 47 C.F.R. § 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, OH Comments at 3; Florida Cities Comments at 5-6; City of Burien, WA Comments at 4; Village of Alden, NY Comments at 3. l,_s H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, 104th Congress, 2nd Sess. 208 (1996). 16 Federal Communications 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.~29 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?° 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)(B)(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, u~ 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.~32 The Petition asserts that because no new towers need to be constructed, collocations are the easiest applications for State and local ~29 Capital Network System, Inc. v. FCC, 28 F.3d 201,204 (D.C. Cir. 1994). In this case the court stated: "[b]ecause '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 ora 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 v. Brand X lnternet 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 prior judicial constmction). ~3~ LocalFranchising Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 5130 ~158 (2007). 131 See inJ~a paras. 49-53. ~32 Petition at 24-27. The Petition claims that over 80 pement 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,m The Petitioher 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.TM 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.'"~5 Wireless providers argue that the Petitioner's proposed timeframes are reasonable,~6 and they rely upon State and local processes as evidence to support that conclusion.~37 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,~38 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)4° 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)(B)(iii),m and the timeframes as proposed may not accommodate reasonable, generally applicable procedural requirements in some communities,t42 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.143 ~33 la( at 24-25. 134 ,/-(~ at 25. 135 Id. at 26. All members responding to the survey reported receiving approvals for new facilities within 30 days. /d. ~36 See, e.g., MetroPCS Comments at 12; Rural Cellular Association Comments at 6; NextG Networks Comments at 9-12. ~37 Sprint Nextel 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 11-12 (citing to the processing experienced by T-Mobile in Florida, Georgia, and Texas); MetroPCS Comments at 7-8 (citing to the processing experienced by MetmPCS in Delaware and Pennsylvania); NextG Networks Comments at 9-14 (citing to North Carolina, Florida & Kentucky statutes). ~3s City of Saint Paul, Minnesota and the City's Board of Water Commissioners Comments at 10. ~30 City of LaGrande, Oregon Comments at 3. 140 Such collaborative processes are asserted to have led to improved antenna deployments. See, e.g., California Cities Comments at 13-16. m 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. Califomia Cities Comments 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, 22829-30 ¶ 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 ora 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 govermnents to process applications.TM 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.~4s 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.~46 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 time period of 45 days for processing after a 45-day review period for application completeness (for a total of 90 days),t4s 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).~49 Moreover, the evidence submitted by local governments indicates that most already are ~44 U.S. Cellular Reply Comments at 2-3. 145 See, e.g., N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 153A-349.53(a); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 365.172(12)(a)(1)(a). ~46 See T-Mobile Comments at 10-11. A "[s]ubstantial increase in the size of the tower" occurs if: (1) [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, whichever is greater, except that the monnting 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) It]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 frmn 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~ationwide 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). 148 N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 153A-349.52. ~49 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 365.172. In addition, the State of Connecticut's Connecticut Siting Council states 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?° Nonetheless, the process in Connecticut is only 30 days longer than the timeframe set forth here.tS~ The other seven States provide for a review period of 60 to 150 days.152 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,t53 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.Is4 Thus, ifa 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 15o See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. 8§ 16-50(i) & (p) (action required within 180 days after application is filed). ~si 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." State of Connecticut's Connecticut Siting Council Sept. 24, 2008 Letter at 2. ~52 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 88 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. Stat. § 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 State of Washington requires applications to be processed within 120 days, after a 28-day review period for completeness. Wash. Rev. Code §8 36.70B.080 & 36.70B.070. The State of Kentucky requires applications to be processed within 60 days. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 100.987. ~3 See, e.g., 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. 154 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 0%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 role, 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 or local govermnent 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.~55 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.~56 The Petitioner supports MetroPCS's proposal.~57 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 ~55 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 l (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). ~6 MetroPCS Comments at 12. MetroPCS also proposes that the zoning authority should be conclusively deemed to have accepted the filing as complete if it does not respond within three days. ~7 CTIA Reply Comments at 18. 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 business days for determining whether it is complete?5s the State of Washington requires review within 28 days;~59 the States of California and Oregon require review within 30 days?° and the State of North Carolina requires review within 45 days.~6~ 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.~62 The Petitioner contends that the Act does not define what constitutes a prohibition of service for purposes of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).~63 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 164 wireless provider serves the area, thereby creating a need fbr the Commission to interpret it. 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.~65 Similarly, Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I) bars unreasonable discrimination among providers, also suggesting a preference for multiple providers.~66 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 E9 l 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.~6s Opponents also argue ~5~ 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). 159 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). ~,0 Cal. Gov't. Code §§ 65943 & 65950 (providing for a 30-day review for application completeness, then a 60-day period 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). ~a~ 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). ~62 Petition at 30-35. 163 Id. at 30. t64 Id. at 31. ~5 Id. at 31-32. m, ld. at 32. 167 Wee, e.g., Sprint Nextel Comments at I l- 12; T-Mobile Comments at 13-14; NextG Networks Comments at 14-15. 168 See NATOA et al. Comments at 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.169 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 carder'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.~7~ Finally, one commenter argues that because Section 332(c)(7)(A)~72 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?73 56. Discussion. We conclude that a State or local government that denies an application for personal wireless service facilities siting solely because %ne or more carders serve a given geographic marker'~74 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)(1I). 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 carder should be treated as a siting regulation that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting such services.~75 Thus, a controversy exists that is appropriately resolved by declaratory ruling.~76 We agree with the Petitioner that the fact that another carrier or carders 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 pro-competitive purpose. 57. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(11) provides, as a limitation on the statute's preservation of local zoning authority, that a State or local govemment regulation of personal wireless facilities "shall not ~60 Id. at 22. ~70 See, e.g., City of Auburn, WA Comments at 3; City of SeaTac, WA Comments at 2. ~7~ See North Carolina Depa~nent of Transportation's Division of Aviation Conunents at 2. 172 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, constmction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities."). 173 See County of Albemarle, VA Comments at 8-9. i74 Petition at 32. ~75 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 (4th 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 of Pelham, 313 F.3d 620, 633-34 (1st Cir. 2002) (rejecting a role that "any service equals no effective prohibition"); MetroPCS, Inc. v. CiG' and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 731-33 (9th Cir. 2005) (adopting the First Cimuit's analysis). 176 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2; National Cable & Telecomtn. Ass 'n v. BrandXInternet Servs., 125 S.Ct. at 2700 ("A court's prior judicial construction of a statute tromps an agency constmction 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)(II) is unambiguous. See, e.g., Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., v. City of Cranston, No. 08-2491 ( I st 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.''~77 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 ifa 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, "la] 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 carder provides some service to some consumers does not in itself mean that the town has not effectively prohibited services to other consumers.''~8° 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)(II) 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.''~s~ 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 carders 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 ruling. 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 ~77 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(11). 178 Second Generation Properties, L.P. v. Tawn af Pelham, 313 F.3d at 634. 179 TO the extent a wireless carder 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 lett 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)(B): "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 carrie~ and their customers." Second Generation Properties, L.P v. Town of Pelham. 313 F.3d at 634. 181 A T&T Wireless PCS v. CiO, Council of Va. Beach, 155 F.3d at 428. 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 wireless provider's service area and, in mm, diminish the service provided to their customers.~82 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 Cimuit recently stated, the "one-provider role' "prevents customers in an area from having a choice of reliable carriers and thus undermines thc [Act's] goal to improve wireless service for customers through industry competition.''~83 In sum, our rejection of this rule "actually better serves both individual consumers and the policy goals of the [Communications Act].''t84 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,t8~ 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 bonafide 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.''Is6 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 Ruling. 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.~87 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.~88 Under the Commission's rules as well, parties are required to submit for Federal Aviation Administration review all antenna structures~89 that potentially can endanger air navigation, including those near airports.~9° The Commission requires antenna structures that exceed 200 feet in height above ground or which require special aeronautical study to be painted and lightedTM and also requires antenna structures to conform to the Federal Aviation Administration's painting and lighting recommendations.~92 64. We reject the assertion that the declaration the Petitioner seeks would violate Section ~2 See MetroPCS, [nc. v. City and County of 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 ~2['Pelham, 313 F.3d at 631). 183 Omnipoint ltoldings, Inc., v. City of Cranston (citing Second Generation Properties. L.P. v. Town of Pelham, 313 F.3d at 631,633). is4 MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and Count.}' of San Francisco, 400 F.3d at 722. ia~ See, e.g., City of Auburn, WA Comments at 3; City of SeaTac, WA Comments at 2. t86 CTIA Reply Comments at 29-30 (emphasis removed). 187 See North Carolina Department of Transportation's Division of Aviation Comments at 2. ~s8 See FAA Comments at 1. 189 Section 17.2(a) of the roles defines "antenna structure' as including "the radiating and/or receive system, its supporting stmctures and any apportenances mounted thereon." 47C.F.R. § 17.2(a). 190 See 47 C.F.R. § 17.7. Iol See 47 C.F.R. § 17.21. Io2 See 47 C.F.R. § 17.23. 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 332(c)(7)(A).~93 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).~94 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)(II) - 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?~ Cimuit 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.~96 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 ora 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,~97 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. 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.~99 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 carders to obtain a special variance.2°° 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.2m Many other commenting parties are opposed to the Petition's request and assert, for example, that Section 332(c)(7) is ~9~ 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 11. /96 See, e.g., Town of Amherst, N.H.v. Omnipoint Communications Enterprises, Inc., 173 F.3d 9, 14 (lst Cir. 1999) ("Obviously, an individual denial is not automatically a forbidden prohibition violating the [effect of prohibiting clause]."); APT Pittsburgh L.P. v. Penn Township Butler County ~£ Pa., 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)(i)(11)."); MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and Connty of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 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~h 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(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)). 197 47 U.S.C. § 253(a). 198 See Petition at 35-37. 199 Id. at 37; see also id. at 36 ( "The FCC should declare that any ordinance that automatically requires a... variance.., is preempted... '). 2o0 See id. at 36. _~m See, e.g., Sprint Nextel Comments at 13-14; CalWA 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.-'°2 They maintain that Section 253 does not apply to wireless facility siting disputes involving blanket variance ordinances.2°3 67. Discussion. We deny CT1A'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,2°4 we decline to issue a declaratory ruling that "zoning ordinances requiring variances for all wireless siting requests am unlawful and will be struck down if challenged in the context of a Section 253 preemption action.''2°~ CTIA does not present us with sufficient information or evidence of a specific controversy on which to base such action or ruling,2°~ 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.2°7 E. Other Issues 68. Service Requirements. Numerous parties argue that the Petitioner failed to follow the Commission's service requirements with respect to preemption petitions?os 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.2°9 By its terms, 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.2~° Commenters' principal argument is that the Commission should require the Petitioner to identify the 2o2 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 fi~rther 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 Sc¢, e.g., CTIA Reply Comments at 33 n.124. *.o~ Id. at 30. 2o6 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). 207 47 U.S.C. §§ 332(c)(7), 253. 2o~ See, e.g., Coalition for Local Zoning Authority Comments at 2-4; NATOA et al. Comments at 21; Greater Metro Telecom. Consortium and City of Boulder, CO Comments at 2-3. 2o0 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(a), Note 1. 2~o 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./hr Extension ofT#ne, 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 roles 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,2~ 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 commcnters 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.2~2 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 faci ities comply with the Commission's regulations conceming such emissions.''2~ 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?4 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.2~5 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 presumptively 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)(II). 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 govemments to ensure that personal wireless service facility siting 2~ 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). 212 See, e.g., Catherine Kleiber Comments; E. Stanton Maxey Comments at 1; Maria S. Sanchez Comments at 1-2; Miranda R. Taylor Comments at 1-2. 2~3 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 214 EMRPI Comments and Cross-Petition at 4. 2~5 Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, ET Docket No. 93-62, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice oJ'Proposed Rule Making, 12 FCC Rcd 13494, 13505 ¶ 31 (1997), aff'dsub nom. Celhdar Phone TaskJbrce v. FCC, 205 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. deniedsub nom. Citizens.fbr the Appropriate Placement oJ'Telecomtnunications 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), 4(j), 201(b), 253(a), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), (j), 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 CT1A--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), 4(j), and 332(c)(7) of the Commtmications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 0), 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 APPENDIX A 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 Aubum, 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 of Burien, Washington (City of Burien, WA) City of Champaign, Illinois City of Cincinnati, Ohio City of Columbia, South Carolina City of Coppell, 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 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) Domagoj Vucic Donna G. Haldane DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference Elizabeth Kelley Evelyn Savarin FCC Intergovernmental Advisory Committee 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 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 Pima County, Arizona Prince William County, Virginia Robeson County, 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) Varnum, 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 o£the New Orleans City Council California Wireless Association (CalWA) 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 Califomia State Association of Counties, and the City and County of San Francisco (Califomia 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 govemment or instrumentality thereof- (l) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (1I) 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, construct, 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 of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify A Il FVireless Siting Proposals aa' Requiring a Variance, WT Docket No. 08-165. Wireless communication~obile--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 4G 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 hem 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 them 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 commtmications are available to all Americans. Today's ruling is one example of creating such talcs. 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 Congmss'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 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. I 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. [ 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. I 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 mm 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 Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS 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 ~Vireless Siting Propoxals aa' 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--a 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 Communications 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 time," 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 see~should 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 £ocaIFranchising Orde~ which I thought went too far in usurping the authority of local franchising authorities without an adequately granular record to justify 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. Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL Re: Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(~9(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 I/ariance, WT Docket No. 08-165. In pursuit of helping to create more choices for consumers, I 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, I 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 xve 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 I thank Chairman Genachowski for his leadership in this area. Our ruling 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 Intemet economy, create jobs, and make us more competitive intemationally. 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. I fully agree that identifying additional bandwidth for long-term growth is a necessary and worthy endeavor, and I look forward to engaging in that effort. In the meantime, though, I 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 infrastructure 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 th this ruling. We especially appreciate the close coordination among your teams and the 8 floor offices on Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 this draft. Today is a win-win due in no small part to your efforts. Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-99 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN Petition Jbr Declaratory Ruling to Clari~ 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. 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 am harmed when arbitrary and unreasonable timeframes am 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 arbiters 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 us - 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 thc 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 trickry 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 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MEREDITH ATTWELL BAKER Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clar~ 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. Wireless broadband is improving the quality of lives across the country. By 2020 it is expected that most people will access the lnternet 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 us 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. [n 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. (518)439-3079 November 19, 2011 THE CENTER FOR MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS 70 CAMBRIDGE DRIVE GLENMONT, NEW YORK 12077 FAX (518)478-0909 (via email and regular mail) Chairman Sidor and Planning Board Members Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: MetroPCS New York, LLC (Site No. NY7313) Site Plan Application and Special Exception Permit Application for a proposed wireless telecommunication facility Premises - 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, New York Dear Chairman Sidor and Members of the Planning Board Members: Per Ms. Lanza's request we have reviewed the application materials submitted for the above referenced facility with cover letter dated September 29, 2011. We were requested to review the material in two areas; 1. RF Emissions and 2. Proof of Need to include the submitted propagation material. Upon review and discussions we offer the following comments: Pursuant to Town Code Article XVII, Section 280, wireless telecommunications facilities within the Town of Southold, NY, require a Special Exception Permit and Site Plan Approval. Here, the applicant proposes to install a wireless telecommunications facility by co-locating on the existing monopole located at 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY. The applicant proposes to install a ten ft. (10') extension to the existing 108' (AGL) monopole and attach three (3) antenna sectors with two (2) antennas per sector to the extension, thereby increasing the actual height of the overall structure, excluding the lightning rod, to a height of 118' (AGL) and installing a total of six (6) antennas. Equipment cabinets, cables, and related hardware are also proposed to be located upon a new steel platform mounted above a new concrete slab measuring 10' by 16'. The equipment platform is to be located at the base of the monopole within the fenced equipment compound area. Lanscape screening is also proposed around the applicant's equipment area, outside the fenced compound. We find the Antenna Site FCC RF Compliance Assessment and Report dated June 30, 2011 to be complete. We agree with the report that "the antenna emissions at the subject site will be in compliance with the FCC regulations concerning RE exposure." It should be noted that this report should be revised if the antenna model or height should change. As per the "Affidavit of Radio Frequency Engineer," provided with the application material, dated July 5,2011, and signed by Nicholas Balzano, it states in paragraph 16, that the next available height on the monopole is fifty-five feet (55'). Signal propagation maps were also submitted showing proposed coverage at fifty-five feet (55') and the proposed height of one hundred and eighteen feet (118'). We disagree with the statement that the next available height on the existing monopole is fifty- five feet (55'). As per the construction drawings submitted with the application and signed and sealed by Luis Moglino (Registered NYS Architect #028992) of MTM Design Group, as noted on page A-2, there appears to be sufficient space available between the existing T-Mobile antennas which have a center line of sixty-four feet (64') and the Verizon antennas which have a center line of seventy-eight feet (78'), to locate the proposed MetroPCS antennas, thereby eliminating the need to extend the structure. The proposed antennas as shown on the same drawings page A-2 are 4'6". We were unable to determine from the application material the exact lengths of the T-Mobile and Verizon antennas, however from the pictures in the application it appears that there is more than enough space for the proposed MetroPCS antennas. Antennas of that size could be mounted at a centerline height of approx, seventy one (71 '). At this height the clearance between proposed and existing antennas above and below would not interfere with the service from the existing installations. Mounting the antennas at this height should also eliminate the need for the MetroPCS cables to be run on the outside of the tower as presently proposed, thus additionally reducing the visual impact. Nowhere in the application material or Radio Frequency data provided, is this height (71 ') addressed or discussed. We strongly recommend that propagation maps, utilizing the same parameters as the maps already provided, be provided at seventy feet (71'). (We would like to see the maps at -85dBm and - 95dBm) We would also recommend that the industry describe in detail by the person preparing the maps, any differences at this height for coverage versus the coverage at the proposed 118' height. (If provided, it is imperative that we are able to discern on the maps provided any differences in coverage described by the applicant including street details and the length along the street(s) of the change.) In light of the foregoing, we cannot confirm the need to extend the existing structure to accommodate a new wireless telecommunications facility at this location. We need the above information to complete our review and provide comments for the Board to make an informed decision. As such, we believe that the application material as provided is incomplete. If you require anything further please give me a call at (518)439-3079. Richard A. Comi CMS Martin Finnegan (via e-mail) Heather Lanza (via email) Brian Cummings (via email) A1 Tagliaferri (via e-mail) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES II. RICII III DONALD J. WILCENSKI November 16, 2011 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Mr. Richard Comi Center for Municipal Solutions 70 Cambridge Drive Glenmont, NY 12077 Re: Proposed site plan for MetroPCS at Baxter Located at 415 Elijahs Lane, Mattituck SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 Dear Mr. Comi: Enclosed for your records is the Vendor Copy of Purchase Order # 23058 and executed copy of the Agreement in connection with your review of the above wireless application. If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact me. Linda Randolph Secretarial Assistant Encs. Purchase Order # 2 3 0 5 8 Date November 3, 2011 Tax Exempt # A163554 B 8020 4 500 500 Account # IDeliver and send billing to: Department PLANNING BOARD Address Richard A. Comi d/b/a Ctr. forMuncipal Solutions 70 Cambridge Dr. Glenmont, NY 12077 VENDOR **Return this copy and Town of Southold voucher itemized and signed for payment** ITEM QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT COST MetroPC; 1 Applic. L1.3 TOTAL lOT TO EXCEED 8,500.00 THIS PURCHASE ORDER IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURES OF THE DEPT. HEAD AN[3 THE SUPERVISOR I CERTIFY THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE I CERTIFY :T~IIS TO BE A JUST Submission Without a Cover Letter Sender: Subject: SCTM#: 1000- I~ - L~-k .~~ Date: II/~/11 (J'~LL'~]~'¢-~ Comments: AGREEMENT This agreement made and entered into this ~ ~"day of ~ 2011 by and between RICHARD A. COMI d/b/a THE CENTER FOR MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS (herein alter referred to as Consultant) (mailing address: 70 Cambridge Ddve, Glenmont, New York 12077) party of the first part, and THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NY 11971 (hereinafter referred to as Client) (mailing address; Town Hall Annex 54375 SR 25 Southold, NY 11971 ) party of the second part. Consultant and Client, for the consideration named, hereby agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE Client hereby retains Consultant for the purpose of assisting, advising and representing the Client on matters relating to reviewing and analyzing a wireless application for MetroPCS for a proposed facility at 415 Elijahs Lane, Mattituck received by client for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. 2. SPECIFIC SERVICES: SERVICES DURING PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATION The Consultant shall furnish appropriate Wireless Telecommunications Facilities siting assistance and advice to the Client and Client officials involved in the processing of the MetroPCS application for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, and, in connection therewith, shall: a) review the application filed with the Client for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, b) assist and advise the Client in the analysis of the application, to include attending meetings with the Applicants and/or Client officials as required, c) recommend in wdting to the Client whether the application should be approved or disapproved, and set forth in wdting the reasons for such approval or disapproval, d) inspect the construction of the facility and in writing recommend when/if the certificate of compliance should be issued. 3. TIMES AND A'I-rENDANCE: COOPERATION BY CLIENT Consultant shall perform the services described herein in as expeditious a manner as is reasonably possible and with due consideration of the time requirements of Client. Client recognizes that the timing of the performance of Consultant's services may be affected by previous commitments to other clients (including the delivery of premised services and work product and previously scheduled meetings), and situations normally and traditionally deemed to be matters of a force majeure nature, including those influenced by the weather, strikes, or power outages. Client agrees to cooperate with Consultant, as needed, and to provide Consultant with copies of any records, documents and other information needed for the fulfillment of this agreement on a timely basis. Client further agrees to provide Consultant with access to appropriate officials and/or employees of Client, as may be needed in the fulfillment of the agreement. Moreover, both parties understand and agree that mutual accountability and responsiveness is cdtical to the successful completion of the project, and therefore both shall always make their best faith efforts to be accountable and promptly responsive to each other. 4. COMPENSATION In payment for the services to be performed hereunder by Consultant, Client shall make payments to the Consultant as follows: A) The Client shall pay Consultant its normal published houdy rate (which at the date of this agreement is $250.00 per hour) for each hour of time devoted by Consultant to the performance of such services, provided, however, that for time traveling by Consultant in conjunction with the performance of such services, the Client shall pay Consultant 50% of the Consultants normal published rate. It is understood that the costs for all services, including expenses as covered below, will not exceed $8,500.00 for the primary carder on the new facility, without additional approval from the Client. B) Consultant shall invoice the Client regularly, but no less f~equently than monthly, after services have been performed, for any compensation payable. Such invoices shall be due and payable upon receipt, but in no case later than thirty (30) days. C) In the event that the Client disputes or objects to any portion of any invoice submitted by Consultant pursuant to this agreement, Client shall, within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of such invoice, notify Consultant in writing of such dispute or objection. D) Payments made by the Client more than thirty (30) days following the date of submission of an invoice shall incur a cha~Je of one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) of the amount thereby deemed late, compounded monthly, until the amount due and owing by the Client is paid in full. 5. REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES For services performed hereunder, Client shall reimburse Consultant, for out-of-pocket expenses for the following items: (a) Travel-related costs such as airfare, car rental, night lodging accommodations and meals consumed while on-site or enreute; (b) Expedited or overnight delivery service; (c) Any other reasonably necessary expenses directly related and attributable to the fulfillment of this agreement. Consultant's requests for expense reimbursement shall be included in Consultant's invoice at actual cost, with no markup. 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT Consultant and Client agree that in the performance of Consultant's services hereunder, Consultant shall not be deemed to be an employee of Client for any purpose whatsoever, nor act under Color of State. 7. NOTICES Any and all notices, invoices, and payments required hereunder shall be addressed to the parties at their respective addresses set forth in page 1 hereof, or to such other address as may hereafter be designated in wdting by either party hereto. 8. CONSTRUCTION OF AGREEMENT This agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the Laws of the State of New York. 9. COMPLETE AGREEMENT; MODIFICATION There are no terms, conditions or obligations other than those contained herein, and there are no wdtten or verbal statements or representations, warranties or agreements with respect to this Agreement that have not been embodied herein. This agreement constitutes the complete understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. No modification or amendment of any provisions of this agreement shall be valid unless in writing and signed by both parties. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Consultant and Client by individuals duly authorized to do se, have signed this agreement, the day and year first above written. CONSULTANT By: ~.~.~,,~ (electronic signature) R.A.Comi The Center for Municipal Solutions By: CLIENT Heather Lanza Title: Plan~ing Director Town of Southold (printed) 2 Lanza, Heather From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lanza, Heather Friday, November 04, 2011 10:34 AM dick@telecomsol.com Randolph, Linda; Cummings, Brian A. Purchase Orders are delayed Dick, Our Purchase Orders and official written go-ahead on the two Metro PCS applications you have (Cutchogue - Junge co- location and Mattituck Elijah's Lane co-location) been delayed due to being short-staffed. We have the consultant fees held in our deferred revenue account, we just haven't been able to process the paperwork. Please consider this e-mail written approval to go ahead and work on both applications. For Elijah's Lane in Mattituck co-location we need a similar completeness review like you did for the one in Cutchogue just recently. We would like to be able to report to the Planning Board on whether it is complete at their November 14th work session. On the Cutchogue co-location application, as we discussed on the phone yesterday, we also would like a short report on the materials submitted in response to our asking them to prove why they can't use the gap in the existing pole on the application in Cutchogue in time for our November 14th work session. Let us know if we should continue to find the application "incomplete" and if so, why is it better to do that than to find it complete and then require they submit additional information. Also, should I be copying Al Tagliaferri on these emails? Heather Lanza, AICP Town Planning Director 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Phone: (631)765-1938 E-mail: heather, lanza¢~towt sot thold.ny.us PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III DONALD J. WILCENSKI PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hail Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 October 5, 2011 Mr. Richard Comi 70 Cambridge Drive Glenmont, NY 12077 Metro PCS at Baxter Located at 415 Elijahs Lane, Mattituck SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 Dear Mr. Comi: The Planning Department is in receipt of an application to co-locate a wireless facility on an existing tower located at 415 Elijahs Lane, Mattituck. For your convenience, enclosed is a paper copy of the file. It is also available on our website (southoldtown.northfork.net, Laser Fiche, Planning, Site Plans, In Progress, 1000-108- 4-11.3). Please provide an estimate for the cost of your consulting services to determine the completeness of the application and assist with the review as we move forward. Should the Planning Board approve your estimate, a purchase order will be provided authorizing this application's review to begin. Please, do not start any review until you are authorized to do so in writing. If you have any question or comment, please contact me. Best regards, Brian CummingS' Planner CC: Planning Board Heather Lanza, Planning Director Al Tagliaferri PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III DONALD J. WILCENSKI PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Re: Leslie Weisman, ZBA Chairperson Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Martin H. Sidor, Chairman I~ ~ Members of the Planning Board October 4, 2011 Request for Comments for MetroPCS/Elijahs Lane Facility Co-location SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 ZBA#~507 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. R~, NIELSEN, HUBER & GOUGHLIN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 36 NORTH NlgW Yo~ AvgI~us HUNTINOTOI~, NEW YOaS 11743 TELEPHONE: ((~;1) 4/25-4100 FA6SI~4ILE: (031) 425-4104 October 3,2011 VIA UPS Town of Southold Planning Board Town Annex Building 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Attn.: Carol Kalin, Secretarial Assistant RE: MetroPCS New York, LLC (Site No. NY7313) Site Plan Application and Special Exception Permit Application for Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY SCTM#: 1000 108 -4 11.3 Dear Ms. Kalin: As requested, enclosed please find four (4) additional copies of the Visual Analysis, prepared by EBI Consulting, dated August 8, 2011 that was filed with the Site Plan Application on September 29, 2011. Should you have any questions with regard to the foregoing, please communicate with the undersigned. Thanking you for your courtesies, we remain Very truly yours, RI~. NIELSEN, HUBER & COUGHI~N, LLP Marisa Knoth, Paralegal /ink Enclosures RI~, NIELSEN, HUBER & COUGHLIN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE: (Ol31) 425-4100 Fxc;stMxLv:: (O~l) 425-4104 September 29,2011 BY HAND Town of Southold Planning Board Town Annex Building 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Attn.: Ms. Heather Lanza, Planning Director MetroPCS New York, LLC (Site No. NY7313) Site Plan Application and Special Exception Permit Application for Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY SCTM#: 1000 108 4 11.3 Dear Ms. Lanza: We represent MetroPCS New York, LLC ('MetroPCS') with regard to its proposal to colocate at the existing public utility wireless telecommunications facility at the subject property. Currently, MetroPCS has a pending application before the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals for the instant proposal. With respect to the Site Plan Application, enclosed are the following documents: 1. Original and one (1) copy of Town of Southold Planning Board Site Plan Application, including one (1) copy of the filed Zoning Board of Appeals Application packet, excluding additional copies of those items that are also submitted with the instant application; 2. Original and one (1) copy of Applicant's Affidavit; 3. Original and one (1) copy of Applicant's Transactional Disclosure Form; 4. Original and one (1) copy of Owner's Transactional Disclosure Form; 5. Two (2) counterparts of Owner's Authorization Affidavit; 6. Original and one (1) copy of Environmental Assessment Form, prepared by EBI Consulting, dated August 1,2011, pursuant to Town Code Section 280-133A(3); 7. Original and one (1) copy of LWRP Consistency Assessment Form, prepared by EBI Consulting; 8. MetroPCS New York, LLC Check No. 7434 in the sum of $1,000.00, which sum represents the fee for modification, pursuant to Town Code Section 280-74A(2)(a); 9. Seven (7) counterparts of Antenna Site FCC RF Compliance Assessment and Report prepared by Pinnacle Telecom Group and dated June 30, 2011, demonstrating the Town of Southold Planning B"6ard MetroPCS at Elijah's Lane Site Plan/Special Exception Application September 29, 2011 Page 2 of 5 project's compliance with the Maximum Permissible Exposure regulations and providing information on the other carders already located on the facility in accordance with Town Code Sections 280-74C(1), 280-74C(6), 280-74B(1)(a) and 280-70K; 10. Seven (7) counterparts of Structural Analysis Report prepared by GPD Group, and dated April 25, 2011, documenting the facility's structural compliance with local, state and federal codes pursuant to Town Code Sections 280-74C(1), 280-74C(6), and 280- 74B(1 )(b); 11. Seven (7) counterparts of MetroPCS's FCC License pursuant to Town Code Sections 280-74C(1) and 280-74B(1)(c); 12. Seven (7) copies of FCC Antenna Structure Registration, pursuant to Town Code Sections 280-74C(1) and 280-74B(1)(c); 13. Seven (7) counterparts of FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, pursuant to Code Sections 280-74C(1), 280-74C(2), and 280-74B(1)(c); 14. Seven (7) copies of Gap and Propagation Maps, pursuant to Code Sections 280-74C(1), 280-74B(l)(d) and (e); 15. Seven (7) copies of Search Ring Map, pursuant to Code Sections 280-74C(1), 280- 74B(1)(e); 16. Seven (7) copies of Affidavit of Radiofrequency Engineer, pursuant to Code Sections 280-74C(1 ) and 280-74B(1)(e); 17. Seven (7) copies of Deed, pursuant to Code Sections 280-74C(1) and 280-74B(1 )(g); 18. Seven (7) copies of the following Lease and License Agreements, pursuant to Code 280- 74C(1 ) and 280-74B(1)(g): a. Communications Site Lease Agreement between MetroPCS New York, LLC and William J. Baxter, Jr., Patricia Baxter, and Jane P. Goeller, dated April 2, 2010; and b. Site License Agreement between New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("AT&T") and MetroPCS New York, LLC, dated March 26, 2010; 19. Two (2) counterparts of Visual Analysis, including photos of the existing facility and proposed completed facility, prepared by EB! Consulting, revision dated August 8, 2011, pursuant to Town Code Sections 280-74C(3) and 280-74C(8); 20. Nine (9) sets of Zoning Drawings, including Site Plan, Vicinity Plan/Radius Map and Elevation Drawings, prepared by MTM Design Group, Inc., revision 2, dated May 17, 2011, addressing Town Code Sections 280-74C(4), 280-74C(5), 280-74C(9), 280- 74C(10), 280-74C(12), 280-74C(13) and 280-133A(4); 21. One (1) CD Rom containing digital files of propagation and search ring maps, pursuant to Town Code Sections 280-74C(7) and §280-74B(1)(f); 22. Two (2) sets of Construction Drawings, representing "Architectural Review Materials," prepared by MTM Design Group, Inc., revision 2, dated May 17, 2011. (Please note these drawings are on file with the Building Department as well); 23. Two (2) signed and sealed copies of correspondence of MTM Design Group, lnc., dated September 7, 2010, regarding Grading & Drainage information; and 24. Four (4) copies of Property Survey, prepared by Arek Surveying Company, dated December 16, 2009, pursuant to Town Code Section 280-133A(5). Town of Southold Planning B'gard MetroPCS at Elijah's Lane Site Plan/Special Exception Application September 29, 2011 Page 3 of 5 With regard to the Special Exception Permit Application, enclosed are the following documents: 1. Original and one (1) copy of Town of Southold Planning Board Wireless Facility Special Exception Application; 2. MetroPCS New York, LLC Check No. 7433 in the sum of $1,000.00, which sum represents the Special Exception Application fee, pursuant to Town Code Section 280- 74A(3); 3. Two (2) copies of Building Department Notice of Disapproval, dated July 12, 2011, and Building Permit Application, dated July 7, 2011, pursuant to Town Code Section 280- 74D(1)(a); 4. Two (2) copies of Site Plan Application, pursuant to Town Code Section 280-74D(l)(b); 5. Original and one (1) copy of Affidavit of Dan Olmetti regarding future co-location, pursuant to Town Code Section 280-74D(2); 6. Original and one (1) copy of correspondence of Bruce Nicholson of AT&T, dated September 21, 2011, addressing lease space on the existing pole to further satisfy the requirements of Town Code Section 280-74D(2); and 7. Original and one (1) copy of Affidavit of Nicholas Balzano regarding good faith effort and site alternatives considered pursuant to Town Code Sections 280-74D(1)(c), 280- 74D(2), 280-74D(4), and 280-70D. The gap and propagation maps listed above further satisfy the requirements of Town Code Section 280-74D(4). Lastly, please note that we have enclosed herewith MetroPCS Check No. 7623 in the sum of $8,500.00, which sum represents the technical consultant's review fee to be held in escrow, pursuant to Town Code Section 280-74A(4). However, same is submitted under protest, since, as the Board is aware, we believe that the $8,500 consultant fee amount set forth in the Town Code, at Section 280-74A(4) is illegal under New York State and Federal law and is unreasonable with respect to this co-location application. MetroPCS does not contest that the Town has the authority to request that the applicant pay for £ces for technical experts for applications that are highly technical in nature. Mo,/v. Board of Town Trustees, 61 A. D. 3d 763 (2d Dept. 2009). However, this application presents no such highly technical issues. Additionally, the Town Code separately requires MetroPCS to pay a Building Permit Application fee to the Building Department, in the sum of $500.00, and also to pay application fees for Site Plan Approval, in the sum of $1,000.00, and Special Exception Permit, in the sum of $1,000.00. It is has long been held in New York that "where a license or permit fee is imposed under the power to regulate, the amount charged cannot be greater than a sum reasonably necessary to cover the costs of issuance, inspection and enforcement" and "to the extent that the fees charged are exactly for revenue purposes or to offset the cost of general governmental functions they are invalid as an unauthorized tax". Torsoe Brothers Construction Corp. v Board of Trustees of Inc. Village of Monroe, 49 A.D. 2d 461,464 (3d Dept. 1975). The $8,500.00 consultant fee and other fees described above should be contrasted to the application fees charged to non wireless · Town of Southold Planning B'6"ard MetroPCS at Elijah's Lane Site Plan/Special Exception Application September 29, 2011 Page 4 of 5 telecommunications applications in the Town of Southold, which are often more complicated and more technical in nature than the instant application. Moreover, we believe the $8,500.00 consultant fee is unreasonable and illegal under federal law. For example, the Southern District of New York, Judge Stephen C. Robinson found this exact amount to be unreasonable and illegal. MetroPCS New York, LLC v. The City of Mount Vernon, 09 Civ. 8348 (S.D.N.Y., 2010). A copy of Judge Robinson's Opinion and Order is enclosed herewith. In that matter, MetroPCS sought a Special Use Permit to colocate with other carries on an existing structure. The City of Mount Vernon's Code required the payment of an $8,500.00 consultant fee. The City of Mount Vernon retained Richard Comi ("Comi") and The Center for Municipal Solutions ("CMS") as its consultant. The Town of Southold likewise uses Comi and CMS as its consultant. Judge Robinson held that the City of Mount Vernon's assessment of fees was unreasonable, citing, among other applicable cases, Synagogue v. Roslyn Harbor, 40 N.Y.2d 158, 352 N.E.2d 115, 386 N.Y.S.2d 198 (1976). Ultimately, on this point, the Court held that the fee provisions contained in the City's Code were unlawful because they failed to limit the amount of fees assessed, and because such fees were unjustifiably and peculiarly excessive with respect to applications for wireless telecommunications facilities. The Court determined that MetroPCS was entitled to a disgorgement of the consulting fees assessed, and struck down related portions of the City's Code. In doing so, the Court stated at page 29 of its Opinion and Order as follows: "Defendant has not presented any evidence explaining why it is more labor-intensive or time-intensive to review a special permit for wireless telecommunications facility... This is particularly true when MetroPCS submitted an application that was almost identical to three others already approved by the City and presumably would not have required that much additional work on the City's part. The Court is also concerned that there is no limitation on the amount of consulting fees that the applicant could be required to pay. The City of Mount Vernon has unlimited discretion to charge a wireless carrier prohibitive fees by simply dragging out the process and utilizing consultants tbr its convenience - rather than out of necessity." Furthermore, we believe the Town's retention of CMS and Comi as its consultant is inappropriate for the review of this application. Comi is not a New York state licensed architect, engineer, certified appraiser, or certified planner. Furthermore, Comi is not qualified as an RF Engineer.~ Accordingly, MetroPCS objects to the Town's retention of CMS and Comi, as such retention will delay the processing and review of this application. Furthermore, MetroPCS disputes Comi's qualifications to serve as a technical expert. MetroPCS does not consent to the application of any funds in escrow for the payment of fees to CMS or Comi or any technical i The July 29, 2010, Transcript of Proceedings in MetroPCS New York, LLC v. The City of Mount Vernon, 09-Civ. 8348, before Judge Stephen C Robinson, U.S.D.X for the Southern District of New York is enclosed as an example of recent testimony from Comi where he acknowledged that he is not a licensed professional engineer, a licensed New York State architect, a certified planner, or RF engineer. A copy of the Court's decision is also enclosed. · Town of Southold Planning B'6ard MetroPCS at Elijah's Lane Site Plan/Special Exception Application September 29, 2011 Page 5 of 5 consultant until a detailed invoice for technical consultant services is provided to us and it is determined that the services provided are reasonable and that the services provided actually involved technical services outside the scope and capabilities of the Town's well qualified Planning and Building Department staff. According, we respectfully request that the Town provide detailed invoices of any tasks billed against said funds. Should you have any questions with regard to the foregoing, please communicate with the undersigned. Thankiog you for your courtesies, we remain Very truly yours, RI~, NIELSEN, HUBER & COUGHLIN, LLP ,,,, By: ~ (-~ ~(/01,~ J. o~hlin JJC/mk Enclosures cc w/o encls.: Martin Finnegan, Town Attorney PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III DONALD J. WILCENSKI PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Re: Leslie Weisman, ZBA Chairperson Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Martin H. Sidor, Chairman ~o ~ Members of the Planning Board September 28, 2011 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. BOARD MEMBERS Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson James Dinizio, Jn Gerard P. Goehringer George Homing Ken Schneider Southold Town Hall '/x.~.~_J 53095 Main Road · I~O. Bo: Southold, NY 11971-0959 Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Board Leslie K. Weisman, ZBA Chairperson August 16, 2011 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) 8112/11 MTM Design NEW YORK, 11.3 Group LLC Architecture Engineering, Luis Moglino, RA Your comments are appreciated by September 19,2011. Thank you. Encls. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: July 12, 2011 TO: Rej Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin LLC for Metro PCS New York, LLC 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, New York 11743 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 Location of property: 415 Main Road, 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 Distdct is not permitted pursuant to Article XVll 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 fl4862, 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 280-71B & C and Section 280-72 & 73 of the Town Code. Authorized~Signature CC: file, ZB_~A, Planning Board Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. Ftc: $ Ofl~ N~: AFPLICATION TO THE SODTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS ilaeee No. 415 Street ~jah's Lane ]~amlet Metfituck S~l-Ml000$ectinn 108 Bioek 4 Lot(s) 11.3 Lot Sfze 80,494.15 sq. K ZoneLimitedBusinen(LBJ I (WE) APPEAL TR~ WRI'r rmaN DETERMINATION OF THE BUll.fliNG INSPECTOR DATED July12,2011 BASED ON MAP DATED Ida¥t7,2011 Applicant(s)/~: Mc~roPCS N~v York, LLC MMlingAddceH: $ Skylin? Drive, Hsmhom~, NY 10532 Telephone: ~14-~93-8f00 Fax #: Emaih NOT~ 1~ ~ ~ eomplm bebm f~ ~pHuOon Is dped by aprlk~.*', att. rnq,, agent, architect, bufld~, con~ vend#, etc. and nan~ of peraon who .gut repruents: Name ofRepresentative: Re, Ni~h~n, Hub~&Co~_~kl;n~LLP for( )Owner, or ( X) Other: Applicant Agent's Addrnl: 36 North N~w Y=k Argue, Huafin~on~ New Y~ 11743 Tdephone ~l~]00 F~ 631~l~ Em~: ~ghlin~mh~.~m ~ AppH~nff~e~s), or ~Au~o~ Rep~mmflv~ or ~ ~her Nm~Add~s b~ow: WHI~EBY THE BI,.~II.DING INSPECTOR REVIEWED ~ DASD Ma~ 1~, 2011 ~ ~PLICA~ON DASD ~y 7~2011 FOR: ~ Bufl~g Pe~t 0 Ce~2 of ~pan~ 0 ~e~fl~te of ~cupnn~ 0 Change of U~ ~ Pe~t for ~BuHt Cons~on ~her: nd DENIED Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appefded. (lndJcete Article, Section, Subsection of Zoning Ordinance by numbers. Do not quote the node.) AFtiele XVII Section 280- 70 Subsection (J)(2) and (6) T~e of Appeal An Appeal is made for: ~ A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map. n A Variance due to iock of ncceu required by New YoFk Town Law-Section 280-A. 0 InterpFemtion of the Town Code, Artfck Section D Reversal or Other A prior appeal I hu, 0 bu not been made at nv fln~ with remect to this orOuofly UNDER Appeal No. 3801 Ycer ] ~89' . (P/~z~e ~v ~ to ~ ~'or~ ~.,~.~. tkb question or coil oar o.O~cffor a~mu~.) *Appeal No. 4022 - 1~2; Appeal No. 40~3 - 1992; Appeal No. 4862. 2000; and Appeal No. 4573. WITHDRAWN Neme of Owner: ZBA File # RFASONS FOR APPEAL fmh~fom~/ ~ FA~~ONS: (1) ~ und~le ~ge de. mt m ne~ pro~ ff~m~, b~use: S~ A~ (2) The benefit sought by *he ~ppllcant CANNOT be IcMeved by tome method fusible for ~e ~pplicsnt to pmue, older *btm au sre~ vtrbnce, becsuse: ~ Att~h~d (3) The amount of relief requested Is not substantial because: Sc~ Attached (4) The varbnce will NOT htve ~n mlverse effec~ or impact on the physiol or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or dlsUtct bemuse: See Attached (S) Hu the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( )Yes, or (~No. Are there Covenants and Restrictions coneernln=~ tMs land: 13 No. [XYes ~ 'Fha b ~e MINIMUM that b neceu~ry and adequate, and et the same time pFeserve nd protect the charterer of *he neighborhood and the health, ssfe~, and wdbre of the community. M~C~, L~ Bv:~ S~e~ ~H~t or A~o~ Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Application MetroPCS New York, LLC ('MetroPCS') Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY SCTM#1000-108 4 11.3 Reasons for Appeal: i. An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if granted, 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 effect or 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. Southold Town Board o£Appeals MAIN I~0AO- ~tTATE: I~OAO 25 SOUTHOLO, L,I., N.Y. 11cJ'71 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1809 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN CHARLES GRIGOHIS, JR, .SERGE DOYEN, JR. JOSEPHR.$AW~CK! JAMES DiNIZIO, JR, ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Appl. No. 3801.' Matter of WILLIAM BA~I'~R, JR. for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XIII, Section 100-80B(1) for permission to utilize existing building and premises for assembly and manufacture of classic cars in this "C-Light Industrial" Zone District. ~ouation of Property: North Side of Main Road and the West Side of EliJah's Lane, Mattituck, NY; County TaxMap 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 Na~t~JkS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded~ and WH~AS, the Board has carefully considere~ all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this aDplication~ and WHEREAS, the Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas~ and WHE, REJ~S, 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 & Young, L.S. revised October 12, 1988, ~nder consideration. Pegs 2 - Appl. No. 31 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 BliJah'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 T~x Maps as District 1000, Section 108, Block 4, part of Lot No. 10. 3. For the record it is noted that conmumications 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 ~istricts; (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 - ApD1. No. Matter of WILLIAM BAXTER, JR. Decision Rendered January 12, 1989 RESOLV~u, to GRANT a Special Exception as applied and referenced above, in the Matter of the Application of WILLIAM J. BAXT~K, 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. -CT, Cv IVED AND FILED BY TI{E SOUTH. OLD TO%' l DATE I /~j~ HOUR Tovrn Clerk, Tov.m of Southo!~d___ lk GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 Appl. No. 4022SE. BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ACTION OF THE BOARD SCOTI' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 7654.$23 Telephone (516) 765-1800 CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY d/b/a METRO ONE. Request for Special Exception approval under Article VIII, Section 100-81B(1), 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 91000-108-4-11.1 (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: ~age 2 - Appl. No.~22 ~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 telecormmunications 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 ~age 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. ' lk APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P~ Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ACTION OF THE BOARD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-187.3 Telephone (516) 765-1800 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-t08-4-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){1} 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, Pa~e.2 - Appl No. 23 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 #11.3 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, s~bmitted July 27, 1992. This structure is free-standing (separate and .detached from.any other buildings). ~page 3 - Appl. No. Decision Rendered August i8, 1992 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. 8. 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: Ce (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= . PHge 4 - Appl. No. 'Decision Rendered August 18, 1992 Matter of CELLULAR TELEPHONE (METRO ONE) (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 Nua%ber 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: Pa~e 5 - Appl. No. 9ecision 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 ~uilding 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 teleCom~unications 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 · " ~23 '~ '~ Pa~e 6 - Appl. No. Decision Rendered August 18, 1992 Matter of CELLULAR TELEPHONE (METRO ONE) Villa. (Member Dinizio absta'ined.) This resolution was duly adopted with a q~orum vote of the Board. ~ lk GERARD P. GOE~INSRR, C~ · ,a~PpEALS BOARD MEMB~[~ ,, Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Homing BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (631) 765-906,¢ Telephone (631 ) 765-1809 FINDINGS1 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 FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on the west side of Eiijah's Lane, Mattituck, The property contains approximately 95,000 sq. ft. with 197.50 ff. 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 Carrnan-Dunne, P.C. The property is zoned Light-Business (LB). BA,~IS OF APPLI(~ATI()N: 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- 162B.3 within 300 feet, at a total height of 110 feet (overall). RELIE~: Applicant is requesting a height 10 ff. 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. Alternate 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 ff. 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 propeAy contains a 100 fi. tall wireless telecommunications tower, and the new tower is a TPege' ?- December 7, 2000 ~ App;. No. ~62: 1000-108-4-~[~ (Sprint) Southold Town Board of Appeals 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, itwas 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 GgE~ER, TO_~.T.~RA, _C.,..OLLINS, and HORNING. This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). ' / /~- , GERARD P. GOEHRIN(~ER ./' CHAIRMAN 12/z~/00 APPLICANT'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION (For ZBA Reference) Applicant: MetroPCSNew York, LLC 1. For Demolition of Existing Building Areas Please describe areas being removed: N/A Date Prepared: ~/4//~/ II. New Construction Areas (New Dwelling or New Additions/Extensions): N/A Dimensions of first floor extension: Dimensions of new second floor: Dimensions of floor above second level: Height (from finished ground to top of ridge): ls 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 necessary1 - Please describe building areas: Number of Floors and General Characteristics BEFORE Alterations: Existing 108'+/- monopole NUmber of Floors and Changes WITH Alterations: Proposed Iff+/- 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: Proposed increase of building coverage: ~ 60 $ ~- Square footage of your lot: 80,494.15 square feet Percentage of coverage of your lot by building area: I 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): 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 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING ~'f~'li YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION Is the subject premises listed on the real estate r,~ricet for sale? ..5 Yes l~No Are there any proposals lo ehs..~e or al'er I~d contol~? )~"No ~ Yes, please explain on aeached sheet 1 ) Are there areas that contain sond or wetiancl graeses? N/A 2) Are these areas shown on the map submilted with this application? N/A 3) Is the property bullrheaded betweell the wetlands area and the upland building area? N/A 4) Ifl~ property contains wetlands or pond areas, have you contacted the office of the Do Town 'Prustees 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. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below five feet above mcan sea level? ~ E. Are there any patios, concrete battlers, b~dkh,-~tds or fences that exist and are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting? A/I)A~' (Please show area of these structures on a diagram if any exist. Or state "none" on thc above line, if applicable.) the F. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concemlng ym0tr premises? ~o If yes, plcasu submit a copy of your building permit and map as approved by the Building Department and describe: or ~he owner G. Do you o~any co-owner also own other land close to ~gs parcel? ~/o If yes, please label the proximlly ofyoor lends on your map with ~his application. Ho tele~,;,~,nunt_catiq~ faciltv/and proposed use Same as exi~n~ me {,~,npt.~ ,~f~, ~'m~le-f~l~; pmpo~: .*me with ~ueSe or poo~, o~ m~ de~iption.) Me $ N - Authorize~d ~p~ture nnd Date ' Please list presant use or o1~ a~ons conducted at thh parcel CommerCial bulldin~ and public utilit~ wireless 2/05; I~0~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of MetroPCS New York, LLC : : At the premises: : : 415 Elijah's Lane : Northwest comer of intersection of Elijah's Lane and State : Route 25 : Mattituck, New York : Section 108, Block 4, Lot 11.3 : STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) AUTHORIZATION OF OWNER ff~ff' L ct% ~ T ~ '~0~('~ ~'-'~ ~, being duly sworn, d~ses ~d sa~: lamthe ~ ~ of ~2~ ~ ,own~inf~of thc p~miscs known ~ Dis~ct I~0, S~tion 108, Bilk 4, ~t 1 !.3 (the"~ises" he~a~er), and do hereby authorize M~PCS N~ York, L~ (~PCS' hereaRer), and i~ ~s~t~ives to bring such applications for munidpfl ~pmvais ~ may be n~sa~ for ~nstmeting or installing on the Premis~ such antenna, su~ s~e~ms, and relat~ equipm~t as MetroPCS may r~ui~ for the establishment of its public utility ~1~ tel~ommunieafion facility. As such, I will fully c~pemte with MetmPCS ~d its agars in obtaining any ~uired Approvals. Sworn to before me this (/~OT~ RY PUB~.I~ GAILA. GHOSIO Notary Pu.b, lic, ,S.t.a.[e.._Of New York NO. 63 ~IZ/U Qualified in Suffolk Counb* Commission Expires March 19,20_L~. ht~ps~/~uwc~webmat~~~pt~mum~net/msLfs-~r~htm~.&secunty--fa~se&~ang=en&p~pupLeve~~~~ 10/5/2010 APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM (FOR SUBMISSION BY OWNER ~ OWNER'S AGENT) Thc Town of Southold's Code of Ethics orohibits COn~licte of interest on the hart of Town office, and emolovees. The vuroose of this form is to omvide informntlo[L which can alert the Town of ocesible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid snme~ (Last name, first name, middle initial, unless you a~e applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such aa a company. If so, indicate the other person or company name.) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax Grievance Variance X Special Exception I f "0th~", name the activity: Change of Zone 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. YKS NO ~ Complete the balance of this form and date and si~l 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 hne A ttu'ough 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 ~reater than 5% of the $har~ of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); B) th~ legal Or b~n~ficial owner of any inte/'est i~o-nCi:ot~orat~ entity (when the applicant/s not a corporation); C) an officer, director, parmer, or employee of the applicant; or D) the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP 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.) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check ail that apply.) Tax Grievance Variance X Special Exception If "Other", name the activity: Change of Zooe 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 ihe shares. YES NO X Co~nplete thc balance of this form and date and sign below v~here 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 Submitted this Signature:( //~ Print Name: ~- Direction: Photo taken from the Nor"th to South Direction Description: All four corners for the proposed concrete slab within existing fenced equipment compound. Date taken: July 29, 201 I Owner: Arek Sm'veying Company Direction: Photo taken from the North East to South West Direction Description: Comers for the proposed concrete slab within existing fenced equipment compound, Date taken: July 29, 20 l 1 Owner: Arek Surveying Company Direction: Photo taken from the North to South Direction Along the existing chain link fence Description: Corners for the proposed concrete slab within existing fenced equipment compound. Date talcen: July 29, 2011 Owner: Arek Surveying Company Direction: Photo taken from a North East Direction Ogs_cription: North West Comer of proposed concrete slab along the existing fence inside the existing equipment compound. Date taken: July 29, 2011 Owner: Arek Surveying Company Direction: Photo taken from the East Direction Description: North East Corner of proposed concrete slab adjacent to the existing block wall equipment shelter within the compound. Date taken: July 29, 201 I Owner: Arek Surveying Company Direction: Photo taken [?om the East Direction Descri£tion: South East Comer of the proposed concrete slab adjacent to the existing Nextel shelter within the equipment compound. Date fallen: July 29, 2011 Owner: Arek Surveying Company 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 tal~en: July 29, 2011 Owner: Arek Surveying Company AGRICULTURAL DATA STATEMENT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF $OUT~tOLD WHEN TO USE THLY FORM: The form must be completed by the atplicant~or any special use permig site plan al~proval~ u~e vattanc~ or subdivision approval on properly ~ithin an agriculOtral district OR within 50Of att of a farm operation located in agriotltural district Ail al~li_~_#ons requirin~ an ~grleultural data statement must b~ referred to tlw Suffolk County Del~artment of Planning in accordance with Sec~ion~ 239- m and2$9-n of the GeneraiMunictt~. l) Name of Applicant: MetroPC8 New York, LLC 2) Address of Applicant: Ii Skyline Drive, Hawthorne, NY 10~2 ame Own (ifo r , plicant) ,a a 4) Address of Land Owner: ~./o 4~s Ell_leh'~ Lar~. 5) Des=iptiol~ of Proposed P~ect: ,~lcant i~rolmses to exten~ the exbtlng monopole and colecate its public utfl~ wi=less telecomrnunlcaUo~s antenfla8 on the extenskm, ~ Ir~tall related equil~'~e~ o~ lhe g~Omld, aS depicted In the plans submitted herewfth. 6) Location of P~perty (mad sad tax map ntm~ber): 415 Eii~ah'a Lane, Mcttltuck (1000 - 108 - 4 - 11.3) 7) Is the parcel within an a~-ic~tural district? [k'lNo DYes [lyes, Agricultural District Number 8) Is this parcel actively farmed? I~No DYes 9) Name and address of any owner(s) of land within the s~ricultur~l district containing active operation(s) located 500 feet of the boundary of the proposed project. (~formation may be available through the Town Assessors Office, Town Hall location (765-1937) or from any public computer at the Town Hsll locations by viewing the parcel numbers on the Town of $outhold Real Property Tax System. Name and Addm~_s l. t000 - 108 - 3 - 5.44: Joseph 8~lpman & Cathlean Shipman, 985 Elt~ah'a Lane, Matttiuck, NY 11952 2. 1000 - 108 - $ - 5.45: Jeas~h Shipman & Cal~leec Shipman, 985 Elijah's Lane, Mattltuck, NY 11952 3. 1000 - 115 - ? - 1'~.2: Frederick Koehler, Atto: Osprey Dominion Co., PO Box t 98, Peca~ic, NY 119S8 4. (Please use bock side of page if more than six property ownms are identified.) The lot n~ n~.y~) obtained, in edvance, when =quested from either the Office of the Planning Board at 765-1938 0r the~ Board of Appeals at 765-1809. MetroPC N S ~mgi~e-of Applicant Date Note: I. The local beaul will =licit comments fimu the owam's of land idantitt~ abov~ in ouler to consider the effect of ~ pro~d action aa their flu= ope=ion. Solicttatio~ ~11 be m,,a~_ by s~lyins s coj~ of ~ state.-ut. 2. COm~enta rets=ed to the local bo~d will be tskea into co~idemtiou as part of the ay=all review of this opplicatioa. 3. Copies of the completed AiFic~tm'al Data Statement v~all be ~em by applicant am~/or the clerk of the board to the property o~aers Idanfified above. The cost for maili~ slmll be [mid by t~ al~licaat at the ~im¢ the opplicabon is anbmitted for review, Faiinm Io [my at such time meam the application is hal ca.plate and cannot be acted upon by the beard. h tho I#.dNd q. ebedub ak° ~ 1000 100,00 04.00 ~~ ~ h~Town~ ~ h~ No, 4(X~ i ~TNI ~ b ~ IU~ to ~ ~ ~ ~ rm~ w~ ~1 run~ b ~ I ~I ~.~ mi ~l owno~ Nnmm, bits ~/Or ~: m COUNTY OF~ tm. ~ ullt no elO~Ulod tllo iiimo. ' COUNTY #OTAJ~Y pun,.ic IIn(AINN fl%lei ill ii potnl D# Ihl welllrly ~ of ~ljiib~l ~ aitd polnl b0i,R 2'Xq..qlj f,,,.! ,,vthedy hem the in~e~culion or Ihe noflherly lin4 et tim Main lq,~d (New YMk mate 29) omi the weglefly line rd fllUIk'q Leal, laid point aha bM Ih. ,lmihenlmly t'm,.r (,I 1 ,.t 2 sm ahowa e~ the afmmoMi(med mnl~ Ruonlnl ~ Io~lh ;7' 0~'00. W~..t minor ,be .motherly line of I,.Jt 3, 4M,0} fi~et ia lin now fir bmely e( Jo~ph Neville; Run,,l~a fhelir., Nmlh 2,1' 0~'lfl" Went along aid land 39.46 bet tf) e J~inl; Ronmq theneo Hoflh 2)' .q?.' It~" Wnl re#Il lionI laid land and puflmll¥ Idooll bad now or ~n~meflv of' the County of 101.47 bit to i poJn,; Ru~Minl lhlimo N0dh 70' ~O'5(Y' lsJ~ elfint Ilfld Dow or J'mmefly ,f (;ou.~ of Suffolk.load Mw or bnlla*l,~ ChlmI Ja ~ and.ilald flow or f*oJ~ei4y (~ornelt,m'! Mulon, 4M.~0 te,t to the wntorl.v line at mtjoh'n I,Lq~. RUnb~ IJ,mee So~th 35' O~'lO' I..'mq 1~74,~ felt to tho Ix~d or pin. M ITKCIINNINCt. : M#rTmj~ NY111lI State of M~ York, u u~ on hhibit "~_. A ~.", fl~T: ~& for ~ In ~ulk~tlm of tk mu of Interrelate on maid lpad ~ ~ld ~O: ~ exolualvo ~ ~k rtfhk-of-w~ ~ emnt ~e . ~rt~ ~ bmkn ~ve7~ ia lu~ ~ ;mhlbi~ ~b io~[Ludinal or in~rfe~ with or p~hlbiL tb tull use or t~ ~t b~ln Kr~t~, gr~r ~t~: ~ Grm~r ~ f~tm ~ Lbo Or~, ~rvi~ wirou ~ r~tLtti~ or olaf utlilk~ ~lem oL~r ~lem ~ in~t ii ~b ri~ u~er this Or~t. ~ivinf th/a Ornt a~L W h ~mt of ~i~ ~17 ~h~o~rstiu ~r ~lm Ornt ~ ~ tb ~mt -- -- ..-.rd, ~{a ~1~ of tk wblio which ~ R , V10~874 MAP OF: V10587, KEY PROPOSED .~=~'r-~,e c~..~.. SCTM # ~ IOO0- I05 OWNER AND IMP. TOTAL q. Soo 3qoo ~oo TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD STREET b~,~ 1VILLAGE [ D~ST.1 SUB. LOT ~._ REMARK~ ACR. t.~'~;/~x'l,o-LIz~,~(,'~z-~-~od[~,-£~/ ~,.-,~tl~,"~'.d'W/c TYPE OF BLD. PROP. CLASS DATE ! FRONTAGE ON WATER BULKHEAD HOUSE/LOT TOTAL M. Bldg. Extension Extension Extension Porch Porch COLOR TRIM -i Foundation Both I Dinette Basement Floors , K. i Ext. Walls Interior Finish LR. ~ Fire Place Heat , DR. [Type Roof Rooms 1st Floor [BR. i I i Recreation Room Rooms 2nd Floor ! FIN. B i Dormer Driveway Breezeway Patio Total 5WNER :ORMER OWNER VILLAGE LAND IMP. VL. TOTAL TYPE OF BUILDING NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE Acre Value Per Vclue Acre tillable Noodland FRONTAGE ON WATER FRONTAGE ON ROAD J r,,l:: PTH _ Plot , / BULKHEAD. /o --.: /O 7 o / / DOCK cnclos~ rdr_ut cd, PROJECT I.D. NUMBER 617.20 Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review 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 MctroPCS LEE ' 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Munl¢lDillty Town of' Southo[d County Suffolk. 415 Elijah's Lane. Mattituck, NY SCTM# 1000- 108-4- 11.3 SEQR 5, IS PROPOSED ACTION: I~ New I"] E~anslon [] MoCllflc&llard&llel'lflO~t 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: MctroPCS proposes to affix its public utility wireless telecommnnications antennas to proposed extension on existing monopole and install related equipment on the ground as depicted in the plans subrnitted herewith. 7, AMOUNT OF [.AND AFFECTED: approx. 160 square feet 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WtTH EXJ~TIN(I ZONING OR OTH~ ~N~ ~ND ~E R~ON~ WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? 10. DOEB ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDIN~ NOW OR ULTIMAI~Y FROM AN"f OTHER GOVERNMENTAt. AGENC*( {FEDERAl., STATE OR LOCAUI ~ Y~ ~ NO If ~1. lilt IgOr) i~ ~1~ 11. OOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VA~JO PERMIT OR AFIq~.OVAL'/ r-1 y# [~ Ho I! ye~ lilt igllt~y nlm4 incl plmgVlDprOvll 12. A~ A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WIlL EXISTING PERMfflAPPROVAL REQUIRE MOrNIqCATION? [] Y,, [~ No I If the sctlon la in the Coastal Area, and you sm a state agency, complete the I Coastal Assessment Form belors proceeding with this assessment OVER =ART fi--ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS~NT (To be completed by Agency) - y. No COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING; lAc,wetS may ce hanClwr~tIln, il ~egi=let C5 Growtfl. sucsecluenl cievelopmeflt, of relale~t activities likely to be inouceC Dy the preFoeecI acllon? Explain criefly. Long term. sJlort term. cumulalive, Of Diner effects net identifilC in Gl-CS? Exgtiin Oriefl¥. 0. WILL THE PROJEGT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARAGTERi~'TiCS THAT CAUSED THE ESTASMSHMENT OF A CEA? E. ~S THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? ~ Yes [] NO II Yet, explain Drtefly PART Ill--DETERMINATION OF SIQNIFIGANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect Iclentlfled adore, determine whether tt~ substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Eac~ effect should I~e assessed in connection with its (Ii setting (I.e. urOan or rural}; (bi probaOtllty of occurring; (c~ cturatlon; irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (I) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or refemflce suPDorUng materials. Ensure tt~st exolanations contain sutflciant detill to show thlt all relevant aclvlr~e impacts hive t)een identified an~ adequately acidressecl. If question D of Part II was checked yes, the cletermlnatlon sncI signillc~'nca must evaluate the ~ofentlat impact of the proposed action on [fie environmental charicteristics of the CEA. [] Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially largs or significant adverse irrrl:~,~cts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. [] Check this box ii you have determined, based on the information and analysis ahovs 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 cleterminetion: Date ESEC NO NOTICE ~ (~) 82 43A[C) 13.6 12 7 t3.11 13.6 9.3 TO~N O~F SOUTHOLD BUILDING DF_,PARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 TEL: (651) 76S.1802 FAX: (631) 765-9502 SoutholdTown.NorthFork-aet Examined ,20 . Approved ,20 Disapproved a/c P~RMIT NO. BUILDINO PERMIT APPLICATION CtiF.(~ Do ),ou bay-. e~ ami the folk~vi~ ~ ~i~? 4 m~ of B-~a~"g plato Sa,veX. N.Y.S.D.ILC. S~a-Wa~r A~mat Form~ C~!*a,.*: Attorney for Applicant:. ~ to: Re, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP 3~ N. New York Ave., Huntington, NY 11743 Expiration ; 20 Buildi~ Impeomr -APPLICATION FOR B .U~ING PERMIT Da~ ...~O~t~ -~ ,20// INSTRUC'i'IONS a. This application MUST b~ c~npl~taly filial ia by typewrim' or in ink and submiWed m tha B,ilaln_~ ~ with 4 · s~ts of plans, ~ plot plaa to ac~i~. F~ a~mding to mc~dule. b Plot plan showing ~ of lot ami of buik{iagm on pmuu.m~ mlatiomhip m adjo,~mg pmmaas ot publi~ att~a or a~eas, and waiexways. .... ¢. Th~ work c~vea~d by this applicafioa may not ~ coumw, a~d beY~ ~ of Bm!d'''° pea'mit. d. Upea apprOval of this applkafi~ ~i~ ~ ~-~ will immu~ a auila}ng Panai~ to ~l~ appiicam. Suc~ a pezmit shall t~ k~pt oa th~ p~k~.m availabl~ fur imp~ioa ll~oughout ~t~ wod~ ..... :-, M ,,..a ~. ,,a,~, ot ia tort for may pUtlX~ what so ove~ uotU {i~ B'_'i_}di-g lusp~.o~ ¢. No building stmu u~ oc~,uia~ ,n ,,.,.~ .... ,--- issuas a Ceni~cat~ of Oc~upeaoy. f. Bvery buiidiug p~'mit shah axpim ff~ work authotiz~ ham not c~mmcused w~hin 12 months ~ ll~ ~ of issuanc~ or has not tx~a comps___ wama · property have be~m anat~d iu li~ ialadm, l~ B'_"_'h~i-g ~ may authoti~, iu ~ lt~ e~_-"'~n offl~ ~ for a~ addition six months. T{me~afl~, a n~w p~mmlit mha{l {~ mquk~d. .................... ~ .... .6.,- th,, · O~ a B,,ildin~ pglll~t tM{.~ IO gh~ APPLICATION IS HBRBBY ~ m u~ o,,,,u~ ~,~l,~,,~, ,,,...,-- ~auaa~ .. puts Building Zor~ Ordinaa~ of~ Tovm of 8oulhold, Suigulk Coua~, Nmw Yo~k, anti other ~ Laws, Oidimuo~ or Regulations, for ~h~ ~onsUu~tioa of buikiia~ atklili~m, at aimafi°m °t f°~ mm°val ~ d~m°lUiau am hamia ~a~sod' ~ ........... .,_ ...a ..~,..a.,~,,,,~ ~ to admit applicant agr~s to ~omply with ail app{i~bk~ iawa, mdiaauc~ bu{ldiag ~ uuuang ~ ~ .,~..--.~. . authorized iuap~'tors on pre. mim~ aud ia buii,4!n~ for nt~zzary iml:o~mm. MeI~oPCS New York, LLC 5 Skyline Drive, H~w~aomc, NY 10532 Stat~ whc~r applicant is owner, le,.~, age~ archit~, eagin~, gcaea'al couUactor, ~i~tric~ plumbor or ~ Applicant is Lessee N , ~ · William J Raxter, Jr, Patricia gtnxter alld Robert'A Goe let, Jr., au~Jane P. _CLO4~O.er ' ., amc or owncr olpream~ =. ' "! ' ..c~r~.o~ a_.~~. " _ lf_aoul~.aut is ,~,,6zad offw~r MeffOl't.'b new yOlX,'Lt.tt~ ~_~.__.~g~_ ~ . BY: . 0qame and titl-~ of c~r[~a~ ot~a~r) Build~'s Lic~ase No. Plumbers Licga.~ No. Electricians Lic~nse No. Oth~ Trade's Lic~as~ No. N/A Location of land on whiah propo~ wo~ will b~ doan: 415 Eli,iah's Lane House Number Sm~ County Tax Map No. 1000 S~tion Subdivision Mat~tu~k Block 4 Film Map No. I Jot . il.3' Lot Rtate ~xi~d~ t~ m~d oc. cupm~y of promises m~l ~d~ ~e ~d ~ of~.~: ..... a. ~is~ag ~ ~d ~ ~i~inl ~ild~g ~d pubhc utthw ~ml~s tel~ommumca~ons tacm~ - ~blie Ufili~ Witless Tel~uni~afionS' Faeili~ b. In~d~ Use ~d o~ ~!~ '~ W~ A~li~t ~se ~ extend the existing If garage, n~r ~ ~m ~o~e~i~ building ~d public ufili~ wi~l~s tel~ommunicafi~ Height Numar ~ $to~8 * Existing 108%/- m~le with existing lighming ~d the~on Di~nsions ~ sa~ ~m wRh a~lons or ad~ns~ Front Rear De~ ~ Numar of S~s * 118'+/- mon~le ~th ~l~ated lighming ~d th~n He~ht .Numar Of S~ * ~ I 0'+/-'extra,on to existing m~o~le and ~pos~ 160 square ,80,49a. I 5 ~a~ f~ f~t ~ipme~ ~ g I mince , Ad~~ No 732-8884210 ~ame of ~n~ · ' NO x STATE OF N'~W YORK) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: July 12, 2011 TO: Re: Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin LLC for Metro PCS New York, LLC 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, New York 11743 Please take notice that your application dated July 7, 2011 * JUL 14 2011 For permit for extension of& co-location on an existing wireless comm. tower & related equipment Location of property: 415 Main Road, 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 Distdct is not permitted pursuant to Article XVll 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 280-71B & 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. APPEALS BOARDMEMBERS ~ Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S, Collins George Homing BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631-) 765-1809 FINDINGS DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2000 ApPk No~ 4862 ~SPRI;NT SPECTR!UM, L.P. 1000408-4-I-1~3 STREET &.LOCATION: 4i5 Elijah s Lane, Mattituck DATEOF pUBLIC HEARING: November 16, 2000 FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on the west side of Elijah's Lane, Mattituck. The p{operty conta ns 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 anti,rear yard structures~as s~ho~n on the Map dated August 13, 199, prepared by Carman~Dunne, P.C. The:property i~ ZOned Light-BUsiness (LB). BAS,IS OF AP~UCA3;IO~!-:au,!!~mg Inspectoes May 31,2000 Notice of Disapproval for themason that app!!cant's proposed wii-eleS~'telecommunication tower exceeds the height limited under Section 100- 162B.3 withifl 300 feet, at a total height of 110 feet (overall). RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant is requesting a height 1'0 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.BOAR~;ACTION: Based on the testimony and record before the Board and personal inspection, the'Bo~ard [ii~kes the following findings: ' (1) The proposed monopole tower will replace the existing tower arzd will add co-location facilities, which is encourage(] by the Southold Town Code. Co-location of telecommunication antennas are needed and will, enhance efficiency with expanded coverage. Alternate sites for the tower, to obviate the need for a vanance, 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 vadance will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions. (4} Grant of the requested vanance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable applicant to co4ocate 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 App;. No 4'~e~62:1000-108-4-11.3 ~ 'nt) \~'~ .~0~' SouthoId Town Board of Appeals C~'~ 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 aimraff 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 ~E~ER, TO_~_T.~)RA, ~;)LLINS, This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). /, ' ~ y~.~///~:/ // GE~RD P. GOEHRI~ER / / CHAIRMAN 12/z~/00 / and HORNING. i E, E_,V D AND FILED THE SOUT~iLOLD T0'~¢14U:'~'"~' ~.~7.~.,u~ Town Cte~:k, Town of Souti'~old TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOW~ HALL SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 TEL: (631) 765-1802 FAX: (631) 765-9502 SoutholdTown.NorthFork.net Examined ,20 Approved , ,20. Expiration ,20 PERMIT NO. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST Do you have or riced the following, beforo applying'/ Board of H~alth 4 s~s of Building Plans Planning Board approval Surwy Ch~k Septic Form N.Y.S.D.E.C. Trust~es Flood Permit Storm-Water Assessment Form Contact: Attorney for Applicant:. Mail to: Re, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP 36 N. New York Ave., Huntington, NY 11743 Phone: 6314254100 Building Inspector · APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT INSTRUCTIONS Date ,-~-Ot~ -q' ,20// a. This application MUST be eompletdy filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector with 4 sets of plans, accuratg plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan ~howing location of lot and of buildings on premise~, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and waterways. c. The work covered by this application may not I~ commcoced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such a permit shall be kept on the premises available for insp~-tion thronghout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose what so ever until the Building Inspector issues a Certificate of Occupancy. f. Every building permit shall ~xpir~ ffthe work authorized has not eommen~d within 12 months m~er the date of issuance or has not been completed within 18 months from such date. If no zoning amendments or other regulations affecting the property have been ananted in the interim, the Building Inspector may authorize, in wfiting~ the extension of the permit for an addition six months. Thereafter, a new permit shall be required. APPLICATION IS HERBBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southuid, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions, or alterations or for removal or demolition aa h~ein de~ribad. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building node, homing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. MetroPCS New York, LLC (Signature of applicant or name, if a corgoration) 5 Skyline Drive, Hgwthom~, NY 10532 (Mailing address of applicm0 State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrici~, plumber or builder Applicalit is Lessee Name of owner of oremises_William J. Bax~r, Jr., Patricia Baxter, and Robert A. Goeller, Jr., aq,d~J, anp. P.· ' f'~ ~ ./7///l (As on the tax roll or latest deed).' If. apricot is g,cqrl~ion, s~gh~/t~d l~author",r, ed officer F By: (Name arid title of c~r~rat~ officer) Builders License No. Plumbers License No: Electricians License No. Xther Trade's License No. N/A ocation of land on which proposed work will be done: 5 Elijah's Lane Matiituck se Number Street Tax Map No. 1000 Section 108 Hamlet Block 4 Eot ~ Filed Map No. Lot 2. State existing use and °ccgpancY.°f Premises and intended use and °ccupancy °f pr°p°sed c°nstmcti°n: a. Existing use and ocoupancy Commercia! building and public utility wireless telecommunications facility "Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility b. Intended Use and occupancy 3. Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building Addition- Alteration · Other Work Applicant propose to extend the existing R · Removal · Demolition .... . epalr . , ,~x ..... ~nmm.nicati0ns antennas on the extension, anu install (Desoripfion none ole and colocate itspUDIIC Utility ,)vita. le$,s 3u-~.~---;- ....... c · - - '., ~, -- -- ) ~elate~ ~quipml~n~ or~ the ground, al! ~ oep~cteo In ~e plans suomttt~e~erew~m. * . . 4. Esttmareat, ost $) ~s.ooo 0o . (To be paid' on filing this appheation) 5. If dwelling, number Of dwelling units N/A Number.of dwelling units on each floor If garage, number of cars 'Commercial building and public utility wireless telecommunication 6. If business,commerclal °r mixed °ccupancy' specify nature and extent °f each type °f usefaciliw 7. Dimensions of, existing structures, if any: Front Rear .Depth ... Height_ .Number of Stories . Existing 108,+/. monopole with existing lightning rod thereon Dimensions of same structure with a terat ohs or addffions* Front Rear Dep{h Height Number of Stories * liS'+/- monopole with relocated - lightning rod thereon 8. Dimenslonsofenttr newconstructi°n:Front Rear Depth. Height ' ,.Number of Storles* Proposed 10'+/-'extension to existing monopole and proposed 160 square / 80,494.15 square feet fbot equipment area 9. Size of lot: Front~ Rear Depth 10. Date of Purohase 4/2/1971 · . _Name of Former Owner ' William J. Baxter~ J~. 11. Zone or use distriot in whioh premises are situated Limited Business (LB) 12. Does proposed e°nstruotion violate any zoning 1aw, ordinanOe or regulation7 YES . NO x lot be re-graded? YES x NO Will excess fill be removed from premises? YES x .. NO 13. Will . William J: B~xter, Jr., Patricia Bax~/eor,4a~sd~l~ba~'LAfinGe~ller~.Jr',. -- ..... ~ n,,,-er of Dremise~ and 3ane P. G°eller Address~none e4o. 14. N~m~ ~,* ..... ,- Address~~h~ne No ]32488-6_210 Name of Architect MTM Design Group, Inc. - Address ' PhoneNo. . Name of Contractor 15a. is this property :within l 00 feet of a tidal wefland or a freshwater wetland? *YES NO X ... · IF YES, SOUTHOLD TOWN TRusTEES & D.E.C. PERIvlITS MAY BE REQUIRED. b. Is this property.within 300 fe~t of a tidal wetland? * YES_ NO_ x · IF YES, D.E.C. PERMITS 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 10 feet or below, must Provide topographical data on survey. 18. Are there any covenants ~nd restrictions with respec{ to this property? * YES x NO · IF YES, PROVIDE A COPY. STATE OFNEW YORK) SS: couNTY OF~ '~ (;:~ I~ ('~ \ ¥¥~7~ , being duly sw°m' dep°ses and ~Ys that (s)h¢ is the applicant (Name of individual ~ignin~ contra~t) above hareM, (S)He is the Lessee / Applicant (Contractor, Agent, Co~orat~ Officer, eto.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authQrized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his lmowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the apPlication filed therewith. · - ' ~ t.v.,~'~,dtt~,o/f [ ~ 20[ MetriCS New Y~r~, ~/ ',,~''-x~ '"'~ 01'1~1~t~5 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL TO: Re: Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin LLC for Metro PCS New York, LLC 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, New York 11743 Please take notice that your application dated April 21, 2010 DATE: May 7, 2010 MAY 1 8 010 : For permit tbr extension of & co-location on an existing wireless comm. tower & related equipment Location of property: 415 Main Road, Mattituck, NY County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 108 Block 4 Lot 11.3 ls returned herewith and disapproved on the tbllowing grounds: The proposed co-location in the LB District is not permitted pursuant to Article XVll Section 280-70(G), 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 122'. 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 280-71B & 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. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of MetroPCS New York, LLC : : At the premises: : : 415 Elijah's Lane : Northwest comer of intersection of Elijah's Lane and State : Route 25 : Mattituck, New York : Section 108, Block 4, Lot 11.3 STATE OF-~rL~t'~~:~- ) coui, rry OF'-62q- ) ss.: ) AUTHORIZATION OF OWNER . Iamthe O,~ ~rd~,"k of , being duly swom, deposes and says: , 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 may be necessary 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. Sworn to before me this Ai~PEALS BOAILD MEMBERS Geiard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Homing BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 7. 2000 Appl. No~ 4862 -SPRINT SPECTR!UM, L.P. 1000-108-4-1-%3 STREET & .LOCATION: 415 Elijah s Lane, Mattituck DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: November 16, 2000 .FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on the west side of Elijah's Lan~, Mattitu~,. 'The property ~conta ns approx mate y 95,000 sq ff w th 197.50 ff. frontage along the west side of Elijah's Lane, Mattituck. The property is improved with a one-story warehouse'building andjrear yard ~tructure~as s. he~T!on the Map dated August 13, 199 prepared by Carman-Dunne, P.C. Th~proper~y iS zoned Ikight-Bu~iness (LB). BASIS.OFAPPLICA!IQN.~ <BU,}~l~iag Inspector's May 31, 2000 Notice of Disapproval for the reason that app~s i3~oSed wi~-eie~'{&i~mmuhicaflon tower exceeds the height mited under Section 100- 162B.3 withih 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 heigh~ 20 feet greater than other structures within 300 feet. The existing telecommunications tower is: 100 ft. tall. RE/~SONS FOR.BOARD,AGTION: Based on the testimony and record before the Board and personal insPfection, the:B'oah:l m~ikes 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 neeUed and Will~ enhance efficiency with expanded coverage. Alternate 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 vadance will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions. (4) Grant of the requested vadance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable applicant to co-.locate with others for communications purposes, while preserving and arotecting 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 Pag~,2 - December 7, 2000 W- ~-"~ ~,~-- App;. No. 4~2:1000-108-4-11.3 ( nt) \'*~ .f-~O~ ~.- Southoid Town Board of Appeals ([~.v replacement, with an additional !0 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 aimraff 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 GQE-HRT~ER, TOB_T._ORA, _~LLINS, and This ResolutiOn was duly adopted (4L0). //.... j ~....~..~,/ HORNING. /' GERARD P. GOEI:IRIN~'ER ~' ,/' CHAIRMAN 12/z,~/00 / / RECEIVED AND FILED BY ~ sou nozs trow: I I Town Clo~k, Town of L~ou~mld TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 TEL: (631) 765-1802 FAX: (631) 765~9502 www. northfork, net/Southold/ Examined 20__ Approved ,20 Expiration ,20 PERMIT NO. BUILDiNG PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST DO you have o~' need the fellowing, before applying? Board of Health 4 sets of Building Plans Planning Board approval Survey. Check Septic Form N.Y.S.D.E.C. Trustees Contact: Attorney for Applicant Moilto: Re, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, 36 N. New York Ave., HunCtngton, Phone: 631-425-4100 NY 11743 APR 21 2010 BLDG. OEP'[ TOWN OF SODTHOLO Building Inspector LICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date INSTRUCTIONS April ,20 10 a. This application MUST be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submi~ed to the Building Inspector with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and waterways. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building InSpector will issue a Bt~ilding Permit to the applicant. Such a permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be Occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose what so ever until the Building Inspector issues a Certificate of Occupancy. f. Every building permit shall expire if the work authorized has not commenced within 12 months after ~e date of issuance or has not been completed within 18 months from such date. If no zoning amendments or other regulations affecting the property have been enacted in the interim, the Building Inspector may authorize, in writing, the extension of'the permit for an addition six months. Therea~er, a new permit Shall be required. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk CourRy, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions, or alterations or for removal or demolition as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, buiiding code, honsing code, and regulations, and t6 admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. MetroPCS New YOrk, LLC (Signature of applicant or name, if a corporation) 5 5k.¥tjmeDrive, Hawthorne, NY 10532 (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electricima, Pltunber or builder Lessee Wi~l£am J~ Baxter. Jr., Patrtcia Baxter, and Robert A. Goeller, Jr. Name of owner of premises ano oane Y. ~oe£ier ' ' '~'~e~i t Co n (As on the tax roll or latest deed) If apphcant ,s a/~m~~e o~n~u~y author,zed officer (Name an~l'~itle of corl~orate omcer)Ny VP/C: M Builders License No. Plumbers License No. N/A Electricians License No. Other Trade's License No. 1. Location 0f land on which proposed work will be done: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, New York 11952 House Number , " D\'qvYM County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 108 Subdivision (~ame) Hamlet Filed Map No. **Appll, c~t also prOpos~elated structural modifieatior prk as depicted in the plana submitted herewic-h. 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 lelecommunication Fac~ 1 ~ ty b. Intended use and occupancy Same as existinq 3. Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building Addition Alteration ll}~,p, air Removal Demolition Other Work X ~ 1 2' extens i on to the exi s ti ng 10 monopole, affix public utility, telecommunication antennas tnere~co, CDescri_tion~ '4.' al~sdtimi antSe~a~lostrelSal~%d, 0%%u i pment, as ~i~t{~pi cted il~etehe plans submitted herewi ~h. ** ~ (To be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number.of dwelling units N/A Number of dwelling units on each floor N/A If garage, number of cars N/A Commercial Building and Public utility wireless 6. If business, commercial or mixed Occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use. t;elecommunicattons , facility 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front Rear~.. ~ Depth Height Number of Stories *Existing 110' monop~rle , ~, Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions:*Front, ii= Rear Depth· Height Number~ of ~tories * t22' m<~,nopote,; · , , 8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front Rear ~ / Depth Height · ' Number of Stories * Proposed 12' .~xtentfon ~.o ~Xis~:~trg-amono[ole and . /. 80,494.15 Sq. ft. proposen lO'XI0! .e~lu~.i.~mentf!!~.omp0Und~' 9. Size of lot: Front Rear .Depth ................. 10. Date of Purchase 4/2/1971 Name of Former Owner William J. Baxter, Jr. 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated Limi ted B U si ness (LB) 12. Does proposed construction violate any zonir)g law, ordinance or regulation? YES__ NO X 13. Will lot be re-graded? YEs NO X Will excess fill be removed from premises? YES X NO __ · . William O. Baxter, Jr.,, Pa,~r..te._[~ ;B.q.~qteg, and Robert A. Goeller, 14. Names of OWner of premises&nd ,lane P. Om/ler.Address~]a~t~t~u>c[~, xill~n s P~g~e No. . Name of Architect HIM DeMqn ~roup, Inc. Address~Phone No732-~-62~ 7 Name of Contractor Address ' Phone No. Jr., 15 a. Is this property within 100 feet cfa tidal wetland or a freshwater Wetland? *YES__ * IF YES, SOLYrHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES & D.E.C. PEPdVIITS MAY BE REQUIRED. b. Is this property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland? * YES NO X * IF YES, D.E.C. PER/VlITS MAY BE P, EQUIILED. NO X 16. Provide survey, to scale, with accurate foundation.plan and distances to property lines. 17. If elevation at any point on property is at 10 feet or below, must provide topographical data on survey. 18. Are there any covenants and restrictions with respect to this p~operty?* YES X NO STATEOFN~WYORK) * IF YES, PROVIDE A COPY. SS: / COUNTY OF f4~¢#~,lt ~-' ~-~ (~ [rv~t~{~. being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he is the applicant (Namp of.individual signing contract) above named, . "(S)He is the V/9 ]~ ~z~ ' (Contractor Agent Corporate Offi~ffrqt~:) ~f~O .of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have ~i~¥n~tl h~md work and to make and file this application; that'all statements contained in this applicatiOn are tree to the best of his knOwledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before me this / t4' '~, day of Notary Public 20 By:Me~Lc Signa-gt~ure of Applicant Dan Olmetti NY VP1GM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: May 7, 2010 TO: Re: Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin LLC for Metro PCS New York, LLC 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, New York 11743 Please take notice that your application dated April 21, 2010 For permit for extension of& co-location on an existing wireless comm. tower & related equipment Location of property: 415 Main Road, 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 XVll · Section 280-70(G), 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 122'. 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 280-71B & 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. FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY SITE PLAN USE DETERMINATION Initial Determination Date: 5 / ~ / .,O ,~. Date Sent: ~'~ /__~ Project Name: N. Project Address: Suffolk County Tax Map No.:lOOG /0~"- ~./L'. //.:~ZoningD[stdct L6 Request:.~,z~,~;-,~ ~v~_.~,¢--~4'~..~ .~ ~'~-/,~.~L,'¢,.~ (Note: Copy of Building P~mit Application and ~upl~orting documentation as to proposed use or uses should be submitted.) Initial Determination as to whether use is permitted: Initial Determination as to whether site plan is required: Signature of Building Inspector Planning Department (P.D.) Referral: P.D. Date Received: / / Date of Comment: / / Comments: Final Determination Date: / / DeciSion: Signature of Planning Dept. Staff Reviewer · ,,~PEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard E Goehfinger, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Horaing BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box:l179 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631-) 765-1809 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2000 AppL No~ 4862 --.SPRINT SPECTR!UM L.P. 1000-I08-4-t-1~3 STREET &LOCATION: 415 Elijah s Lane, Mattituck DATE'OF PUBLIC HEARING: November 16 2000 FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on the west side of Elijah's Lane~ Mattituck. The p[;operty conta ns 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 end~rearyar(istructures~as shown on the Map dated August 13, 199, prepared by Carman-Dunne, P.C. The"W0per~y is zoned Ligtit-Bu~iness (LB). BASISOF:APPLICATION~ .:BU, i. ld[ng .inspector's May 31, 2000 Notice of Disapproval for the reason that ~PP~nt S ~t'O~)ose"d wi~;eie~,{~ie~ommbnicat on tower exceeds the he ght limited under Section 100- ;162~ 3 withih ~00 feet, at'a {0t~l height of 110 feet (overall). REI~ EF RE. UESTED: Applicant is requesting a height 1'0 ff. greater than its existing tower and which has an overall heigh~ 20' feet greater than other structures within 300 feet. The existing telecommunications tower is 100 ft. tall. RE~S,O.NS FO~ BOARD.ACTION: Based on the testimony and record before the Board and personal in~P~cti0n, the.Bb~d m~kes the following findings: (1) The proposed monopole tower will replace the existing tower ap.d will add co-location facilities which is encouraged by the Southold Town Code. Co-location of telecommunication antennas are nee~ded and will enhance efficiency with expanded coverage_ Alternate 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 Dr detriment to nearby properties. (3) There is no evidence that grant of the requested vadance will have an adverse effect or impact on ahysical 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 ~ag~_>- December ?, 2000 O( \%"k~)~J .'~ App;. No. 4L~62:1000-108-4-11.3 "nt) Southold Town Boa~'d of Appeals ' . ' replacement, with an additional 10 feet in height. (6) The vadance requested is not substantial. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Collins, itwas 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 G.O~-HR~ER, TOJ~.T~)RA, _C~..OLLtNS, and . .. This Resokltion was duly adopted (4-0). /// ~_~,~.W,~I/ . HORNING. /' GERARD P. GOEHRIN~rER / CHAIRMAN 12/z'~/00 / RECEIVED AND FILED B? SOUT LC;.LD TO Town Clerk, Towm of ~u~old.~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of MelroPCS New York, LLC At the premises: 415 Elijah's Lane : Northwest comer of intersection of Elij ah's Lane and State : Route 25 : Mattituck, New York : Section 108, Block 4, Lot 11.3 : STATE OF- t.ag.dg - ) corn, try ) SS.: ) AUTHORIZATION OF OWNER Iamthe , being duly swom, deposes and says: of ~ 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 may be necessary 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. Sworn to before me this By: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 'BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 TEL: (631) 765-1802 FAX: (631) 765~9502 www. northfork, net/Southold/ Examined ,20__ Approved ,20 Disapproved a/c ¢7/0 -t~ - ,¢,to Expiration ,20.__ PERMIT NO. BUILDiNG PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST Do you have o~ need the following, before applying7 Board of Health 4 sets of Building Plans Planning Board approval Survey. Check Septic Form N.Y.S.D.E.C. Trustees Contact: Attorney for Applicant Mailto: Re, Nielsen, Huber & CouKhlin, L 36 N, New York Ave,, Huntington, Phone: 631-425-4100' NY 11743 ~ April ,20 10 ~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLO a. This application MUST be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and waterways. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building InSpector will issue a Bt~ilding Parmit to the applicant. Such a permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose what so ever until the Building Inspector issues a Certificate of Occupancy. f. Every building permit shall expire if the work authorized has not commenced within 12 months after the date 0f issuance or has not been completed within 18 months from such date. If no zoning amendments or other regulations affecting the prope[ty have been enacted in the interim, the Building Inspector may authorize, in writing, the extension ortho permit for an addition six months. Thereafter, a new permit Shall be required. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions, or alterations or for removal or demolition as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, buiiding code, housing code, and regulations, and t6 admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. Building Inspector LICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date INSTRUCTIONS MetroPCS New YOrk, LLC (Signature of applicant or name, if a corporatiolQ 5 Sk.¥tjme Drive, Hawthorne, NY 10532 (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, Plumber or builder Lessee William J~ B~&rJr. Patricta Baxter, and Robert A. Goeller, Jr. Name ofownerofpremises ana dane ~. ' , ' '-'~7~ ed2di~ i t~ Co n · (As on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is ayam~~e o~n~¢~Yauth0rized officer sy: ( _ (Name an'-d~itle of cor~'orate officer)Ny VPIGM Builders License No. Plumbers License No. N/A Electricians License No. Other Trade's License No. 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, New York 11952 House Number ; ~?3rBJ{~relSk2 County Tax Map No. 1000 . Section 108 Subdivision (Name) Hamlet Block 4 Filed Map No. **A~pltc~fit also propos~l~related structural modificatio~i~ork as depicted in the p~ana submitted here~.. ~ State exiitinguseandoccupancy ofpremisesandintended use and occupancy ofproposed construction: a. Existinguse andoccupancy Commercial Building and 'Pablic Utility Wireless Telecommunication Facility b. Intendeduseandoccupancy Same as existing 3. Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building' Addition Alteration Re~air Removal Demolition Other WorkX ~ 1 2' extension to the existing 110..mo.nop9 l e,. aTfi. x pub..'1-~3( te. 1 .ecqmm. un. icat.~ on an~.en.n.a.s .~peretg,. YDescrintion~ ~ qsqq ln,sT~aJkl .reL~T, ea.e.O~ulpment, as~toOplc~eo 1~ ~ne plans suDm~ea nerewl~n:T~ ~ - (To be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, numberofdwelling units N/A Number of dwelling units on each floor N/A If garage, number of cars N/A Commercial Building and Publi~ utility wireless 6. If business, commercial'or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use. gelecommunica t ions , facility 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front Rear ' Depth. Height Number of Stories *Existi. ng 110' monop~le ' * Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front ~ !: Rear i. 7. Depth Height NUmbe~ofStofi~s* 122' manop~!.e 8. Dimensions of entire new. constructio~ Front , .Rear , Height ' Number o~Stories Proposed 12 [xten~6n ~ ~Xis~lng-inono~3ole and proposed 10' Xl'b . /, 80,494.15 Sq. ft. 9. Size of lot: Front Rear .Depth 10. DateofPurchase 4/2/1971 Name ofFormer Owner William J. Baxter, Jr. 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated L i mi ted B U s i ness ( L B ) 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation? YES__ NO X 13. Will lot be re-graded? YEs NO x Will excess flu be removed from premises? YES. X NO__ · William J. Baxter, Jr..-P&~rlc.tm.B~qte~, and Robert A. Goeller, Jr., 14. Names of Owner of premises~nd Jane P. OcellerAddress [~.~t~t~u.c~, ~i~ ~/~one No. Name of Amhitect HIM DesJ.qn ~roup~ Inc. Address~PhoneNo732-888-6210 Name of Contractor Address Phone No. 15 a. Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland or a freshwater wetland? *YES NO __ * IF YES, SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES & D.E.C. pERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. b. Is this property within 300 feet of a tidal Wetland? * YES __ NO X * IF YES, D.E.C. PERMITS 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 10 feet or below, must provide topographical data on survey. 18. Are there any covenants and restrictions with respect to this p~operty?* YES X NO STATE OF NEW YORK) * IF YES, PROVIDE A COPY. SS: COUNTY OF &~c$r~,)~ ~-~-~- ~,_ (.~ ~r~_~q. being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he is the applicant (blame or.individual signing contract) above named, . (S)He ist~;~/? (Contractor, Agent, Corporate Offi~./. ere0 of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or haveCg g i~gald work and to make and file this application; that'all state~nts contained in this application are tree to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before mgthis Notary Public 20 cg By:Me~LC Signa-f~ure of Applicant Dan Olmetti NY VP/GM FORMERLy / NOw OR I N°W OR LEGEND: NQT[S: / COUNTy OF SUFFOLK, N 70°30,50,, E AREA: 80,494.15 Sqg. 1.8478 Acres WOODED AREA CHUNG dA CHoI, CORNELIus j. M A S To N 475.60' NU D E S I 1.~1 p~Z GRO ARCHITECTUR-E ENGINEERING P. O. BOX 3 HAZLET, NEV~JERSEY 07730 TEL: 732,888.6210 FAX: 732.847.4335 Lou Mo~tno, AIA] Robert W. Toms, P.E. I~ - ~ AH3345 IN]' ~ GE 36209 ~- ~075~ ~- ~ 028992-1 ~. ~ 2275 PA-~6~ 5; 77006,00" I,F F°RMERL y J O S E P H N £ Vi L L; El Law' SURVEY OF PROPER~ L~OAZED AT: J ~ITB PLAN 488.05, Wireless for All. 5 SKYLINE DRIVE HAWTHORNE, NY 10532 ~-I--~, ELIJAH LANE NiATTITUC-K, NY IIq~.2 CO-LOCATION tDHo PNIo 12/30/0q jJ.O# / / / / / / / / / / 1 NEXTEL I EEd~UIPHENT PLAN DESIGN.o GROUP AKCHITECTUKb ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 3 HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 TEk 732.888.6210 FAX: 732.847.4335 NJ - ~ A113345 Nq. i¢ GE 36209 NY- g~ 028~2-1 CT-~22375 ~A- g~ 06141~ me'troPC Wireless for All. HA~rrHoRN~, NY ~0532 ~r~ ..~,~,,, oqMF~T,5020 415 ELIJAH LANE MATTITUG~--, NY I Iq~2 GO-LO~,ATION BHo F~o I;2/50/0~ EE C::;~LJ i F=,h-'rENT F='LAN MONOF:'OLE ELEVATION A=2 ELEVATION Wireless for All. SIT~ I~ ~ NY'~515 4t5 ELIJAH LANE ~1ATTITUO~, NY' 11~52 APPROVALS LECAL DESC, t~.IPTION: PP. OJEGT INFORMATION: NU ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 3 ~, NEVq JERSEY 07730 TEL: 732,888.6210 FAX: 732.847.4335 LOGATION hdAP: TITLE P~.OJEGT D I REGTOt~,¥: HALL ,metroPC& Wireless for All. 5 SKYLINE DRIVE HAWTHORNI~ NY t0~32 ~ -,.<:~", NY"-/DI5 51TE INPORNATION 41~ t=:LIJAH LANE VlATTITUGK., NY 11~2 CO-LOCATION t~-to ~Fo 12/5010<:f SHEET TITLE FOR INTERNAL USE ONLy SITE PLAN USE DETERMINATION Initial Determination Date: 5~ / ~-- / /0 ,~, Project Name: ~. Project Address: ~/,~' DateSent: ~ ! ¢ / /c3 Suffolk County Tax Map No.:1000~ /O~'- ¢ - //2 Zoning District: Request: ,~'~,~ ~ ~,¢~/.,~'~...--~ .~x ¢'*'-/'~J'*'":"~ (Note: Copy of Building Permit Application and supporting documentation as to proposed use or uses should be submitted.) Initial Determination as to whether use is permitted: Initial Determination as to whether site plan is required: Signature of Building Inspector Planning Department (P.D.) Referral: P.D. Date Received:__/__/ Dateof Comment:. ,~-"/ I // J O Comments: Final Determination Date: / / Decision: Signature of Plarmfng Dept. Staff Reviewer TOWN OF SOUTHOLD iBUILDING ,DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 TEL: (631) 765-1802 FAX: (631) 765r9502 www. northfork, net/Southold/ Examined 20__ Approved ,20 Disapproved a/¢ Expiration ,20__ PERMIT NO. BUILDING pERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST Do you have oi' need the following, bel°om applying? Board of Health 4 sets of Building Plans. Planning Board approval Survey Check Septic Forte N.Y.S.D.E.C. Trustees Contact: Attorney for Applicant Mailto: Re~ Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLI 36 N. New York Ave., Huntington, Phone: 631-425-4100 NY 11743 APR 21 2010' BLDG. DEPt ~ April 20 10 TOWN OF SOUTHOLO a. This application MUST be completely tilled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector with 3 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and waterways. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such a permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e. No building shall be Occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpo~se what so ever until the Building Inspector issues a Certificate of Occupancy. f. Every building permit shall expire if the work authorized has not commenced within 12 months after the date of issuance or has not been completed within 18 months from such date. If no zoning amendments or other regulati~ons affecting the property have been enacted in the interim, the Building Inspector may authorize, in writing, the extension ofthe permit for an addition six months. Thereafter, a new permit Shall be required. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction 0f buildings, additions, or alterations or for removal or demolition as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, buiiding code, housing code, and regulations, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessar~ inspections. Building Inspector AcATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date INSTRUCTIONS MetroPCS New YOrk, LLC (Signature of applicant or name, if a corporation) 5 Sk,¥1jme,Drive, Hawthorne, NY 10532 (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, Plumber or builder Lessee Will£am J. Baxter. Jr. Patricia Baxter, and Robert A. Goeller, Jr., Name of owner of premises ana oane r. ~oex±er ' L~ed~it Co--n' . (As on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a/l~'~o~~6 o~l~Yauthorized omcer ( ~e ~itle of co~rate officer)NY- ~ Builders License No. Plumbers License No. N/A Elec~icians License No. O~er Trade's License No. I. Location of land on which proposed work will be done: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, New York 11952 House Number County Tax Map No. i000'¥S$;tlon 108 Subdivision (Name) Hamlet llJJaVA~ ~A~ _ ~8r~0~[~ .~ Block 4 ~,~ ~ Filed Map No. _o~.et x~ ~ **Applicant also proposes~ated structural modification~w as depicted in the plans submitted herewit~ State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy Commercial Buildin~ and Public Utility Wireless Telecommunication Facility b. Intended use and occupancy Same as exi sting 3. Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building- Addition Alteration Repair Removal Demolition Other Work X ~ 1 2' extens i on to the exi s ti ng llq' mo.nopp lc.. a.tfix pub. ,lT6--~y. tel ,ecqmmuni cat.i on antennas ,t,~ereto. rnascri.tion~ ~ Ha in.sr, aAm rekalkea~o_uipmen~, asu~pic~ea i~3 the pmans suomitteo nerewith.k~-~ ~ 4. estimaroucost ~xz>,uuo eeo (To be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units N/A Number of dwelling units on each floor N/A If garage, number of cars N/A · Commercial Building and · ~ Publi~ utility wireless 6. If business, commercial or mixed Occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use. telecommunications , facility 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front Rear ,- Depth Height. Number of Stories *Existing 110' monop~!e i; , i'; Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front Rear Depth Heigh~ Numbed'of Stories * 122' mqnop~ei!* 8. Dimensions of entire new. construction: Front Rear ! ~ Depth Height ~ ' Number of Stories * Proposed 12' [xteni:~f/m ~:o exisgtrrg-qnono~ole and /~ 80,494.15 Sq. ft. proposed lO'xl~' .e~uipmenU:~eompound'-~ 9. Size of lot: Front Rear Depth ' 10. Date of Purchase 4/2/1971 Name ofFormer Owner William J. Baxter, Jr. 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated Li mi ted BUs i ness (LB) 12. Does proposed construction violate any zonir)g !aw, ordinance or regulation? YES__ NO X 13. Will lot be re,graded? YEs__ NO x Will excess fill be removed from premises? YES X NO__ . .. William J. Baxter, Jr.,,P~t~c~M.q.x, te~;, and Robert A. Goeller, Jr. 14. Names of Owner of premisesrind Jane P. OmllerAddress ~t~u>ck~, ~ ~/~one No. Name of Architect MIM Design 6roup, Inc. Address~Phone No732-888-6210 Name of Contractor Address ' Phone No. 15 a. Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland or a freshwater wetland? *YES NO __ * IF YES, SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES & D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. b. Is this property Within 300 feet of a tidal wetland? * YES__ NO X * IF YES, D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQLrlRED. X 16. Provide survey, to scale, with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines. 17. If elevation at any pOint on property is at 10 feet or below, must provide topographical data on survey. 18. Are there any covenants and restrictions with respect to this property?* YES X NO__ STATEOFNEW¥ORK) * IF YES, PROVIDE A COPY. SS: COUNTY OF ~¢4f~)~ ~-- ~m_,,~ 0 lrv~. being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he is the applicant (Name o~f.individual signing contract) above named, (s)m is the ¥ nn ' (Contractor Agent Corporate Offi~:.q~¢v) HMO · ~. ~ , ~ 1.4 . of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have.~'~tt ~e smd work and to make and file this application; that'all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before me this Notary Public By: Me.LC Signa-~t~re of Applicant Dan Olmetti NY VP/GM of Site ID NY7313A Subject Site $outhold 415 Elijahs Lane ~ *85 dBm In Building Residential O l~lattituck, New York ® Proposed Sites I~IAP 1 Town of Southold June 17, 2011 -75 dem iii buildil~r,~ Col¥1mercial Town Boundaries ~¢~ Site ID NY7313A ........ ~*~ Subject Site 415 Etijahs Lane ~ -85 d~m Ir[ ~uilding Residentia~ ~AP 2 ~a~ituck, New York a Proposed Sides Coverage from O~ Air ~tes and Subject Site Map Scale; 1" = 1.751 mi -95 dBm In Vehicle ~ O~ Air Si~s Prepared by Town of Site ID NY7313A o Subject Site Southold 415 Elijahs Lane ~ -86 dBm In Building Residential I~attituck, New York e Proposed Sites June 17, 20il ~AP 3 Town of Southo~d Site ID NY7313A 415 Elijahs Lane Mattituck, New York Town Boundaries Subject Site Proposed Sites On Air Sites MAP 1 Town of Site ID NY73!3A Southold 4i5 Elijahs Lane Mattituck, New York June t7, 2011 ~AP 2 Subject Site Coverage from Proposed Sites Sllbject Site Town ~t~:~:::: :;~ of Site ID NY73~ 3A Town Boundaries Southold 44 5 Elijahs Lane ~ -85 dBrr~ In Buildi,19 Residential © Subject Site ~AP 3 ~aAituck, New York ~ Proposed Sites and On Air Sites Town of $outhold Site ID NY7313A Town Boundaries 415 Elijahs Lane ~ -85 dBm In Building Resldelzdal (7 Subject Site IVlattituck, New York ® Proposed Sites June 17, 2011 On Air Sites MAP 4 Town o~ Southoid Site ID NY7313A 415 Elijahs Lane Mattitucl~. New York Subject Site Proposed Sites On Air Sites ~.~AP 5 Coverage flora Subjecl Sge at 55' Town ~ Of Site ID NY7313A Town Boundaries ~"'~' Southold 415 Elijahs Lane ~ -85 dE]m 1~ Buildirlg Residential C) Subject Site f~AP 6 Ma~ituck, New York ~ Proposed Sit~ Or~ Air Si~es ~nd p~oposed Sit~ at 60' Town of Southold June 17, 2011 Site ID NY7313A 415 Elijahs Lane Mattituck New York Subject Site Proposed Sit~s On Air Sites IVlAP 7 Town m~:ff~ O~ Si~e ~D NY7313A Town Boundaries ~"~ Southold 4t5 Elijahs Lane ~ -85 dBm Ii~ Buitding Reside~tisl O Subject Site ~AP 8 Ma~ituck, New York ~ Proposed Sites Coverage from Subj~t Site ~t 55' Map Scate: 1" = 0.6580 mi ~ Prepared by June 17, 2011 On Air Sites Nico Balzano NY7313 Search Ring 0 mi 02 04 0¸6 Pinnacle Telecom Group Professional and Technical Services Antenna Site FCC RF Compliance Assessment and Report METroPCS Site NY7313 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituck, NY June 30, 2Oll 14 Ridgedale Avenue - Suite 209 ° Cedar Knolls, NJ 07927 · 973-451-1630 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ANd SUMMARy ,6~TENNA A~d TRANSMISSION DATA MAThEMATICAl COMp[lANCE ANA[ysis COMp[lANce CONclusioN CERTI~CATIoN 3 5 7 12 13 Appendix A. BAckground on the FCC; MPE UMit Appendix B. Summary of Expert QualifiCAtioNs INTROdUCTiON ~~d SUMMARy At the request of MetroPC$, Pinnacle Telecom Group has performed an independent expert assessment of radiofrequency (RF) levels and related compliance for a proposed wireless base station antenna operation on an existing monopole at 4t5 Elijah's Lane in Mattituck, NY. MetroPC$ refers to the site by the code "NY73t 3', and proposes panel antennas arranged for sectorized service coverage and trensmitting in the 2100 MHz frequency band. The FCC requires all wireless operetors to perform an assessment of the RF fields emanating from all the trensmitting 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 pement, 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 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. ANTENNA ANd TRAnSMiSSiON DATA The teble below summarizes the relevant technical data for the propos~ MetroP¢$ antenna operation. Technical Data - MatroPCS Frequency Band 2100 MHz Se~i~ Coverage Type Se~oHz~ Antenna Manufa~urer & Model Andrew HBX6516DS-~M Maximum Antenna Gain 17.0 dBi Antenna Centerline Height AGL 116 fi, 3 in. RF Channels ~r Se~or 3 ~ 24 wa~ and 1 ~ 60 wa~ Antenna Line Lo~ Conse~ativel~ ignor~ (assumed 0 dB) 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 1/100t~ of the maximum that occurs in the main beam (at 0 degrees); at the 30 dB point, it is 1/1,000= of the maximum. Figure 1. Andrew HBX6565DS-Vl'M Antenna -Vertical-plane Emission Pattern 0deg 5 dB / division As noted at the outset, them am 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 wafts. In the 850 MHz band, AT&T uses as many as eight RF channels per antenna sector and a maximum transmitter power of 20 wafts. In the 1900 MHz band, ^T&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 wafts 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. Mathematical Compliance Analysis 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 Eom the ground. Our calculations will assume a 100% "perfect" reflection, the worst-case approach. The formula for street-level compliance assessment for any given wireless antenna operation is as follows: MPE% = (100 * TxPower * 10 (Gm.x.vdi=~0) . 4 ) / ( MPE * 4~ * R2 ) where MPE% = lO0 TxPower = 10 (Gm~-vdl~cJlO) = MPE = R = RF level, expressed as a percentage of the MPE limit applicable to continuous exposure of the general public factor to convert the raw result to a percentage 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 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 factor to account for a 100-percent-efficient energy reflection from the ground, and the squared relationship between RF field strength and power densibj (22 = 4) FCC general population MPE limit 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) offthe ground, as illustrated in Figure 2 that follows. height from antenna bottom to 6.5' above ground level antenna 0 ~ 500 Ground Distance D ~m 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 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. lO Ground MetroPCS AT&T Nextel Splint T-Mobile Verizon Total Dist~ ~) 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 0.0751 0.1846 40 0.0058 0.0311 0.0015 0.0404 0,0281 0.0114 0.1183 60 0.0042 0.0743 0.0181 0.0210 0.0970 0.0562 0.2708 80 0.0020 0.0681 0.0058 0.0032 0.1686 0.0920 0.3397 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 0.3218 0.9t58 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 O. ~'~ [u 180 0.2274 0.0893 0.0122 0.0250 0.1141 0.1594 0.6274 200 0.0305 0.0261 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 O.b/// 260 0.0079 0.3874 0.0770 0.0270 0.0909 0.0849 0.6751 280 0.0067 0.3557 0.0486 0.0531 O. 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 O.~/u / 340 0,0324 0.1008 0.01 O0 0.0089 0.0568 0.0638 O,z/z/ 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 O. 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 0.0191 0.0254 0.2340 0.3731 460 0.0048 0.0608 0.0475 0.0311 0.0233 0.2145 0.3820 480 0.0142 0.1254 0.0437 0.0287 0.0872 0.1973 0.4965 500 0.0131 0.1159 0.0404 0.0326 0.0804 0.2843 0.5667 11 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. 120 100 (~ 40 ¢ 2O o o COMPLIANCEASSESSMENT RESULTS Normalized FCC MPE Limit · Total MPE% Results 100 200 300 400 500 Distance (fi) 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 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 compiianoe 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. Chief Technical Officer Pinnacle Telecom Group, LLC 6/30/11 Date 13 AppEndix A. Background on the FCC MPE Umit 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 Envirenmental Pretection 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 Electronica 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 iwo 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 contrelled 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/cra2). 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 Exposm'e General Public Exposure (MI..~) ( mWlcm2 ) ( mW/cng ) 0.3- 1.34 100 100 1.34 - 3.0 100 180 / F2 3.0 - 30 900 / F2 180 / F2 30 - 300 1.0 0.2 300 - 1,500 F ! 300 F I 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/c~) 5.0 1.0 0.2 Occupafion~ ......... General Public I I I I I I V1 I 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 MPE 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 (w'r 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 (OET) Bulletin 56, "Questions and Answers About Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of RF Radiation", edition 4, August 1999. 16 AppENdiX B. SUPaM Ry o1: EXPERT OUAUflCATiONS Daniel J. Collins, Chief Technical Officer, Pinnacle Telecom Group,/..LC 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 Eduoation: · B.E.E., City College of New York (Sch. Of Eng.), 1971 · MBA., 1982, Fairleigh 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. HQ), 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 indust~ magazines 17 at&t Leslie Egbarin AT&T Mobility 5405 Windward Pkwy. Alpharetta, GA 30004 (770} 708-6162 GPO GROUP Kevin Clements 12600 Deerfietd Pkwy, Suite 2039 Alphamtta, GA 30004 (678) 762-3305 kclements@.qpd.qroup.com GPD# 2011263.95 April 25, 2011 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT AT&T DESIGNATION: Site USID: Site FA: Site Name: AT&T Project: 5679 10075046 MATTITUCK MetroPCS Tower Extension 06-15-09 METRO PCS DESIGNATION: Site Number: NY7313 ANALYSIS CRITERIA: Codes: TIAEIA-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 40° 59' 58.066" N, Longitude 72° 30' 40.202" W 108' Summit Monopole wi 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 wi (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, New York #: 071387-1 520 South Main Street. Suite 2531. Akron, Ohio 44311 . 330.572.2100. Fax 330-572-2101 . www,GPDGroup,com Glaus Pyle $chomer Burns and DeHaven, Inc Akron. Atlanta. Cleveland. Columbus. Indianapolis. Marion. Phoenix. Seattle. Youngstown 10~ Ft Monopole wi 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 11119109) have been considered in this analysis and consisted of adding a 10' extension to the top of the tower. TOWER SUMMARY AND RESULTS 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 J 83.3% I Pass ANALYSIS METHOD EISA 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 Preliminary Tower Summary Meb~o PCS Co-]ocatien document Siterra Site Lease Applicetion Metro PCS Application, dated 6/1612009 Siterra Tower Mapping GPO & 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 1219/2009 Siterra Modification Drawings GPD Job #: 2009285.06, dated 11/19/2009 Siterra 4125/2011 Page 2 of 4 10'8 Ft Monopole wi 10 R Extension * Structural Evaluation AT&T USID: 5679 ASSUMPTIONS 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. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. The tower and structures have been properly maintained in accordance with TIA Standards and/or with manufacturer's specifications. All welds and connections are assumed to develop at least the member capacity, unless determined otherwise and explicitly stated in this report. Tower Mounted Amplifiers are assumed to be installed behind antennas. All existing loading was obtained from the most recent previous structural analysis by GPD Job #: 2009286.49 Rev 1, dated 12/912009, site photos and the provided preliminary tower summary and is assumed to be accurate. All proposed coax are assumed to be internal to the monopole. 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 GPO Associates should be allowed to review any new information to determine its effect on the structural integrity of the tower. 4125/2011 Page :3 of 4 10'8 Ft Monopole wi 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. If 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 sub-component 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 pumhased from a reputable tower manufacturer. GPO 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. GPO 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. 4/2512011 Page 4 of 4 108 Ft Monopole wi 10 Ft Extension - Structural Evaluation AT&T USID: 5679 APPENDIX A Tower Analysis Summary Form 4/2512011 Tower Analysis Summary Form Moun! Attachment 108 Ft Monopole w/10 Ft Extemion - Structural Evaluation AT&T USID: 5679 APPENDIX B RISA Tower Output File 4/25/2011 RISA Tower dob 5679 MATTITUCK 1 of 4 GPD Group Project Dat~ 520S. Main St, Suite2531 2011263.95 22:12:31 04/25/11 Akron. OH 44311 Client Designed by Phone: 330-572-2221 AT&T MOBILITY awestrum FAJ~- $$0-572-1235 Tower Input Data There is a pole section. This tower is designed using thc 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 icc 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 °F. 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 Appurtenances - Entered As Area Description Face Allow Component Placement Total CeAa Weight or Shield Type Number LDFS-50A (7/8 FOAM) A No CaAa (Out Of 64.00 - 8.00 2 No Icc 0.11 0.33 Face) I/2" Ice 0.21 1.30 LDF5-50A (7/8 FOAM) A No CaAa (Out Of 64.110 - 8.00 l 0 No Ice 0.00 0.33 Face) I/2" Icc 0.00 1.30 LDF5-50A (7/8 FOAM) A No Inside Pole 78.00 - 8.00 12 No Icc 0.00 0.33 I/2" Ice 0.00 0,33 LDF6-50A ( I-1/4 B No Inside Pole 88.00 - 8.00 12 No Ice 0.00 0.66 FOAM) I/2" Ice 0.00 0.66 LDF4.5-50 (5/8 FOAM) C No Inside Pole 98.00 - 8.00 I No lee 0.00 0.15 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.15 LDFT-50A (1-5/8 C No Inside Pole 98.00 - 8.00 12 No Ice 0.00 0.82 FOAM) I/2" Ice 0.00 0.82 LDF6-50A (I-1/4 C No Inside Poke 98.00 - 8.00 6 No Ice 0,00 0,66 FOAM) I/2" Ice 0.00 0.66 LDF6-50A (I-I/4 B No Inside Pole 108.00-8.00 6 Nolce 0.00 0.66 FOAM) 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.66 LDFS-50A (7/8 FOAM) C No Inside Pole I 16.25 - 8.00 12 No Ice 0.00 0.33 I/2" Ice 0.00 0.33 RET Cable C No Inside Pole I 16.25 - 8,00 I No Ice 0,00 0.08 I/2" Ice 0.00 0.08 Discrete Tower Loads Description Face Offset Offsets: Azimuth Placement C~Ax ~4A~ Weight or Type Horz Adfitstment Front Side Leg Lateral Vert f~ I~ IF f? K 932QLG65VTEB w/Mount A From Leg 3.06 40.0000 64.00 No Ice 8.80 5.67 0.06 Pipe 2.57 I/2" Ice 9.53 6.79 0.13 1.00 RISA Tower Job 5679 MATTITUCK 2 of 4 Project Date GPD Group 520S. Main St, Suite 2531 2011263.95 22:12:31 04/25111 Akron. 0H44311 Client De~ignml by Phone: $30-572-2221 AT&T MOBILITY awestrum FA.E' 330-572-1235 Description Face Offset Offsets: or Type Eom Leg Lateral Vert ft 932QLG65VTEB w/Mount B From Leg 2,57 Pipe 3.06 932QLG65VTEB w/Mount C From Leg 3.46 Pipe 2.00 4' Side Arm A From Leg 1,53 0.00 4' Side Ann B From Leg 1.28 0,00 4' Side Am~ C From Leg 1.73 0.00 ETWI90VS12UB A From Leg 3,06 2.57 ETWI90VSI2UB B From Leg 2.57 3.06 ETWI90VSI2UB C From Leg 3.46 2.00 ETW200VSI2UB A From Leg 3.06 0.00 ETW2OOVS 12UB B From Leg 2.57 3.06 ETW200VSI2UB C From Leg 3.46 2.00 ( 2 ) 7184.15 A From 4.00 Ccntroid-Le 0.00 g 0.00 {2) 7184.15 B From 4.00 Centroid-Le 0.00 g 0.00 {2) 7184.15 C From 4.00 Centroid-Le 0.00 g 0,00 (2) ALP-9011 A From 4,00 Ccntroid-Le 0.00 g 0,00 (2) ALP-9011 B From 4.00 Centroid-Le 0.00 g 0.00 (2) ALP-9011 C From 4,00 Ccntroid-Fa 0.00 ce 0.00 Valmont lY LP Platform C None (4) DB844Hg0E-XY A From 4.00 Centroid-Le 0.00 g 0.00 (4) DB844H90E-XY B From 4,00 Azimuth Placement C,~A~ C~Aa Weight Adjustment Fn~nt Side fl .fi~ ft: K 50.0000 30.0000 40.0000 50.0000 30.0000 40.0000 50.0000 30.0000 64.00 No Ice 8.80 5,67 0,06 I/2" lee 9.53 6,79 0.13 64.00 No Ice 8.80 5.67 0,06 I/2" Ice 9.53 6.79 0.13 64.00 No Ice 0.82 2.87 0.08 1/2" Ice 1.02 3,33 0.11 64.00 No [ce 0.82 2.87 0.08 I/2" Ice 1,02 3.33 0.11 64,00 No Ice 0.82 2.87 0.08 I/2" Ice 1.02 3.33 0.1 I 64.~0 No lee 0.00 0.35 0.01 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.44 0.02 64.00 No Ic¢ 0,00 0,35 0.01 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.44 0.02 64,00 No Ice 0.00 0.35 0.01 I/2" Ice 0.00 0.44 0.02 64.00 Nolce 0.00 0,18 0.01 I/2" Ice 0.00 0.25 0.01 64.00 Nolte 0,00 0.18 0.01 I/2" Ice 0.00 0.25 0,01 64.00 No Ice 0.00 0.18 0.01 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.25 0.01 78.00 No Ice 3.31 2.63 0.03 1/2" Ice 3.69 3.28 0.06 78.00 No Ice 3.31 2.63 0.03 I/2" Ice 3.69 3.28 0.06 78.00 No Ice 3.31 2.63 0.03 I/2" Ice 3,69 3.28 0.06 78,00 No Ice 2,72 3.34 0.02 I/2" Ice 3,04 3,68 0.04 78.00 No Ice 2.72 3.34 0.02 I/2" Ice 3.04 3,68 0.04 78.00 No Ice 2.72 3.34 0.02 1/2" Ice 3,04 3.68 0.04 78.00 No Ice 15.70 15,70 1.30 I/2" Ice 20,10 20.10 1.76 88.00 No Ice 2.87 3.73 001 I/2" ice 3.18 4,10 0.04 88.00 No Ice 2,87 3.73 0.01 RISA Tower J°" "'g° 5679 MATTITUCK 3 of 4 GPD Group Project Date $20 S. Main St, Suite 253l 2011263.95 22:12:31 04/25/11 Akron, OH 44311 Client Designed by Phone: 330-572-2221 AT&T MOBILITY FA~' 330-572-1235 awestrum Description Face Offset Offsets: Azimuth Placement CAAA C~A~ Weight or Type Horz Adjustment Front Side Leg Lateral Yert ~ ~ ~ ~ K Centroid-Le 0.00 l/2" Ice 3A8 4.10 0.04 g 0,00 (4) DB846G90A-XY C From 4.00 0.0000 88.00 No Ice 4.99 5.87 0.02 Centroid-Le 0.00 I/2" Ice 5.44 6.32 0.05 g 0.00 Valmont l Y LP Platform C None 0.0000 88.00 (3) 800 10121 A From Leg 4.00 0.0000 98.00 0.00 0.00 (3) 800 10121 B From Leg 4.00 0.0000 98,00 0.00 0.00 (3) 800 10121 C From Leg 4.00 0.0000 98,00 0.00 0.00 (2) ETBI9G8-12UB TMA A From Leg 4.00 0.0000 98.00 0.00 OJ)O (2) ETBI9G8-I2UB TMA B From Leg 4.00 0.0000 98.00 0,00 0.00 (2) ETBIgGS-12UB TMA C From Leg 4,00 0,0000 98.00 0.00 0.00 Valmont 13' LP Plat form C None 0.0000 98,00 [ 2' T-Arm ( I ) A From Face 2.00 0.00OO 109.00 0.00 0.00 12' T-Arm ( 1 ) B From Face 2.00 0.0000 109.00 0.00 0.00 12' T-Arm (I) C From Face 2.00 0,0000 109.00 0.00 0.00 (2) 980F90T2E-M A From Face 4.00 0.0000 109.00 0.00 0.00 (2) 980F90T2E-M B From Face 4.00 0.0000 109.00 0.00 0,00 {2) 980F90T2E-M C From Face 4.00 0.0000 109.00 0.00 0.00 (2) HBX-6516DS-VTM w/ A From Leg 4.00 0.0000 116.25 mount pipe 0.00 0.00 (2) HBX-6516DS-VTM w/ B From Leg 4.00 -10.0000 116.25 mount pipe 0.00 0.00 (2) HBX-6516DS-VTM w/ C From Leg 4.00 0.0000 116.25 mount pipe 0.00 0.00 4' T-Arm (Commscop¢ A From Leg 2.00 0.0000 116.25 MC-DAI4-B) 0,00 0.00 No Ice 15.70 15,70 1.30 1/2" Ice 20.10 20.10 1.76 No Ice 5.46 3.29 0.05 1/2" Ice 5.88 3.64 0,08 No Ice 5.46 3,29 0.05 1/2" Ice 5.88 3.64 0.08 No Ice 5.46 3.29 0.05 I/2" Ice 5.88 3.64 0.08 No Ice 0.00 0.45 0,02 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.57 0.03 No Ice 0.00 0.45 0.02 1/2" Ice 0,00 0.57 0.03 No Ice 0.00 0.45 0.02 1/2" Ice 0,00 0.57 0.03 Nolce 15.70 15.70 1.30 I/2" Ice 20,10 20.10 1.76 No Ice 4.70 2.33 0.33 I/2" Ice 5.33 2.96 0.40 No Ice 3.99 2.29 0.01 I/2" Ice 4.37 2.65 0.03 No Ice 3.99 2.29 0.01 I/2" Ice 4.37 2.65 0,03 No Ice 3.99 2.29 0.01 I/2" Ice 4.37 2.65 0.03 No Ice 3.53 3.17 0.03 I/2" Ice 3.91 3.80 0,06 No Ice 3.53 3.17 0.03 1/2" Ice 3.91 3,80 0.06 Nolce 3,53 3.17 0.03 I/2" Ice 3.91 3.80 0.06 No Ice 2.87 0,82 0.08 I/2" Ice 3.33 1.02 0.11 No Ice 4,70 2.33 0.33 I/2" Ice 5.33 2,96 0.40 No Ice 4.70 2.33 0.33 I/2" Ice 5,33 2.96 0.40 RISA Tower 5679 MATTITUCK 4 of 4 GPD Group Project Date 520 S. Main St. Suite 2531 2011263.95 22:12:31 04/25/11 Akron, 0H44311 Client Designed by Phone: 330-572-2221 AT&T MOBILITY awestrum F~O~' 330-572-1235 Description Face Offset Offsets: Azimuth Placement C~A~ C~,~ Weight or Type Hor~ Adjustment Front Side Leg Lateral Vert ft fl fd ft~ K 4' T-Arm (Commscope B From Leg 2.00 -I 0.0000 116.25 No lee 2,87 0.82 0.08 MC-DAI4-B) 0.00 1/2" Ice 3,33 1.02 0.11 0.00 4' T-Arm (Commscope C From Leg 2.00 0,0000 116.25 No Ice 2.87 0.82 0,08 MC-DAI4-B) 0,00 I/2" Ice 3.33 1,02 0.11 0.00 [ Dishes I Description Face Dish Offset Qffsets: Azimuth 3 dB Elevation Outside Aperture Weight or Type Type Horz Adjustment Beam Diameter Area Leg Lateral Width Vert /~ o_____~ ,/~ /~' K 2' Dish A Paraboloid From 4.00 0.0000 98.00 ZOO No Ice 3.14 0.07 w/Shroud (HP) Pace 0.00 I/2" Ice 3.41 0.28 4.00 Critical Deflections and Radius of Curvature - Service Wind ] Elevation Appurtenance Gay. Deflection Tilt Twist Radius of Load Curvature I 16.25 (2) HBX-6516DS-VTM w/mount 36 21.224 1.3943 0.0048 94807 pipe 109.00 12' T-Arm ( I ) 36 19.108 1.3904 0.0047 45205 102.00 2' Dish 36 17,078 1,3784 0.0046 17967 98.00 (3) 800 10121 36 15.932 1.3631 0,0045 13337 88.~0 (4) DB844H90E-XY 36 13.138 L 2998 0.0040 811 I 78,00 (2) 7184.15 36 10.492 1.2043 0.0035 5827 64.00 932QLG65VTEB w/Mount Pipe 30 7.148 1.0259 0.0026 4102 Section Capacity Table ~ection Elevation Component Size Critical P SF*P,,~ow % Pass No. fi Type Element K K Capacity Fail LI 118 - 108.5 Pole TPI8x18x0.375 I -1.99 697.49 4.6 Pass L2 108.5 - 108 Pole TP24.24xlSx0,375 2 -1,99 704,69 5.0 Pass L3 108-72.17 Pole TP29.717x24.24x0.1875 3 -9.03 832.41 52.3 Pass L4 72.17 - 36.25 Pole TP35,2x28.9598x0,25 4 -14,17 1312.29 84.5 Pass L5 36.25-0 Pole TP40.68x34.2127x0.3125 5 -21.06 1921.41 92.3 Pass Summary Pole (L5) 92,3 Pass RATING = 92*3 Pass Program Version 5.4.2.0 - 6/17/2010 File:N:/2011/2011263/95/RISA/5679 Mattimck.eri 108 Ft Monopole wi 10 Ft Extension - Structural Evaluation AT&T USID: 5679 APPENDIX C Tower Elevation Drawing 4125/2011 Id hi lul DESIGNED APPURTENANCE LOADING MATERIAL STRENGTH TOWER DESIGN NOTES 1. Tower is located in Suffolk County, New York. 2. Tower designed for a 85 mph basic wind in accordance with the TIAJEIA-222-F Standard. 3. Tower is also designed for a 74 mph basic wind with 0.50 in ice. 4. Deflections are based upon a 50 mph wir,:l. 5. TOWER RATING: 92.3% AXIAL 27K SHEAR/ ~' MOMENT 15K ~' .t ~ 1240kip*ff TORQUE I kip-ff 74 mph WINO - 0.5000 in ICE AXIAL 21 K SHEAR/ MOMENT TORQUE 2 kip-ft REACTIONS - 85 mph WIND GPD Group 520 S. Main St, Suite 2531 II'LN r4~oVP Akron, OH 44311 Phone: 330-572-2221 FAX: 330-572-1235 5679 MA TTITUCK Pr~e~: 2011203.95 ] : AT&+ MOBILITY : TIA/EIA-222-F : 04/25/11 ; NTS Feedline Distribution Chart 0'-118' Face A Face B Face C 116.00 G.'~D Gro.p r~: 5679 MA TTITUCK 520 S. Main St, Suite 2531 ~Pr~,ct: Akron, OH 44311 Ic"*nt~ AT&T Phone: 330-572-2221 ~: TI~EIA-222-F Date: 04/2~11 S~ NTS Feedline Plan Rc~nd Flat ((~)~(P~) O(12) LDF5-50A (7/8 FOAM) (Ia) LDF6-50A (1-1/4 FOAM) O GPD Group 520 S. Main St, Suite 2531 Akron, OH 44311 5679 MA TTITUCK I AT&T MOBILITY awestrum ': 108 Ft Monopole wi 10 Ft Extension - Structural Evaluation AT&T USID: 5679 APPENDIX D Base Plate & Anchor Rod Analysis 4/2512011 GPD GROUP Anchor Rod and Base Plate Stresses 5679 MATTITUCK 2011263.95 Overturning Moment =] 1454,00Jk*ft [ Axial Force =~k I Shear Force =~k I ,aachor Rode Pole Diameter = 40.61 ~n Number of Rods = 12 Type= Upset Rod Rod Yield Strength (Fy) = 75 ksi ASIF = 1,333 Rod Circle = 47 in Rod Diameter = 2.25 in Net Tensile Area = 3.25 in2 Max Tension on Rod = 121.85 kips Max Compression on Rod = 125.35 dps Allow. Rod Force = 195.0C ~ips Anchor Rod Capacit~ = 62.5% OK Base Plate Plate Strength (Fy) = 55 ksi Plate Thickness = 2~5 in Plate Width = 45 ~n Est. Dist. b/w ea. ROd 6 n wc~c = 36.902 n wmax = 24.374 n w = 24.37 n S = 25.3~ ~n3 fb = 38.4[~ ksi Fb = 5~ ~(si Base Plate Ca~acit~ = 70.0% OK GPD Unstiffened Square Base Plate Stress (Rev F) - V2.07 108 Ft Monopole wi 10 Ft Extension - Structural Evaluation AT&T USID: 5679 APPENDIX E Flange Bolt and Flange Plate Analysis 4125/2011 5679 Existing MATTITUCK Flanga Connection ~ 105' Tensile Capsr~ = 520 South Main Street · Suite 2531 · Akron, Ohio 44311. PHONE 330-572-2100 · FAX 330-572-2101 GPD GROUP GPD GROUP ~ob #: 2011263.95 Engilleers. Architects · Planners Sheet No. I Of Calculated By: Checked By: ANW Date: Date: 4/25/2011 MAX BOLT FORCE CALCULATIONS Moment from RISA (M) = Axial from RISA (P) = 108' 13.42 kip-ft ASIF = 1.33 2.92 kips Bolt Diameter = 1.25 in Bolt Area (Ainu) = 1.23 inz Bolt MOl (Io.i~) = 0.12 in4 Number Bolts (Nime~) = 9 Bolt Circle (BC~n,,a) = 29.25 in Total Area (A~) = 11.04 inz Percent Total Area (q~.) = 100.0% Axial, Bolts (P*rl~ = 2.92 kips li~,~ = 1182.25 in4 It~x = 1182.25 in4 Finn~ = 2!7? kips (N~nn~*Ai,~=* BCim=218 + Ninna* Io.inna) (li.~ + lo,.= + I~) (M*(BCin,~/2)*A.~)/It,~ + P'nih/Ninny) Note: "Existing Flange Connection" calculations incorporate (12) total bolts for the purpose of calculcating max bending on the flange plates. 108 Ft Monopole wi 10 Ft Exter~ion ~ S&ructural Evaluation AT&T USID: 5679 APPENDIX F Foundation Analysis 4125/2011 I Site ID: 5679 Site Name: MA~rITUCK GPD GROUP Location: Suffolk County, NY Loading Type: Wind CAISSON ANALYSIS WORKSHEET ~ Job No.: 2011263.95 Sheet No: I Of 1 Made By: AW Date: 4/25/2011 Chk'd By: Date: Code: F FOUNDATION DATA Diameter = 5 ft Length = 21.5 ft Rebar Size = #11 # of bars = 16 Tie Size = ~4 Clear Cover = 4 inches Edge to Bar Center = 5.205 inches f'c = 3 ksi RISA Reactions [~ervice! Moment = 1454 ft-k Axial = 21 kips Shear = 18 kips LPILE TYPE 2 ANALYSIS FOR REINFORCING CAPACITY Mn = 44629.69 in-k Mn = 3719.14 ft-k Load Factor = 1.3 <~ (flexure) = 0.9 3347.23 ft*k MOMENT FROM CAISSON PROGRAM USING ADJUSTED S,F. AND ACTUAL CAJSSON LENGTH Moment = 1605.5 ft-k (max. moment along caisson) REINFQRCING STEELCAPACITY LF*Moment from Caisson 2087.15 ft-k Capacity = ~Mn 3347.23 ft-k SOIL CAPACITY FROM CAISSON PROGRAM USING ADDITIONAL SAFETY FACTORS ADDITIONAL SAFETY FACTOR FROM CAISSON = 2.40 - 62.4% O.K. Safety Factor of 2 Capacity = Additional Safety Factor 2.00 = 83.3% O.K. 2.40 CAISSON Version 4.46 Mon Apr 25 22:00:34 2011 U.W. Short Course - 1998 * PIER FOUNDATIONS ANALYSIS ~dgD DESIGN - (C) 1995, POWER LINE SYSTEMS, INC.* *** ANALYSIS IDENTIFICATION : 5679 M~TTITUCK NOTES : 2011263.95 PIER PROPERTIES CONCRETE STRENGTH (ksi) = DIAMETER (ft) - 6.000 3.00 STEEL STRENGTH (ksi) = 60.00 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) 3.00 0.00 100.0 0.0 12.00 3.00 100.0 2.770 28.00 3.00 15.00 100.0 3.000 30.00 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 SHE~R (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 AP=M {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 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) 8.00 43.8 3657.2 18.2 1523.8 2.15 43.8 3751.3 18.2 1563.0 4.30 30.2 3840.2 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 2870.9 -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 *** USABLE AXIAL CAP. (k) - 21.0 REINFORCEMENT AREA (in^2) = 12.21 USABLE MO~iENT CAP. (ft-k) = 1660.5 *** US Standard Re-Bars 62 AREA - 40 ~REA = 28 AREA = 21 AREA = 16 AREA - 13 AREA = 10 AREA = 8 AREA = 6 AREA - (Select one of the following): BARS 44 BARS 95 BARS #6 BARS #7 BARS #8 BARS #9 BARS #10 BARS #11 BARS %14 0.20 in^2 0.31 in^2 0.44 in^2 0.60 in^2 0.79 in^2 1.00 in^2 1.27 in^2 1.56 in^2 2.25 in^2 DIA = 0.500 in) AT SPACING (in) - 3.14 DIA = 0.625 in) AT SPACING (in) = 4.87 DIA = 0.750 in) AT SPACING (in) = 6.96 DIA = 0.875 in) AT SPACING (in) - 9.28 DIA = 1.000 in) AT SPACING (in) = 12.17 DIA - 1.128 in) AT SPACING (in) - 14.98 DIA = 1.270 in) AT SPACING (in) - 19.48 DIA = 1.410 in) AT SPACING (in) = 24.35 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 UCENSEE NAME: ~t,ropcs ~v~_ LLC ~ALLAS TA E[piratl~B~te P~t Marker ~l~nber 'c~ned BloCk Market Hame: Nc~aast 1 si Build-our D~tte 3~d Build-ouSt Date 4t~ ~uiicl~o~t'Date 2~cL :B;Utl~ o:f D~tt~: SPECIAL ¢ONDITIOH$ OR'WA1V~ER,~/O~ND~NS' ( "Specia,1 Conditions Conditions: Pursuadt to SectiOn 309(h) oT tii~ ¢oiAi~,|~ti.6f!i ~ ~:xf-l~$tl,:,i~t ~m~decl; ~7~.U:S;C, ,S~fi~n-3~9[h)~ ~b I~ense. i~ ~u~ect 1~ ' · e following ~ond~0n~: ~I~ ffC~.m:~!l:~' ~:~n ~e: I~n~-,a~- figM to op~ute ~e ~ no~ :~ny-~ght in ~ u~:~:~ fr~uencies des]gnat~in:~lf~e,Se~:~et~mef~riqanY.~er.mqnn~thana~h~z~h~ Nei~he license not the tig~ ~ted;the~n~ez ~hall ~ a~'~ ,or ~F~ .~a~e~'~ ~iot~io~ ~/'the C~afl~ A~ o~ ~193~, as amended, ~ee ~ ~;~ se~tt~:3~O[~, T~]~li~e Esubi~tln te~ to ~ ~ght'~ use o~:c6n~l c0nf~red bY ~fion 706 o~ ~e Com~caflb~s~A~t~ I~4. as:amended: See 47 ~.S.~ SeC~ ~ To view the geogr-aphio ama,~ e~s~o~i~:~Ath' f'de i~!~ g~ lq ~e ~h~em=l Ubensing Sy~em (ULS) h~epag~at h~://wireless,fc~;'gov.tu ~ ~t ~ S~mN" F* ~w th~i~ ~ how t~ ~C 6Dt MB Li~;~nse~Name: FCC: 6{3! - MB ASR Registration 1219856 Page 1 of 2 FCC Home I Search I Updates I E-Filing I Initiatives I For Consumers I Find People Antenna Structure Registration FCC > WTB > A~;~R > (~ lng S~stems > ASR Search ASR Registration Search Registration 1219856 o~ New Sear_ch ~ Return to Results I~1 Printable Paqe ~ Reference COPY Registration Detail Reg Number 1219856 File Number A0579015 FAA Study 2006-AEA-4970-OE FAA Issue Date 12/28/2006 Antenna Structure Structure Type POLE - Any type of Pole Location (in NAD83 Coordinates ~ Conve~_to_NAD27) Lat/Long 40-59-57.8 N 072-30-40.2 W City, State Hattituck, NY Center of AM Array Status Constructed Constructed 06/07/200t EMI No NEPA No Elijah's Lane & Route 25 Heights (meters) Elevation of Site Above Mean Sea Level 8.5 Overall Height Above Haan Sea Level 44.5 Painting and Lighting Specifications None Owner & Contact Information FRN 0004122032 Owner New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. Attention To: FCC Group 5601 Legacy Drive, MS-A3 Piano, TX 75024 Contact Abernathy, Kellye E 5601 Legacy Drive, MS-A3 Piano, TX 75024 Last Action Status Status Constructed Overall Height Above Ground (AGL) 36.0 Overall Height Above Ground w/o Appurtenances 33.5 Licensee ID L00000732 P: (469)229-7422 E: KA8805@att.com P: (469)229-7422 E: KA8805@att.com Received 01/03/2008 F(;C.Si~t I-~HELP http://wireless2, fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.j sp?regKey=2617504 1/4/2010 ASR Registration 1219856 Purpose Node Related Applications 04/03/2009 01/03/2008 01/08/2007 Admin Update Interactive Comments Comments 03/04/2009 01/05/2009 Entered A0558186 - Withdrawal (WD) A0579015 -AdminUpdate(AU) A0534476 - iVlodiflcation (HD) ~!! _r ~l..a_t~_~_ ~ap~JLca t ion s_ £ ~_0~ 01/03/2008 Correction to data for antenna structure constructed and registered before March 16, 2001, and subsequently acquired by AT&T Wireless. Correction to data for antenna structure constructed and registered before Harch 16, 2001, and subsequently acquired by AT&T Wireless. Author zat on, Reference Authorization, Reference 545136 Authorizatloq, Reference 452315 Automated Letters 01/04/2008 01/09/2007 09/27/2005 A!l!e~ers (8) Page 2 of 2 ASR Help ASR Online Systems About ASR Registration Search ASR Licepse G os_~a .fy - FAa - Q.q!Loe Helo - Oq(;ume~ntation - Technical S_kJpI~Q~ TOWAIR_- C_ORES - AS.~ Qnline Fiji_nD - A~lication Search - Registrar on Search Privacy. $~t.e_rnent - Abgut ASR - AS.R By Registration Number FCC I Wireless j ULS I CORES He!p I Tech SgpDort Phone: 1-877 480-3201 TrY: 1-7t 7-338~2824 S_U bmJt~Help Request http ://wireless2. fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.j sp?regKey=2617504 1/4/2010 Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Airspace Branch, ASW-520 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76137-0520 Aeronautical Study No. 2010-AEA-1446-OE Prior Study No. 2010-AEA-159-OE Issued Date: 04/15/2010 Marc Harris HPC Development, LLC 52 Garden Ave. 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: Location: Latitude: Longitude: Heights: Ante'nnn- Top Mount NY7313 Matfituck, NY 40-59-57.79N NAD 83 72-3040.17W 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 end would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the foliowing 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 conslxuction (7460-2, Part I) X Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part As a result of this structure being critical to ~ght 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 fighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking and/or lighting are 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. 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 prescribed 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 cleh~,~ination 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 tmusmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual conslruction of the slructure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied slructure requires separate notice to the FAA. This det~Ji,,ination concerns the effect of this siructure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, orai~ance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. A copy of this determination 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 Katie Venticinque Specialist Attachment(s) Frequency Data cc: FCC cc: NACO w/map (DNE) Page 2 of 3 · Frequency Data for ASN 2010-AEA-1446-OE LOW FREQUENCY HIGH FREQUENCY FREQUENCY UNIT ERP ERP 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 EBI Consulting Visual Analysis Prepared For: metroPO$. Unlimit Yourself. PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY NY7313 MATTITUCK Provided By: EBI Consulting January 8, 2010 Revised:August, 8, 201 I C 0 N S U L T I N G ('reatln,g ~'alue.for Your Busine~ PN: 61096599 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: 01/08110 REV I 01ti5/10 REV 2 09108/10 REV3 08/08/11 DRAWN BY MC/RAJ CHECKED BY RAJ mEBI CONSULTING www.ebiconsulting.com 21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 Tel: (781) 273.2500 Fax: (781) 273.3311 Letter of Methodology August I0, 20l I 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituck, NY I 1952 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 7m, 2010 and photographs were taken from various locations around the Facility using an Olympus E-SOO 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 Flax 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 resuk is mukiple 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, John Menezes EBI Consulting Office: 781-425-5108 FAX: 781-425-S 163 Mobile: 781-572-S 173 jmenezesC~_ ebiconsulting.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 I PHOENIX, AZI PORTLAND, OR SAN FRANCISCO, CA J SEATTLE, WA j YORK, PA VISIBILITY MAP Legend ~ Project Site Photo Location Points 0 I80 360 54o Non-Visible Locations P~oto location ~lap 720 900 METRO PCSINY7313 415 ELIJAHS LANE MATTITUCK, NY 11952 PN: 61096599 V~EW 1 CONDITIONS I LOOKING SOUT~'~EAST FROM CORNER OFJERE~IAH$ LN., & NOAHS PATH ¥¢EW I PROPOSED ~,4ETRO PCS ANTENNAS I LOOKING SOUTHEAST FRO~4 CORNER OF JEREIVilANS LN., & NOAHS PATH V~EW 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS I LOOKING NORTHWEST FROtV1 CORNER OF NIA~N RD. & EUJAHS VIEW 2 PROPOSED ~"IETRO POS ANTENNAS I LOOKING NORTHWEST FRO~¢I CORNER OF MAiN RD, & ELIJAHS LN. VIEW3 EXISTING CONDiTiONS I LOOKING NORTHWEST FROM CORNER OF NEW SUFFOLK AVE & LOCUST AVE. ¥~EW 3 PROPOSED METRO PCS ANTENNAS I LOO~NG NORTHWEST FROM CORNER OF NEW SUFFOLKAVE.& LOCUST AVE. VIEW4 E×~STING CONDITIONS I LOOKING SOUTH FROI¥~ EL[JAHS LN, AT SHA~'IROCK CHRIST~'C~AS TREE FAR~ V~EW 4 PROPOSED METRO PCS ANTENNAS I LOOKING SOUTH FROM ELIJAHS LN, AT SHAMROCK CRR~STA,1AS TREE FARM TELCt (__) TEL# ¢/~)~'~'~ - ~'.~'LrO PROJECT DESCRIPTION: EXISTING USE:. PROPOSED USE: )R N ZBA APPEAl CONFERENCE (wi rPllN 30 DAYS OF WRITTEN RE N INFOR. MAL REQUEST FOR REVISIONS: RECEIVED DATE: APPLICATION PROCESS DATE: RECEIVED: AMOUNT RECEIVED:$ t;500./ACRE &.10/SF, A~ED SP: $250. + .I0/SF, AGRIC SP: FLAT $500 :'~ .oo X =$ SF=$ ~ESSION (WITHIN I 0 DAYS OF RECEIPT), PB ACCEPTED y OR N r ADVISED OF NECESSARy KEVISIONS (WlTHIN 30 DAYS OF'KEVi~W) ~TING 100-254B3 (W1THIN 30 DAYS) sUBMIssION RECEIVED: AGENCm'S: (WITH MAPS=W/P) __/ / ___/_ / ~ PRF'-~'"~O V~S REQUIRED: :NEG DEC Y OR.N, ARCHITECTURAL F,~VIEW COMMn-i~=E: LWRP COORDINATOR: SUILDIN$ DEPARTMENT CERTIFICATION: FIRE COMMISSIONERS: tOWN ENGINEER APPROVAL: DEP.OF TRANSPORTATION: DOT__. DPW._, TOS SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING REFERRED DATE NOTES ~/_.__/ APPROVAL DATE NOTES CTION FOR C/O: .. , TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN APPLICATION SECTION A: Site Plan Name and Location Site Plan Name: MetroPCS at 415 Elijah's Lane Application Date: __ Suffolk County Tax Map #1000- 108 4 11.3 Other SCTM #s: 09 / 29 / 2011 Street Address: 415 Elijah's Lane Hamlet: Mattituck Distance to nearest intersection: Northwest comer of'intersection of Elijah's Lane and S.R. 25 Type of Site Plan: New x Amended __ Residential If Amended, last :~pproval date: __/__/__ SECTION B: Owners/Agent Contact Information Please list name, mailing address, and phone number,for the people below: Property OwnerWilliam J. Baxter, Jr., Patricia Baxter, and Robert A. Goeller, Jr., and Jane P. Goeller Street c/o 415 Elijah's Lane City Mattituck State New York Home Telephone Other Zip. 11952 Applicants: MetroPCS New York, LLC Street 5 Skyline Drive City Hawthorne Home Telephone State New York Zip. 10532 Other 914-593-8500 Applicant's Agent or Representative: Contact Person(s)* Re, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP Street 36 North New York Avenue City_ Huntington State New York .Zip 11743 Office Telephone 631-425-4100 Other 631-425-4104 *Unless otherwise requested, correspondence will be sent only to the contact person noted here. Page 2 of 3 SECTION C: Site Data Proposed construction type: New X Modification of Existing Structure L ~ g ~cChange of use Property total acreage or square footage: o t ac./sq, ft. Site Plan build-out acreage or square footage: ~ a o % ~ ac./sq, ft. Agricultural Is there an existing or proposed Sale of Development Rights on the property? Yes __ If yes, explain: Property Zoning District(s): Limited Business (LB} No Building Department Notice of Disapproval Date: '~ / 12_/.20l/ Is an application to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals required? Yes X If yes, have you submitted an application to the ZBA? Yes ,)( No __ If yes, attach a copy of the application packet. No Show all uses proposed and existing. Indicate which building will have which use. If more then one use is proposed per building, indicate square footage of floor area per use. List all existing property uses: Commercial buildinq and public utility wirel:ess telecommunications faci 1 i ty List all proposed property uses: Bubl i c ]~ ut$~ it)' wi rel ess tel ecommuni cations faci 1 i ty Other aceessory uses: Existing lot coverage: ~ g.-I % Proposed lot coverage: ~ ~, q % Gross floor area of existing structure(s): I 0 ,'t~ t sq. ff. Gross floor area of proposed structure(s): ~ b o cox: Parking Space Data: # of existing spaces:~J # of proposed spaces: Loading Berth: Yes --No X Landscaping Details: Existing landscape coverage: Proposed landscape coverage: ~-5. ~ % Waterfront Data: Is this property within 500' of a wetland area? Yes __ No ~( If yes explain: I, the undersigned, cer~fe ttrh~~.nf~}~ation is tree. Signature of Preparer: By:'/" ~~( --m~ Date: lm ti Page 3 of 3 NY VP/GM SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD WIRELESS FACILITY SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION Application Name: Application Date: September / 29 /20 II Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000 - 108.00 . Street Address: MetroPCS at 415 Elijah's Lane? Mattituck 415 Elijah's Lane 04.00 - 011.003 Hamlet: Mattituck Checklist of application materials required to be submitted (see Special Exception Application Requirements Handout or Town Code §280-74 D Application Materials for details) One copy of the building permit application materials x Complete site plan application submission Analysis of site location alternatives Effort to co-locate documentation (if this is not a co-location) × Special Exception Application Fee ~rm updated 7/7/2010 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: July 12, 2011 TO: Re3 Nielsen, Huber & Coughhn LLC for Metro PCS New York, LLC 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, New York 11743 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 Location of property: 415 Main Road, 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 XVll 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 280-71B & 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. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTM~J~I' TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, ~ 11971 TEL: (631) 765-1802 FAX: (631) 765-9502 SoutholdTOwn..NorlkForlcnot. Examined ,20__ Approved ~xpiration ,20__ PERMIT NO. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION ~IST Do yOU have or need the following, before applying? 4 s~s of Building Pla~ ~pfio Form N.Y.8.D.E.¢. Trasto~ Flood Parmit Storm- W a~r Asr,~ssmm~t Form Coa~(:t: Anoraey for Apphcant:. Mufti to: Re; NieLs(m, l. luber & Coughiin,'I..LP 36 N. New York Ave., Huntinglon, NY 11743 Phone: 631'425~10~ ' ' Building Inspector -APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT INSTRUCTIONS Dat~ ,-.~t)h~ '~' ,20// a. This application MUST be comp!~tely filled in by gtpewritor or ill ink and submilled to the Buildi~ Iaspeotor with 4 · sets of plans, aneura~ plot plan to ~lle. Fee anoording to scimdule. b. Plot plan daowing looalioa of lot and of buildings oa p~mi-,~s, relaficoahip to adjoining premLses or pablio slt-~ola or areaz, and waterways. c. The work'covered by ~ application may not bo commeoc~l before is~mne~ of Buildt~ Permit d. Upon approval of thLs appliaslion, the Buildillg hlspeotta' will ~ a Buildj~ Permit to the llpplimaI. Such a p~mit shall be kept on tho premi.~ available for:fnsp~tion throtqlhoul the work e. No building ~ bo oeoupind or used ill whol~ or in pan for any purpose wh~t so over ,,,~l tho Building ~r issues a Cerflfia~ of Oooupal~. f. Ever7 building permit ,hAl! ~xpim fft~ work authorized has not comnmne, ed with_in 12 months arbor ~he d,!_*,, of issuanc~ or has not been comp[et~I.iNithln [8 months from ~aoh da~ If no zoning ~ or property have been enan~xi in ~ ~ ~ l~ding Impe~tor olay authorize, ill~li~ addition six mongas. Thareatt~, a lleW p~..._i~ shsl! be required. APPLICAT[ON 18 HF. iIEBY-MAI~ 'to ~ Buitdi~ D~pamn~ far the issuanoe of a Building Zone Ordinan~ of tho.Tow!l, oi,~!lpthold, S!lff-ol~ County, Now York, and oth~ ~pplical~ Law~, OMtmmoes or applicant aSze~s to comply with all ap~laws, oatinazmea, halide8 ~axle; hougng authorized inspeotors on pmmLq~ alld ill ~ for z!?_~_~j Jllal:~Jti~ls. . MetroPCS New York, LLC Skyline Drive, H~wthom¢, NY 10532 State whether applicant is owner, 1¢_~., agent, architect, eng/neer, general con~'actor, eloctrioian, pl~ or ~ Applicant is Lessee Name of owner of premises --William J. Baxter Jr. Patricia Baxter and RobenA.. Goeller Jr. aa, d~_ 9q.e.~:_ ~P._.~.~lJ~r~-, ,,' f "~ ,,"7,///I (As on tho tax rolt or latost doed) , . lf. av~m~t is a.co. rp~raiion, Id~did¥ ~,,e-ogz~ officer zvie~ror~.~ reew re ..~ (Name title of cgr-p u Builders Licons~ No. Plumbers. Lioease No; Electricians LicenSe No, ~ther Trade's License No. ocation of land on whioh proposed work will be done: 5 Etijah's Lane Number Street Tax Map No. 1000 Section' 108 Map No. Lot 2. State exist/rig u~ and oocujalm~y.0fplvmis~a ired ~d~ ~e ~d occup=~ ofp~o~ a. ~i~g ~ ~d ~ C~i~ ~ild~ ~d public ~li~ ~1~ tel~icafions facili~ b. ~ ~e ~ Oc~_~blic Ufili~ W~l~s Tel~uni~n~'Facili~ ...... ' · · ' Ad~, A~ 3. - . ~ .... ~ * ~olifi~ *~ W~k A~li~t ~pose to ~t~d &e ~is~g ~epa~ .... ~ -~- '- "~ ..... ]-J ---:--~ --t~ on thc cxt~i~, . ' ~o ~ paid' on fi~ng ~is ~ii~fion) 'Co~ewi~ bMl~ and public ]f ~) n~ ~ ~ ufili~ ~l~s tel~m~icafi~ 6. If busine~,~e~ial ~ ~ °~' ~ ~m~ ~d e~ent °f e~h ~ °fuse~cili~ 7. Dim~sions og~i~ng ~cm~, ff~Y: From Rear D~ H~lght _ ,.,N~m~r ~ StOfi~S * E~sfin~ 108'+/- m~ole ~ exis~g lighmMg md th~on Dimensions ~ sa~ ~u~ with a~emtlons or ad,ohs. Front Rear , Dep~ H~M Number of Stories * 118'+/- mono~le ~ relocated · ' lighmMg md thegn 8. Di~S~nsofm~n~w~cfion;Fmm . ~ . . ' . . D~ . . . Helm * ' Numar of Stories* ~s~ ~0 +/- exms~oa m ex~stmg m<opo]e ~o proposeo 160 square / 80,49~.15 ~um feet f~t ~ipm~t ma 9. Si~ ~.t~ Fret, ~, .R~ Dg~ 10. Da~of~ 4~i971 · - _~eofFO~er'Wt~mJ'B~r' 12. D~ p~oS~ ~n~uu~ ,~,~,~ .~ 13. ' Wt~m~ ~m, ;r., pa~a~,~b~ ~.; . .. . . ' OO 4!.5 ~ ~ame of ~r . , , · IF OLD DZ.C, BE b..is&is~.~M300f~ofa~wc~d?*~ NO X _ · IF ~, D.E.C. PE~ ~Y BE ~Q~. 16. Provide ~wey, ~ sc~o, ~ ~c~ f~dafion pl~ md dismnccs to pm~ ]in~. 1 ?. If elevation at ~y ~m ~ ~ is at I0 ~ ~ ~low, mm Provide to~hi~] da~ on ~cy. 18. Am &~m ~ d OhS w~ is pmp~? * · ~ ~, ~O~ A ~PY. STATE OF iqEW YORK) SS: · COUNTY OF~ff~ (Name ofindividu~l ~,nin~ w,,~.a~t) aoove nam~b ' . L~ssee / Applicant · of said owner or o~ and is duly auth .oriz~t to p~ro,~m or ~ Imr-ormed th~ ~aid wark mad t~ ~ ~ad ~ this application; perforn~'d in lbo m~mn~r set forth m tho application filed th~with. - ' ' Swomto. b~for~ me this %~, i 2o i . M 9'cs APPLICA~ AFFIDAVIT "STATE OF NEW YORE · COUNTY OF · ~r~ 0 I ~f~' being duly sworn, deposes and says that'he resides at c/o 5 Skyline_Drive, Haw_thorne, .-NY 1_0532 .. In the St~teof New Y~rK, and t~et he Is 6ae owner of the'above property, or that he is the ~//~ I ~/~ of the . Leis_ee/A_ppl ica~t .Me,.t~oPCS .New Ygrk, LLC [Title) . (Spec'lfy whether Pa rtnershJp or Corp.) which Is hereby malCng appjication~ that there are no existing structures or Improvements on the land which are not sl~oWn on'the Site Plan; that;the title, to the entire parcel, .Including all rights,of-way, has been dearly estebflshed and is shown on said plan; t~at no part of the P an lnfrlpges upon any duly flied plan which has not been abandoned boti1 'as to lots and.~s to roads;'that ha has examined all rules and regulation¢ adopted bY' the Planning Board for the flllh~ of site Plans and wlt comply with same; that the plans submlb~ed, as approved; will not be altered or changed in any manner without the approval of the ~crict accordance With the Planning Boarci~nd that; the actual' physical Imprbvem,ents wlll'be Instelled in p,aps Signed k..(5/wn/~er~~ .- . M~troPOS ·New York, LLC · Signed B.y: . i , . OhTlettl Sworn to me this (Notary Public) . DIANE LAVELLE NOTAJ~f PUBLIC, 8~me of I~m~ yo~ No. 011.A6027870 APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Etlfms prohibits conflicts of interest on the ~art of town officers and emulovees. The t~urpo~, of this form is to nrovide information which can alert the town of nossible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. YOURNAivIE: MetroPCS New York, kL¢ (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 Trustee Change of Zone Coastal Erosion Approval ofpha Mooring Exempfion 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 h~s even a partial ownership of(or employment by) a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5% of tho shares. ,res 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) end/or describe in the space provided. The tuwa officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or chil~l~i~ (check all that apply): o __A) the owner of greater than 5 ~ of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporafion); 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 Form TS 1 Submitted thi~day 9/.. 200 Signature B.~(: Print Name NY APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM (AS TO OWNER) The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts ofintomst on the part of town officers and employees. The purpose of this form is to provide information which can alert the town of nossible comqicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. YOURNAME: ',~/. t ~C I~r ~ (~ ff'~txT~ (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 Change of Zone Coastal Erosion Approval of plat Mooring Exemption from plat or official map Planning Other (If "Other", name the activity.) Do you p~nsonally (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 tho town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns moro than 5% of tho shares. YES NO ~ If you answered "YES", complete the balance of this form and date and sign whom indicated. Name of person *mployed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself (the applicanffagent/repr esen~ative) 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 Form TS 1 Submitted t~s ~_day of/~ I.~7~77~20~0__ Signature IA~ ._ /l ~ _ -- Print N~e ~c( ,~ ~d /7' F~I Page 3 of 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of MetroPCS New York, LLC : : At the premises: 415 Elijah's Lane Northwest comer of intersection of Elij ah's Lane and State Route 25 Mattituck, New York Section 108, Block 4, Lot 11.3 AUTHORIZATION OF OWNER STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) /t/-(~-~' ~"'.. 2t %'~/c ~ , being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the ~:c~r~ of ,,A ,,a_~---, r ~c-~ , 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 may be ncccssary for constructing or installing on the Premises such antennas, support structures, and related equipment as MctroPCS 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. Sworn to before me this /~r~ayof ~co,~_ ,20It GAILA. GHOSIO Notary Pu.b, lic,_S.t~e__o~_ New York Qualified in Suffolk Count,/ , / Commission Expires Ma~ch 19,20_,~.~.. https://uwc~webmai~~~ptimum~net/msg-fs-~r~htm~~&security--fa~se&~ang=en&p~pupL~ve~~~~ 10/5/2010 RE, NIELSEN, HUBER & GOUGHLIN', LLP ATTOR_NEYS AT LAW HUN'TINOTON, NEW YORK 1174,13 August 12, 2011 BY HAND Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Annex Building 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 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 ,4U 1 2 011 BOARD Op 4ppF.4Ls 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, 201 l; 2. Application to the Southold Town Board &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, 201 l; 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, 20t l; 11. Agricultural Data Statement; I2. 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 Boil~of 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, By: ~ -- ( .f Lawrence C. R~ LCRYmk Enclosures KPPLICATION TO 'l'tt~ .qOUT~OLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS Blnute NO. ~15 Street St.-l'~ll000Seeflma 108 B~ 4 ~sl 11.3 1 ~) ~P~L T~ ~'l'l~ DECAGON OF ~ B~.~G ~SPE~OR DASD Ju~ 1~. ~11 B~D ON ~ DA~ ~ 17. AppH~s~:. ~N~Y~ Mnllin~dd~: 5 S~l~ ~ H~ ~ 10532 Telephone: 91~593-85~ ~ ~ Name~Reprm~e:.~Nl~H~&~gMi~P for( )O~er, or (~O~:A~li~t lhmlet Lot Sins 80,494.15 ~. ~. Zone Limited Business (LB) Agent's Addrm: 36 No~h New York Avenue, HuniJn~ton, New Yod~ 11743 Telephone f~31-425-4100 Fnx~. 631-425-4104 Emall: ,l~ouoh~mhdaw, eom K) Applicant/Owner(s), or IKAuthorized Repmentolive, or ri Other Name/Addms brow: WHEREBY THE BUIX,D~G INSI~CTOR REVIEWED MAP DATED May t 7. 20Il AN APPLICATION DATED ~uly 7t 2011 FOR: ~ Building Permit [~ Certificate of Oeeupaney [~ Pre-Certificate of Oceupaney i-I Change of Ute [] Permit for As-Built Construction [X)ther: and DENIED Provision or the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (lndJcete Article, Section, Subsection of Zoning Ordinance by numbers. Do not quote the eod~) Article XVI! Section 280= 70 Subsection (J~2~) and (6) Type of Appeal An Appeal Is made for: t~A Vadanea to fine Zoning Code or Zoning Mop. [] A Varlanee due to hek of aeeem required by New York Town Law-Seeflon 280-A. KJ luterpretntion of the Town Code, AFileb Seeilon ~ Reversal or Other A prior appeal fir has, [] his not been made at any time with remeet to this property. UNDER Appeal No. 3801 Year 1989' , (~lmsf b ~ t~ r~r~ ~J'oM ces~ol~f ~b ~don or c~ll o~r o.O~.for a~mce.) 'Appcel No. 4022 - 1992; Appeal No. 4023 - 1992; Appeal No. 4862 - 2000; and Appcel No. 4573. WITHDRAWN Ntme of Owner: ZBA File # RK.4~ON8 FOR ~ f~-s~n~/s/uans ~nav ~ n,~d ~tA ~m~r~Ss t~n~rn~: ~ YARI~C~ RI~AgON$: (1) An undodrable change ~ not be produced in the C'HARA~.'r]f.R of the neighborhood or · detriment to nearby properties if ~ranted, because: See A~w. hed (2) The benefit aouibt by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an er~ vnrianco~ becouse: See Attached (3) The amount of relief requested b not mbstan~nl because: Sce Atmcl~d (4) The variance ~ NOT beve an an'verse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions In the neighborhood or district becouce: See AtMched (S) Hu the sllefed difllcult~ been sdr-ercetod? ( )Ye~ er (~No. Are there Covenants and Restflctious concerning this hnd: KJ No. IRYes ~ This b the MINIMUM that b necessary and adequte~ end at the same Ome preserve and protect the charncter of the ndghborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Chw3 ~b baz ( ) IV A ~/~ VAR/~VC~ ~ ATTACHED [1~ VA~JANC~ ~E~T.* Sworn t~ before me ~ f~ dnyor~_~20 ~ ~ . AND PI.E/~ COMPL~T~ TH~ ~ent Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Application MetroPCS New York, LLC ('MetroPCS') Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck, NY SCTM# 1000- 108 -4- 11.3 Reasons for Appeal: 1. An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if granted, 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 effect or 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. APPLICANT'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION (For ZBA Reference) AppliCant: MetroPCS New YOrk, LLC I. For Demolition of Existing Building Areas Please describe areas being removed: N/A Date PrePared: ~/4~//~/ II. New Construction Areas (New Dwelling or New Additions/Extensions): N/A 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: Ill. 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 existin$108%/- monopole and proposed 160 square foot equipment area IV. Calculations of building areas and lot coverage (from surveyor): Existing square footage of buildinffz on your property: ~ O i '~ ~4 ~ ~ ~: Proposed increase of building coverage: ~ 6 0 i ~ Squ~e f~tage ofyo~ lot: 80~494.15 squ~ feet Percentage of coverage of your lot by building ~ea: ~3. g~%: ~.~ ~;~ ~ ~;~vk~ ~v ~- ~ V. Purpose of New Construction: Me~oPCS New YorL LLC pro~ses to affix its public utility wireless telecommunications antennas to proposed 10'+/- extension on existin~ pole and install its related equipment so as to provide reliable se~ice to the area in the vicinity of the subj~t prope~y. 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): "~c\~,¥~v~\q ~-\~.¥ i e.,~cn\~t ~)~-~,t& \o¥. 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 Ao QI~STIONNAIi~ FOR FiliNG WI'I'll yOUR Z.B,A. APPLICATION the subject premt~ listed on tho mai ~stam marlmt for sale? Are there arty proposals to aJmnqe or alter lend cont~? )~lqo ~ Yes, please explain on attsubod sheet. 1) Are there m~s that cc~n mind ~ wedand pusus? N/A 2) Are these areas shown on the map submitted with tl~ apptication? 3) Is the proper~ boPrheaded between the wethncls area mid the upland building area? 4) If ~1~ pmp~7 cc~;.:., wetlands or pond sma, have you contact! the office of tho Town Tmstee~ fro' its determination of .jurisdiction? lq/A Please confirm status of you~ inquir~ or applica~on with tbe TruCes: and ir'issued, please attach c°Pie~ of permit with condifiom 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? ;V~ B. Are ~ any part°~, concrete berriets, ta,lirheads m' fence~ that e~ist and are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting9 A/OA~* (Please show area of these stmctoras on a dla~un if any exi~ Or rote ,'nOne- on the above line, if applicable.) F. Do you have any construction taking Place at this time concendn~ ~ premises? ~/O lfye~, please submit a copy of your botldtn~ permit and map as approved by the Buildin~ Department and de~dbo: or the owner O. Do you o~any co-owner also own other land close to this parcel? ~/o If yes, please label the proximity of yOUr lands on your '""I'. with this application. Please list present use or op., &~ons conducted at this pa.-cel Commercial buildinjg and public utility wlreless 2/o5; 1~07 Dh'ection: Photo taken fi'om the North East to South West Direction Description: Corners for the proposed concrete slab within existing fenced equipment compound. Date taken: July 29, 201 I Owner: Arek Surveying Company Direction: ?hoto taken fi~om a Nor'th East Direction D~_e._s~T[p. tt~n~ North West Comer of proposed concrete slab along the existing fence inside the existing eqnipment compound. Date taken: July 29, 2011 Owner: Arek Surveying Company Direction: Photo taken from the East Direction Description: South East Comer of the proposed concrete slab adjacent to the existing Nextel shelter within the equipment compound. Date tal~en: July 29, 2011 Owner: Arek Surveying Company 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 tal~en: July 29~ 2011 Owner: Arek Surveying Company APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM (FOR SUBMISSION BY OWNER aad OWNER'S AGENT) The Town of Southoid'e Codo of Ethics urohibils cnnfli~ts of interest on the nert of T0wll and emoluvees. The numo~ of figs form is to orovid~ infnrmnti,,, which can alert tho Towa of ~x~aible conflict* ofinteresl and allow it to take wl~.zver s~ion is ---~**,'v to avoid of someen~ el~ ot oth~ entity, such as a company. If so, indica~ the other penon er comp~ry nan..) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Cl~;k all that apply.) Tax Grievsues Vgianes X Special Exception If name the activity: Chsu~ of Zen~ Approval of Pint Excretion from Plat er Official Map Other Do you personally, (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employe~ of tho Towa of Southold? "Relationship" includ-'s by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a par~ership, in' which the Town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (ur employment by) a corporation in which the Town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares. YES NO '-~ Complete th~ balan~ of this form ami date sud si~n below wher~ indicated. Name of person employed by tho Town of Southold: Title or position of that pe~on: Describe that relationship between yourself (the applicant) and the Town officer or employee. Either check the appropriat~ line A through D (below) and/ur describe the relationship in the spec~ 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 cmpomtion); · 'B) th~ legalbr b~n~flcial/~v/n~r of any intet~t ~d~ib~ot~o~at~ entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); C) an officer, director, parUler, or employee of the applicant; or D) the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM (FOR SUBMISSION BY OWNER and OWNER'S AGENT) The Town of Southold's Cod~ of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of Town officers and employees. The nuroose of this form is to vrovide information, which can alert the Town of vossible conflicts ofintere,t and allQw 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 parson or company name.) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax Grievance Variance X Special Exception If "Other", name the activity: Change of Zone 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 balanc~ 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% &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 Signature:( Print Name: t ' APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM~ Th~: Town of Southold's Code of ~thle,~ orohibits conflicts of interest on the hart of town officers and emolovees. The numose of this form is to orovide information which can alert the town of oossible conflicts of interest and allow it to ~ako whatever action is Re, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP YOUR NAME: By; Lawrence ¢. R~ (Last name, first name, middle initial, unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such a~ a company. If an, indicate the other person's or company's name.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Check ail that apply.) Tax grievance Building Variance X Trustee Change of Zone Coastal Erosion Approval of plat Mooring Exemption from plat or offficial map Planning Other (If "Other", name the activity.) Do you personally (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parem, 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 mom than 5% of the shares. YES NO X If you answered "YES", complete the balance of this form and date and sign whom 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 officar or employee. Either check thc 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) thc ownar of greater than 5% of thc 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 Form TS I Submttted' th,s. '~ day' '~ of ~t~'~, 20{~ / Signature B~'X~ /~'3-~..~::~~/ Print Name , Lil~nce C. Re Re, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP Attorneys for Applicartt AGRICULTURAL DATA STATEM~.NT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTItOLD I ) Name of Applicant: MetmPC8 New ¥o~ ILO 2) Address of Applicant: $ 9k~fle Oflvo, Hawthorne, NY 10fi32 3) Nme of Lend Owner (if o~her then eppllcnt) :~~, Jr.. J'et~a hxter, end ao~o~t ~. C-oener. Jr. end 4) Adcln~. of Land Owner. ~ ~ ~_~h'~ Lan.. ~ NY ~ ~ telecommunications m'denna~ on the extermk~, and In, taft related equipment on the ground, as depicted In the pierre mtbmltted herewith. 6) Location of Pro~ (mad and tax m..~ number): 415 Bliah'l Lane. Mattttuck (1000. I08.4.11.3) 7) Is tho parcel within an a~ricultural district? [~lNo t-]yes If yes, Agricultural Dish'ict Numbe~ 8) Is this pnrcel actively farmed? [~No J-]Yes 9) Name and address of any owner(s) of land within the ql'icultural dis~ct containinS active farm operation(s) located $00 feet of the boundary of the proposed project. (Information may be available through the Town Assessor~ Office, Town Hall locatio~ ~765-1937) or from any public computer at the Town Hall locations by viewing the parcel numbers on the Town of Southold Real Properly Tax System. (Please use back side of page if more than six property owners are identified.) The lot numb~mi_n~.~ ./~ obtained, in advenc~, when request~l ~om oithm* the Office of the Planning Board at 765-1938 or the~X_~ Board of Appeals at 765-1809. StriCtUre of Applicant Date Note: i. TI~ local bored will solicit COmments ~ the owae~ of lead identified abow in on~r to co~sid~ ~o oft'eot of the proposed on 0reit farm o~emioa. Solicitation will be made by sq~lyfl~ · copy of tb~ 2. Commmt~ nm~med to the ~ bo~d will be ta~ into ¢o~Ji~k~lioa s I~1 of tho ovc~dl review of this application. 3. Copim of the con~l~ted A~'toultund D~ta St~temeat ~ be ~oat by q~lieant aad/o~ t~e clerk of tho boan:l to the pmpe~y ownen~ identified above. ~he oo~t for mailln~ ~hall bo paid by lbo applicant et the time t~e application i~ ~vbmittod for review. Failure to pay ~t such time moans ~e &ppli~tion 1~ not ooa~ltte and cannot be acted upon by e,e boan:l. DBCLARAT~N OF COVBNANTI AND BMTRiCrION~ WHB.qIIAS, Deelaqnn m the ownm la fee dmple M eenela FraMe dram at Town (d Soutbold, WCou~ New Yolk, M~,m~ ua the Su~oik C~x~y Tm tMes DJmdct 10OK SNdal 10L00, Bloek 04.e0, Lm 113 md u macs fuOy dua~b~ 04.00 roe coestn~ion M a 100 hot mooopob rsdio uw~ nd, NOW, 'rJlBiiPORB, in mf,T~'.~'m Vdt the r#olulm d aid Sombold Tm Tim hlJ-dowu mum d dso umr dm~i bo u ubmimd, with tim folk, winl a) 9~ f~ ~wt tho pn)JN:mod towff to the no..d~lGy pmjml~ b; STA'FB OF COUNTY J, Beret, J~. mnu knmm to b~ tho JndMdud d#eribed in ~d who moaJted tho forolob88 ' 8TA'FB COUNTY OF..~0.~.~ Bemr to mo knowu to bo the IndMdvd dma'lbed in nd whO neared tho fomldn8 I~TAq¥ PUlt*..~C uo~itor to mo r~own to Ol me Indfvldud dmabed in end who brmolnf wJlk dig blllldiftll Id~(wlmQotllA~lff(e iIt4f~.vt,~, ), Maltlttwk0 Town of So~lihold, Suffolk (:mlflly, b Ywk, ud ~tt't Iq tin CHT~ .[ d~ ('l,~k ' , ~ .,&d dm~tbed is IIIOINIdINCi at Il Imlnl on tho wiellfly olde of ~ijdl*l ~ fluid ix)inS biJ~R 2'm..41) I,',.t o,vthefl), ~om the iolefiicuiion or the nOdhlrJy line of tho Main R~NI wq'~therly line id' l.l~l 3, 4111,0! fm It) lind Mw of rolmerly e(Jo14,ph Neville) I~,ntd,ll fhelKU Weal altll Iil(mI aiild land add petlally IilOnll bn~ ne~ ~f ~nefly of the Count), of 101.47 ~ to U pOillk, RllflniltI IINtlOe HOi'tlt 70' ~0'50~ tlijIl~ lineI Ilftd flOW or rolmffly el the C:ouniy of gu~fll,hmd nnw o1, Fi~tly ('2uml J! C'Jmi Iind~i lind IIOW m' f'o~wly C?orfleli,~n'J,. k4tmtmq, 4?~AO red to lin weaimt.v llne of glijlih'B l-,Ik RUi~ Uteflce South 35' IQ'/~ fell~ to,gte poinl or pins pi IIIKilNNII40. , llbYlJ fl~T: ~t for ~ In ~i~l~ of ~b sm or ~e ~11~ C81.~) tn ~ Mid ~ ~ gram b O~ b ~ipt ur ~bl~ in b~b~ J'b~ia If~td ~ wi~ ~ in~ffe~nco an Raid ~rt~ ~ ~tn ~1 of Mid ~t strip f~ttlttu vtt~t ~ prior vrlt~ Ln~ProH vtth of pmhlbiL M~i~ ,t~n ~ r~tttttn or ~: { w~ ~ gl ~t ~tiom ~ t~ pm~rLj or t~ a~f while plMiml. ~pl~inf, rel~mtJ~, o~r&tind, ~lrin(, Mtu~lalaf. ~iaf or ~inl ~ ~m,~itlti~, ~ mhl~ uu tb nqltfe~ or ~t , V106l?4 IIo~, PvbLle MAP OF: TOWN OF: ~lcl ...... '~ SI'~TE OF. NEW YORK KEY PROPOSED EXHIBIT a~auoo~ OWNER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD STREET ACR. ''''J TYPE OF BLD. PROP. CLASS VILLAGE SUB. LOT REMARKS IMP. TOTAL DATE FRONTAGE ON WATER BULKHEAD HOUSE/LOT TOTAL --' STREET-~-"~ VILLAGE )WNER . S -' ' ~ W. ~PE OF BUILDING ' ~'~ "~ ~ - . ' L- M~CS ~ Mkt. Value ES.~ S~S. VL. ~"' ~ CB' ~N D IMP. TOTAL DATE R~RKS N~ NORMAL BELOW ABOVE ~/~¢/¢~7~1~ FA~ Acre Value Per V~lue fillable ~::- _~~ .~ ; FRONTAGE ON WATER No.land F~ONTAGE ON ROAD ~ [f) ~-- = ~=:: r~o 7- - 14.1~4 {9~95)--Tlxt 12 LPRO, ECl' I.D. NUME~ 617.20 Appendix ¢ State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only SEQR If the action Is in tho Coastal Ares, and you em a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER ,PART I--PROJECT INFORMATION (To he completed by Applicant or ProjeGt sponsor) I. APPLICANT IS~ON~OR I 2. PI~OJECT NAMI MetroPCS New York~ [,LC 3. PR~E~ uuntetoat~ 'Town of Southold ~ Su~o~ 4. PRECISE L~ON (Street addrlll ~d told Ifltersl~tlon~ oromifl~l I~dmlr~ eta., M ~ldl m~ 4L5 Elijah's L~e, Mattimck, NY SCTMg I0~- 108-4- 11.3 S. IS PRO~SED AG~O~ 6. OESCRleE P~E~ BRIEFLY= ~etroP~S proposes to at~x its public utili~ wire[cas telcco~unicatio~s ~ntc~ to proposed extension on monopole ~nd in~t~]l related e~uipment on the ~und ~ depicted in thc plans submi.~ herewith. 7. X~OUNT O~'~NO' A~FE~ approx. ] 60 sq~e fcct e. WILL Pno~sEO A~ION COMFY ~H ~l~Na ZONING On OTH~ ~Ne ~ND ~l R~ON~ O. WHAT iS P~T ~0 USE IN VI~N~ ~ 10. DOES A~;QN INVOLVE A PE~ff ~P~VAL O~ ~NDIN~ N~ ~ ~MA~Y F~M A~ ~ ~V~M~AL AQEN~ STATE OA -- I 11, OOESA~A~OFTHEA~VIA~A~YV~DPE~~AL? ' ~ y~ ~ ~ If ~ lilt ~ ~ ~ ~1~ 12. ~ A AESULT OF P~S~ A~ION M~ ~I~N~ P~M~/~P~VAL ~1~1 Oy*, ~.~ .... PART FI--ENVIRONMENTAL ASSES$~'ENT (To be completed i3y Agency) : Yes ~ NO WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHAIqACTERI~TIC$ THAT CAUSED ~g ' ~ Ye. ~ No ~S THER~ OR iS THE~E LIKELY ~O ~ CONTROVERSY R~T~ TO ~TEN~AL ADVERSs ENVIRONMENTAl. IMPACTS? ~ Yel ~ NO If Yel, explain PART Ill--DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (1'O be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTION~: Pot each adverse affect identified slnovl, determine wlletl~er ills Substantial, large, important or otl~erwlse significant. Each effect should De assessed in connection with its Ia) setting (I.L ut'o~n or rural};, Ih) prohal)illty of occurrtng; (c) duration; (d) irrevereibility; (e) geogtaonic sCOpl; and If) magnitude. If necessity, add atteohmeml M reference supporting metartall. Ensure that explanations contain sutflcient detail to show tl~&t a~l relevant adverse Impa,~tl have tm~t identified and adequately addrasseq. If question D of Part II was checked yes, the determin&tlon and significance must evaluatl the potential imgect of the i~ro0osed acflon on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. [] Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse im'[~l:~cts which MAY occur. Then groceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or preparl a positive declaration. t--I Check this box if you hevl 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: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of MetroPCS New York, LLC For Approval to collocate public utility wireless telecommunications antennas on a proposed extension on an existing monopole and install related equipment at the premises ("Premises"): 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituck, New York District 1000 Section 108.00, Block 04.00, Lot 011.003 [MetroPCS Site No. NY 7313] COLOCATION AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) Dan Olmetti, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. 1 am the Vice President and General Manager of MetroPCS New York, LLC ("MetroPCS") and am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances hereinafter set forth. 2. The business address of MetroPCS is 5 Skyline Drive, Hawthorne, New York 10532. 3. 1 make this affidavit pursuant to Town of Southold Code Section 280-74D(2). 4. Upon information and belief, the subject monopole will be capable of accommodating colocation of additional antennas for at least one additional future user. ORK, -- Dan Olmetti Sworn to\befo[e ~me this day o~ I~~IC LLC I~e~hink 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, Bruce Nicholson National Sales Manager TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of MetroPCS New York, LLC For Approval to collocate public utility wireless telecommunications antennas on a proposed extension on an existing monopole and install 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] STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) AFFIDAVIT OF GOOD FAITH EFFORT AND SITE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO TOWN CODE SECTION 280-74D NICHOLAS BALZANO, 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's wireless telecommunications network in Suffolk County. 2. I submit this affidavit in support of MetroPCS's 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. In keeping with the purpose and intent of Chapter 280 of the Code of the Town of Southold, MetroPCS seeks to locate its facility on an existing building or structure located within an area of Southold, in which there is a significant service gap. 4. Southold Code 280-70D provides a priority listing for applicants seeking approvals to establish a public utility wireless telecommunications within the Town: the first priority is to locate a facility on an existing antenna support structure or other structure on Town-owned properties, including the right-of way ("Priority I" proposals); the second priority is to locate a facility on an existing antenna support structure or other structure on other property in the Town ("Priority 2" proposals); the third priority is to erect a new antenna support structure on Town-owned properties ("Priority 3" proposals); the fourth priority is to erect a new antenna support structure on properties in the LI or LIO Zoning Districts ("Priority 4" proposals); the fifth priority is to erect a new antenna support structure on properties in the MI, MII, B or HB Zoning Districts ("Priority 5" proposals); and the sixth priority is to erect a new antenna support structure on properties in the AC, R-40, R-80, R-120, R-200, R-400, LB, RO, RR, HD or AHD Zoning Districts ("Priority 6" proposals). 5. The instant proposal calls for the installation public utility wireless telecommunications antennas on a proposed extension on an existing monopole, i.e. a Priority 2 proposal. 6. On information and belief, there are no Town-owned properties in the subject area. 7. On information and belied, the tallest existing utility poles within Town-owned right-of- ways are approximately 40'. 8. 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 proposal would still leave a substantial gap in coverage in the area and would not meet MetroPCS' coverage objectives in the area. As such, establishing a site on a shorter (40') utility pole would likewise leave a substantial gap in coverage in the area and would not meet MetroPCS' coverage objectives in the area. 2 9. There am no existing structures in the subject search area on Town-owned properties that would allow MetroPCS to establish a facility at the needed height. As such, there are no possible Priority I proposals available in this seamh area. 10. As noted above, 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. 11. 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. 12. MetroPCS has determined that no other existing buildings or structures in the subject search area would be suitable for a facility that would be capable of eliminating the coverage gap in the area because each fails to meet the minimum height requirement. 13. The instant proposal is the optimal site to meet the applicable Town Code requirements and also MetroPCS' radio frequency objectives in the subject search area. The proposed site represents the best and least intrusive means to provide reliable service in the area in question. 14. The only alternative to the instant proposal would be the construction ora new structure, such as a monopole. S~to bef~e ~pe this ~.,~IE TURU~r~A Ncr~ p~, 8t~ a~ New york 0111.J62167~ Quaked ~n W~ C~ My C. om~ssion Exl~lres Janumy ~5, ~014 ~O'L~S BALZ{~NO TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the application of proposal of MetroPCS New York, LLC For Approval to collocate public utility wireless telecomlnunications antennas on a proposed extension on an existing monopole and install related equipment at the prmnises ("Premises"): AFFIDAVIT OF RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEER 415 Elijah's Lane Mattituck, New York District 1000, Section 108, Block 4, Lot l 1.3 [MetroPCS Site No. NY 7313] STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) NICHOLAS BALZANO, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am a radio frequency engineer for MetroPCS New York, LLC (hereinafter "MetroPCS"). As a radio fi'equency engineer, 1 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. 1 am fully l~amiliar with MetroPCS' wireless telecommunications network in Suffolk County. 2. I submit this affidavit in support of MetroPCS' application for approval to install a wireless teleco~nmunications facility at the Premises. Pursuant to this application, MetroPCS requests approval to affix public utility ~vireless 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 alloxv 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' systmn 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 in'egularly shaped. With sufficient signal strength from each base station, the MetroPCS user can reliably transnfit, 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 seiwice 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 environmeot changes. 8. MetroPCS has reliable In-Vehicle coverage ~vhen a customer can place or receive a call within a vehicle successfully across 95% ora site's coverage area. In-Vehicle coverage generally results in um~eliable in-building coverage. Since the signal level is stronger closer to the antenna site than further away fi'om 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 geograpbic boundaries of the cell site's coverage area, coverage will be restricted and will likely lead to customers dissatisfaction if customers t~ 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. 11. 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 atlenuated (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 umst be of sufficient streugth in the ambient environment (i.e. ontside with no obstructions) to reliably penetrate into automobiles and buildings. 12. Wireless signal strength is measured oa a logarithmic power scale referenced to 1 milli- watt of power. Signal strength Ievels less thm~ 1 milli-wart being negative. The smaller the negative dBm number, the stronger the signal. For example, -75dBm is a stronger signal level than 85dBm. An mnbient signal level of ~5dBm would provide reliable la-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-75dB~n to provide reliable In-Building Commercial coverage. These signal level requirements provide the basis for Metro?CS' design criteria. 13. MetroPCS' design criteria for wireless facilities serving an m'ea 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 Iocation 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 smwice 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 xvould 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 the plans submitted herewith, allows Metrol~CS to provide such reliable service in the vicinity of thc Premises. The location and height of the antennas is determined by some or all of the following factors: availability of existing structures, willingness of prope~Xy owners to enter into leases, drive test data, location of existing anteuna 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 fi'equency 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 ~naps 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. Not~'y P,b~o, 8t~t~ of New Ymk Ofl'lJ6216795 Q~li~d in Westchester County ~ Comml~on Expires Janua~ 25, 2014 NICHO~A~ BALZAC40 NO' S T~JiPS %UI--~LI~J~ J. ~k~R_~2., residing at 31 ~ohegan Road,Larcb~mont, New York 1053S and J~N-E p. GOAiLI~R~ t~s w~fe, reszdiu~ at Birch~--'~'L~~ ($1.00) ......................... -~,,;1:,~, #26.87 feet Westerly from the Westerly llne of EliJah'~ Lc~n% as ~ad~ North 85~ 36' ~0" West 60.0 feets to a concrete monument set Olarence Tuthill and Ralph Tuthill~ runn~ug thence Northe~ly ~nd alonE said land formerly of Clarence ih~th~ll ~d ~lpk ~tt~ll ground; ru~ning thence Easterly and still along land formerly of Chrence Tuthtll ~ud Kulph ~uthill North 77" 06' 00" East 60 feet of Willi~m L. Strickl~md; running thence Southerly ~d along thc Westerly line of l~md now or formerly of s~uid Willi~m L. Stric]~und South 19° 07' 00" E~st 181.79 feet to a'concrete monumen~ ~mt in the g~,o,mud, n~d poinD boiuE the Northerly line o£ said I~ain om Btate the po~O or place of BEGINNING. lliam Wickham, Esq. · Hain Rohd Eattituck, New York 11952 COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT THIS COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT ("Lease dated as of ~_J_~~ Is made by and between MetroPCS New York, Agreement") LLC, a Delawa 'e limited liability company ("Lessee") and William J. Baxter~ Jr., Patrieia Baxter, and Jane P. Goeller, as individaals ("Lessor"). RECITALS This Lease Agreement is enlcred into based upon tile following facts, circnmstances and uaderstandings: A. Lessor owns certain real property legally de§cribed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto aad commonly known as 415 ELI.IAH'S LANE, MATTITUCK, NY 11952 Assessor's Parcel Number District: 1000 Section: 108.00 Block: 04.00 l,ot: 0 t 1.003 ("Lessor's Real Property"). Lessee desires to lease a portion of Lessor's Real Properly together with any necessary easements over otber portions of Lessor's Real Property and/or shared use o1' Lessor's easements over other real property necessary for Lessee's access and utilities to tile leased area (altogether the "Premises"), as described on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. Lessor represents and warrants that it bas the complete righl: and authority to grant the. rights set forth herein and that Lessor has full rights of ingress to and egress fi'om the Premises fi'om a public roadway. B. Lessee desh'es to construct and operate a wireless commnnications site at the Premises. C. Based on tbe Ibregoing I'acts, circumstances and understandings set forth herein and on the terms and conditions se! t'orth below, Lessor is willing to lease tile Premises to Lessee for L~ssee~s proposed use subject to the terms and conditions of this Lease Agreement. WHEREFORE, in consideration of the facts, circumstances and understandings set forth above and the terms and conditions set forth hereia, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereto agree as follows: 1. Grant of Lease. l.cssor hereby leases to Lessee the Premises roi' Lessee's proposed use, subject to the following terms and conditions r'or the Term. 2. Permitted Uses. The Premises may be used by Lessee for the operation of a wireless communications site. Under this Lease AgreemenL Lessee cnay install, place, use and operate on tile Premises such antennas, radio transmitting and receiving equipment, conduits, wires, batteries, back-up generators, utility liaes and facilities, supporting structures, storage facilities, telephone facilities, microwave equipmeut, and related equiprnen! (collectively "Lessee's Facilities") as Lessee deems necessary for the operation of its wireless communications site at the Premises. Further, Lessee [nay perform constructiou, maintenance, top,firs, ndditions to, and replacemeut of Lessee's Facilities as necessary and appropriate for its ongoi:~g busiaess and has the right to do all work necessary to prepare, Site No.: NY 7313 Site Address: 415 ELIJAi-I'S LANE. MATTll'UCK. NY 11952 EX ECUTION COPY 3. } 0. I 0 Page 1 of 14 modify and maintain tile Premises to acconmlodate Lessee's Facilities aud as Lessee determines is required for Lessee's comrnunications operations at tile Premises. 3. Conditions Precedent: Prior Approvals, This Lease Agreement is conditioned upon Lessee obtaining all governmental licenses, permits and approvals enabling Lessee to construct and operate wireless communications facilities on the Premises without conditions which are not standard or typical for premises where wireless commuuications facilities are located. Lessor agrees to cooperate with Lessee's reasouable requests for l,essor's signatures as real property owner on permit applications, for allowing site inspectious by governmental agencies required in connection with reviewing permit applications, and for assistance in obtaining such aecessary approvals, provided that such cooperation and assistance shall be at no expense to Lessor. 4. Term. The term of this Lease Agreement ("Term") shall be five (5) years commencing on the date (a) Lessee begias construction of Lessee's Facilities on tbe Premises or (b) eighteen (I8) months fi'om the last date of execution by a party to this Lease Agreement, as reflected on the signature page below, whichever occurs first CCommencement Date"). Lessee shall promptly deliver writtea notice to Lessor of tile Commencement Date. Lessee shall have the right to extend the Term of this Lease Agreernent for fottr (4) additional terms (each a "Renewal Term") of five (5) years each. The terms mid conditions for each Renewtfl Term shall be the same terms and conditions as iu this Lease Agreement, except that the Rent shall be increased as set forth hereinbelow. This Lease Agreement shall automatically be extended for each successive five (5) year Renewal Term unless Lessee notifies Lessor in writing of Lessee's intention not to extend this Lease Agreement at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the first Term or any Renewal Term. 5. Rent. Within forty-five (45) d_ays of tile Commencement Date, Lessee shall pay Lessor, as rent, the sum of I Illll ! - I I ("Rent") per month. Rent shall be payable on tile first day of each month, in advance, to Lessor or Lassor's alternate payee specified in Section 22, Notices and Deliveries. If the Commencement Date of this Lease Agreement is other than the first day of a calendar month, Lessee may pay on the first day of the Term the prorated Rent for the remainder of the calendar month in which the Term commences, aud thereafter Lessee shall pay a fulI month's Rent on the first day of each calendar nmnth, except that payment shall be prorated for the final fi'actional month of this Lease Agreement, or if this Lease Agreement is terminated before the expiration of any month for which Real should have beeu paid. Rent shall be adjuster[ as of the fifth (5~) anniversary of the Commeacemeat Date of the Term and of any five (5) year Renewal Term by an increase ofl~/l~ of tile Rent paid during tile previous Term or five (5) year Renewal Term. 6. Due Diligence Contingeucy anti Pre-Commencement Date Access to Premises. Lessee shall have the rigbt (but not tile obligation) at any time followiug the full execution of this Lease Agreement and prior to the Commencement Date, to enter the Premises for the purpose of making necessary inspections, taking measuremeuts and conducting engineering surveys (and soil tests where applicable) and any other reasonably necessary tests to cletermine the suitability of tile Premises for Lessee's Facilities ("Due Diligence"), and t'or the purpose of preparing the Premises for the installation or construction of Lessee's Facilities. During any Due Diligence activities or pre-construction work, Lessee shall have insurance which covers such activities as set forth in Sectionl6, Insurance. Lessee will notify Lessor of any proposed tests, measurements or pre-construction work and wilt coordinate the scheduling ofsuch activities with Less~,r. Il'in the course of its Due Diligence Lessee determines that the Site No.: NY 7313 Site Address: 415 ELIJAH'S LANE, M/¥1-rI'I'UCI(.~ NY II 952 F,X EC UTION COPY 3. I 0. I 0 Page 2 of 14 Premises ate unsuitable for Lessee's coatemplated use, then Lessee shall have the right to terminate this Lease Agreement prior to the Commencement Date without any further liability or obligation to Lessor by delivery of written notice o['termlnatlon to Lessor as set forth in Section 13, Termination. 7. Onffoinff Access In Premises. Throughout tl~e Term and any Renewal Term of this Lease Agreemeut, Lessee shall have thc right of access without escort to the Premises for its employees and agents twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days per week, at no additional charge to Lessee. In exercising its right of access It) the Premises herein, Lessee agrees to cooperate with any reasonable security procedures utilized by Lessor at Lessor's Real Property and further agrees not to unduly disturb or interfere with the business or other activities et' Lessor or of other tenants or occupants of Lessor's Real Property. Lessor shall maintain all existing access roadways or driveways extending from the aearest public roadway to the Premises in a manner sufficient to allow for Lessee's access to the Premises. Lessor shall be responsible for maintaining and repairing such roadways and driveways at Lessor's sole expense, except for any damage caused by Lessee's use of such roadways or driveways. If Lessee causes any such damage. Lesse~, shall promptly repair the same at its sole expense. Except those constructed by Lessee, Lessor, not Lessee, shall be responsible for the maintenance and compliance with laws of all towers and structures Iocaled on the Premises, including compliance with Part 17 of the Federal Communications Commissions~ ("FCC") rules. 8. Lessee's Work~ Maintenance ami Repairs. All of Lessee's construction and installation work at the Premises shall be performed at Lessee's sole cost and expense and in a good and workmanlike manner. Lessee shall submit copies o1' the site plan and specifications (the "Plans") to the Lessor for prior approval, which approval will not he unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Lessor shall give such approval or provide Lessee with its requests for changes within five (5) busine.ss days of Lessor's receipt of Lessee's Plans. If Lessor does not provide such approval or request for changes within such five (5) business clay period, Lessor slmll be deemed to have approved the Plans. Lessor shall not be entitl6d to receive any acldifi'onal consideration in exchange for giving its approval of Lessee's Plans. Lessee shall maintain Lessee's Facilities and the Premises in neat and safe condition in compliance with all applicable codes and governmental regulations. Lessee shall not be required to make any repairs to the Premises except For clamages to tbe Premises caused by Lessee, its employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors. Upoa the expiration, cancellation or termination of this Lease Agreement, Lessee shall snrrender the Premises in good condition, less ordinary wear and tear and may, at Lessee's option remove Lessee's Facilities, provided Imwever, in no event shall Lessee be required to remove any foundatioa supports for Lessee's Facilities or condnits which have been installed by Lessee. 9. Title to Lessee's Facilities. Title to Lessee's Facilities and any equipment placed on the Premises by Lessee shall be held by L,essee. All el' Lessee's Facilities shall remain the property Qf Lessee and are not fixtures. Lessee has the right to remove all Lessee's Facilities at its sole expense on or before the expiratiou or termination of this Lease Agreement. Lessor acknowledges that Lessee ~nay enter into financing arrangements including promissory notes and financial and security agreements for the financing of Lessee's Facilities (the "Collateral") with a third party financing entity and may in the future enter into additional financing arrangements with other financing entities. In connection therewith, Lessor (i) consents to the installation of the Collateral to the extent that the Collateral is part of the approved Lessee's Facilities: (ii) disclaims any interest in the CollateraI, as fixtnres or otherwise, whether arising at law or otherwise, including, but aec limilcd to any statutory landlord's Ilex; and (iii) agrees that the Collateral shall be exempt l'rom ex~'cution, Ibreclosure, sale, levy. attachment, or distress Site No.: NY 7313 Site Address: 415 EL[JAH'S LANE, MATTI I'I. jCK, NY II 952 EXECUTION COPY 3.10.10 Page 3 of 14 for any Rent due or to become due and tbat snch Collateral may be removed at any time without recourse to legal proceedings. 10. Utilities. Lessee shall bare tile right to install utilities, at Lesseo's expense, and to improve the present utilities on or near the Premises (including, but not limited to the installation of emergency back-up power). Subject Io Lessor's approval or the location, which approval shall not be nnreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed, Lessee shall have the right to place utilities on (or to bring ntilities across) Lessor's Real Property itl order to service the Premises and Lessee's Facilities. Upon Lessee's request, Lessor shall execute recordable easement(s) evidencing this right. Lessee shall fully and promptly pay ~'or all utilities I'nrnished to the Premises for the use, operation and maintenance off Lessee's Facilities. Upon Lessee's request, Lessor shall alIow Lessee to install sub-metering equipment on existing Lessor ntility service(s). I,essee agrees to install, at Lessee's cost, the required equipment, meters and connections and will reimbnrse Lessor for Lessee's use of utilities at a rate equal to Lessor's unit cost for tile utilities. Lessee shall pay the cost of utility service provided to the Premises and attributable to Lessee's use ("Utility Charge"). Lessee shall pay the estimated cost of the Utility Charge monthly in advance. The parties estimate tile Utility Charge at the commencement of construction to be Three Hundred and no/00 Dollm's ($300.00) per month. During the term of this Lease Agreement, at Lessor's request (which request shall not be more fi'equent than oaae every ,twelve (12) months), Lessee shall calculate the actual Utility Charge For the immediately preceding twelve (12) months based on the readings fi'om the privately installed stlb-meter at Lessor's property. If the actual Utility Charge varies from the estimated Utility Charges paid, the parties shall reconcile past payments of utility charges and adjust ~.~ture estimates of the Utility Charge to reflect Lessee's actual usage. 11. Interference with Commnnications. Lessee's Facilities and operations shall not interfere witb the communications coafigurations, fl'equencies or operating equipment which exist on Lessor's Real Property on the effective date o1' this Lease Agreement ("Pre-existing Communications"), and Lessee's Facilities and operalioas shall comply with all non-interference rules of the FCC. Upon written notice from Lessor of apparent interference by Lessee with Pre-existing Communications, Lessee shall have the responsibility to promptly terminate such interference or demonstrate to Lessor with competent information that tbe apparent interference in fact is not caused by Lessee's Facilities or operations. Lessor shall not, nor shall Lessor permit any other tenant or occupant of any portion of Lessor's Real Property to, engage in nny activilies or operatioas which interfere with the communications operations of Lessee described in Section 2, above. Such interference with Lessee's communications operations shall be deemed a nmterial breach by Lessor, and Lessor shall have the responsibility to promptly terminate said interference. Itl the event any such interference does no3.cease promptly, parties acknowledge that continning interlbrence will cause irreparable iujury to Lessee, and tberefore Lessee shall have the right to bring a court action to enjoin such interference or to terminate this Lease Agreement immediately upon notice to Lessor. Lessor agrees to incorporate equivalent provisions regarding non-interference with [)re-exist[ng Comnmnications into any subsequent leases, licenses or rental agreements with other persons or enlities for any portions of Lessor's Real Property. 12. Taxes. Lessee shall pay personal property taxes assessed against Lessee's Facilities, and Lessor sball pay when dna all t'eal property taxes and all other taxes, fees and assessments attributable to the Premises and this Lease Agreement. 13. Termination. This Lease Agreement may be terminated by Lessee, in its sole discretion, effective immediately withoul I'm'that liability by delivery of written notice thereof to Lessor Site No.: NY 7313 Site Address: 415 ELIJAI-I'S LANE, MA F'ITI'I ~CK, NY 11952 EXECUTION COPY 3, I 0.10 Fage 4 of 14 prior to the Commencement Date for any reason resulting fi'om Lessee's Due Diligence, or if a title report obtained by Lessee for Lessor's Real Property shows any defects of title or any liens or eneumbraaees which may adversely affect Lessee's use of the Premises for Lessee's intended use, or for any other or no reason. This Lease amy be terminated without further liability on thirty (30) days prior written notice as folJows: (i) by citijet parly apon a default of' any covenant, condition, or term hereof by the other party, which defaalt is nol cured within sixty (60) days of receipt of written notice of default; (ii) by Lessee, in its sole discretion, il~ it does not obtain licenses, permits or other approvals necessary to the construction or operation of Lessee's Facilities ("Permits"), is unable to obtain such Permits without conditions which are not standard m' typical for premises where wireless communications facilities are located or is unable to maintain such licenses, permits or approvals despite reasonable efforts to do so; (iii) by Lessee, in its sole discretion, if Lessee is unable to occupy or utilize fl~e Premises due to ruling or directive of the FCC or other govemmenlal m' regulatory agency, including, but not limited to, a take back of frequencies; or (iv) by Lessee, ill its sole discretion, il' Lessee determines that the Premises are not appropriate or saitable i~or its operatioas tlr economic, environmental or technological reasons, including, without limitation, signal slrength or imerference. Other than as stated herein, Lessor shall not have the right to terminate, revoke or ctmcel this Lease Agreement. 14. Destruction of Prmnises. If tile Premises or Lessor's Property is destroyed or damaged so as in Lessee's judgment to hinder its effective use of Lessor's Property for the ongoing operation cfa wireless commuoications site, Lessee may elect to terminate this Lease Agreement without further liability of Lessee as of the date of the damage or destraction by so notifying Lessor no more than thirty (30) days following the date of damage or destruction. In such event, all rights and obligations of the parties which do not survive the tennlnation of this Lease Agreement shall cease as of the date of the damage or destructioa. 15. Conde~nnatiou. I1' a condemning authority takes all of Lessor's Real Property, or a portion which in Lessee's sole opinion is sufficient to reader the Premises unsuitable for bessee's ongoing operation cfa wireless communications site, then this Lease Agreement shall terminate without further liability of Lessee as of the dale when possession is delivered to the condemning authority. In any condemnation proceeding each party slml[ be eatitled to make a claim against the condemniog authority for just compensation recoverable under applicable condemnation law. Sale of ali or part of the Premises to a purchaser witfi tl~e power or emiaent domain in the face of the exercise of its power of eminent domain shall be treated as a taking by a condemning authority. 16. ll~surance. Lessee shall maintain the following insurance: (1) Commercial General Liability with limits of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, (2) Automobile Liability with a combined single limit of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per accident, (3) Workers Compensation as required by law, and (4) Employer's Liability with limits of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. Lessor, at Lessor's sole cost and expense, shall procure and maintain on the Property, bodily in. jury and property damage insurance with a combined single limit of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. Such insurance shall insure, on an occurrence basis, against liability of Lessor, its employees and agents arising out of' or in connection with Lessor's use, occupancy and maintenance o1~ the Property. E~ch party shall be named as an additional insured on the other's policy~ Each party shall provide to the other a certificate of insnranee evidencing the coverage required by this paragraph within thirty (30) clays of the Commencement Date. Each party waives any rights of recovery against the other lbr ia.jury or loss due to hazards covered by their property insurance, and each party shall require such insurance policies to contain a waiver of recovery against the other. Site No.: NY 7313 Site Address: 415 ELIJAH'S LANE, MA'I TITUL:I~.. NY I EXECUTION COPY 3.10, 10 Page 5 o1' 14 17. A~i~,nments or Transfers. Lessor may assign or transfer this Lease Agreement to any person or entity without any requirement l%r prior approval by Lessee, provided that such assignee or transferee agrees in writing to fulfill the duties and obligations of tile Lessor in said Lease Agreement, including tile obligation to respect Lessee's rights to nondistnrbance and quiet enjoyment of the Premises during tile remainder of the Term and a.y Renewal Term hereof, Lessee may assign or transfer this Lease Agreement without prior approval by Lessor to any of Lessee's partners, shareholders, members, subsidiaries, or affiliates, to any antity in which Lessee or any of its affiliates holds an ownership interest, or to a person or entity acqniring by purchase, merger or operation of law a majority of the value of the assets of Lessee or to aay entity whose business is tine ownership of telecommunication towers. Lessee shall not assign or transfer this Lease Agreement to any other person or entity without the prior written approval of Lessor, which ~tplxoval shall not be nnreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed, Notwithstanding anything to the coat,'ary coatained in this Agreement, Lessee may assign, mortgage, pledge, Inypothecate or otberwise transl~r without conseut its interest in this Agreement to any financing entity, or agent on behalt' of any fina,tci~g enti .ty to whom Lessee (i) has obligations for borrowed money or in respect of guaranties thereof, (ii) has obligations evidenced by loans, bonds, debentures, notes or similar iastruments, or (iii) has obligations nnder or with respect to letters of credit, bankers acceptances aad similar facilities or [n respect of guaranties Ihercof. 18. Subleases. Lessee in its sole discretioa shall hfive the right, without any need to obtain the consent of Lessor, to license or sublease all or a portion of the Premises and the Lessee's Facilities to others whose business includes tile provision o1' wireless communication services. Lessee's licensee(s) and sublessee(s) shall be entitled to moclify the Lessee's Facilities and to erect additional improvements on the Premises inclading but not limited to anteonas, dishes, cabling, additional storage buildings or equipment shelters as are reasonably required i%r tile operation and maintenance of the communications equipment to be installed on the Premises by said licensee(s) and sublessee(s). Lessee's licensee(s) and sublessee(s) shall be entitled to all rights or' ingress and egress to the Premises and the right to install utilities on the Premises as if sald licensee or sablessee were tine Lessee under this Lease Agreement. 19. Nondisturbance and Quiet Eujoyment; Subordination; Estoppel Certificates, (a) So long as Lessee is not in default under tiffs Lease Agreement, Lessee shall be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the Premises during tile term of tiffs Lease Agreement or any Renewal Term, and Lessee shall not be distarbed ill its occupancy aad use of the Premises. (b) This Lease Agreement slmll be subordinate to each and every deed of trust, mortgage or other security instrumenl which may now or hereafter affect Lessor's Real Property and to any renewals, extensions, snpplements, amendments, modifications or replacements thereof. In confirmation of such subordination, Lessee slnall execute and deliver promptly any certificate of subordination that Lessor may reasoaably request, provided that such certificate acknowledges that this Lease Agreement remains in full force aad effect, i'ecognizes Lessee's right to nondisturbance and quiet eajoyment of the Premises so long ms I~essee is ~tot in de~'ault under this Lease Agreement, only contains true and accurate statements and Lessee's liability shall be capped at the remaining rent under this Lease Agreement. If any mortgngee or lender succeeds to Lessor's interest in Lessor's Real Property through a foreclosure proceeding or by a deed in lieu of I'ureclosare, Lessee shall attom to and recognize such successor as Lessor under this Lease Agreement. Site No.: NY 7313 Site Address: 415 ELIJAH'S LANE, MAT ITI'UUK. NY 11952 EXECUTION COPY 3, I O. I 0 Page 6 of 14 (c) At any time upon not less tban ten (10) days' prior written notice by Lessor, Lessee shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to Lessor or any other patty specified by Lessor a statement in writing certifying that this Lease Agreement is in fifll force and effect, if true, and the statns of any continuing defaults under th is I .~asc Agreement. 20. Iadenmificatious. (a) Lessee's Indemnity. Lessee hereby agrees to indemnify and hold Lessor and Lessor's officers, directors, partners, shm'ehoklers, employees, agents, contractors or subcontractm's harmless fi'om and against any and all losses, claims, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorney's tees and costs) and injuries (including personal injuries or death) arising from or in connection with Lessee's use, operation, maintenance or repair of Lessee's Facilities at the Premises or access over Lessor's Real Property or Lessee's shared use of Lessor's easements for access to tile Premises, except those resulting from Ihe negligence or willful misconduct of Lessor or Lessor's officers, directors, partners, shareholders, employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors. (b) Lessor's ludemnity. Lessor hereby agrees to indemnify and hold Lessee and Lessee's officers, directors, partners, shareholders, employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors harmless fi'om and against any and all Bosses, claims, tiabilities, damages, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorney's f~es and costs) anti injm'ies (including personal injuries or death) arising fi'om or in connection with Lessor's use, operation, maintenance or repair of improvements on Lessor's Real Property, the use of Lessor's Real ?roperty by other tenants or lessees of Lessor Lessor's shared use of easements for access to Lessor's Real Property, any violation of governmental regulations relating to the Premises and any towers used by Lessee (including tile lighting or painting for aviation pathways), except tbose resulting fi'om the negligence or willful m isconduct of Lessee or Lessee's officers, directors, partners, shareholders, employees, agents, COlltractors al' subcontractors. (c) Special Damages. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Lease Agreement, neither party shall be liable to the other for consequential damages, damages for lost profits, exemplary or punitive damages or other speoiai damages, whether in tort, contract or equity. (d) Survival of lndemnlt3, Provisious. The indemnity provisions of this section shall survive the expiration, cancellation or expiration of this Lease Agreement for a period of one (1) year and any claims for indemnification under Ibis Section 20 shall be brmlght within that period 21. Hazardous Materials. Lessee agrees that it will not use, generate, store or dispose of any Hazardous Material (as defined below) on, under, about or within the Lessor's Real Property in violation of any law or regulation. Lessor represents, warrants and agrees (1) that neither Lessor nor, to Lessor's knowledge, any third party has used. generated, stored or disposed of, or permitted the use, generation, storage or disposal of, any Hazardous Material on, under, about or within Lessor's Real Property in violation of any law or regulation, and (2) that Lessor will not, and will not permit ally third party to use, generate, store or dispose o1' any Hazardous Material oil, tinder, about or within Lessor's Real Property in violatioa of any law or regulation, Lessor and Lessee each agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless tile other and the other's pamlers, affiliates, agents and employees against any and ali losses, liabilities, claims and/or costs (inchlding reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising fi'om any Site No,: NY 7313 Site Address: 415 ELIJAH'S LANE, MA'ITITt!CK, NY 11952 EXECUTION COPY 3.10. I 0 Page 7 of 14 breach of any representation, warranty or agreement contained in this paragraph. As used in this paragraph, "Hazardous Material" shall mean petrolenm or any petroleum product, asbestos, any substance known by the state in which Lessor's Real Property is located to cause cancer and/or reproductive toxicity, and/or any snbstance, chemical or waste that is identified as hazardous, toxic or dangerous in any applicable federal, state or local law or regulation. This paragraph shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 22. Notices and Deliveries. Any notice or demand required to be given herein si'mil be made by certified or registered mail, relUrl'~ receipt requested, confirmed fax, or reliable overnight delivery service to the address of tile respective parties set t'orth below: Lessor: William J. Baxler, Jr. 6915 SE, Flarbor Circle Stuart, FI, 34996 Attn: MI'. William Baxter Telephone: 772~225-4492 Facsimile: Federa} Taxpayer ID Number: Lessee: MetroPCS New York, LLC 5 Skyline Dr, Hawthorne, NY 10532 Attn: Property Manager With a copy to: MetroPCS New York, LLC 2250 Lakeside Blvd. Richardson, 'l'X 75082 Attn: Property Manager Telephone: 214-265-2550 Facsimile: 866-457-4126 Lessor or Lessee may from time to time designate any other address for notices or deliveries by written notice to the other party. 23. Miscellaneous. (a) Severability. If any provision of the Lease Ag*eement is held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction with respect to any party, the remainder of this Lease Agreement or the application o1' such provision to persons other than those as to whom it is held invalid or unenforceable shall not be al'l~ctecl, each pro¥islon of this Lease AgYeement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permilled by lax,.,, and the parties shall negotiate in good faith to amend this Lease Agreement to retain the economic effect of tile inYalid or unenforceable provisions. (b) Blndin~ Effect. Each party represents and warrants that said pm'ty has power and authority, and the person[s) executiag this Lease &greement have full power and authority, to execute and deliver this Lease Agreement, and that this Lease Agreement constitntes a valid and binding obligation of each party, enforce~ble in accordance wicln its terms, except as enforceability may be Site No.: NY 7313 Site Address: 415 ELIJAH'S LANE. MAI I ITUCK. NY 11952 EXECUTION COPY 3.10,10 Page 8 ot'14 limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or other laws affecting th~ enforeelnent of creditor's rights generally and by general eqnitable principles (whether enforcement is sought in proceedings in equity or at hlw). Tiffs Lease Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the successors and permitted assigoees of the respective parties. (e) Waivers. No provision of fl~is Lease Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived by a party unless the waiver is in writiug and signed by tine party against whom enforcement of tine waiver is attempted. No custom or practica wlnich may develop between the parties ill tine implementation or administration of tiaa reruns el this Lease Agreement shall be construed to waive or lessen any right to insist upon stricl perlbrmance o1' tile terms of this Lease Agreement. (d) Governing Law. This Lease shall be governed by and construed in accordance witln the laws of the State in wlfich the Premises are located excluding principles of conflicts of law. (e) Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The prevailing party in any legal claim arising lnereunder shall be entitled to its reasonable attol nays tees and costs and court costs. (0 Survival. Terms and conditions of this Lease Agreement which by tlneir seuse and context survive tine termination, cancellation or expiration of tiffs Lease Agreement will so survive. (g) Memormuhm~ of Lease Agreement. Lessor acknowledges that a Memorandum of Lease Agreement sabstantially in the l'orm annexed hereto tis Exlfibit C will be recorded by Lessee in the Official Records of the County where tine Proped3, is located. (h) Entire Al~reementl Amendments. This Lease Agreement constitutes tile entire agreement and understanding between Ihe parties regarding Lessee's lease of the Premises and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous offers, negotiations and otlner agreements concerning the subject matter contained Inerein, There are no representations or understandings of any kind not set fortln Inerein. Auy amendments to this Lease Agreement must be in writing and executed by duly authorized representatives of both parties. (i) No Presnmptions ReRm'ding Preparation of Lease Agreement. Tile parties acknowledge and agree that each of' the parties has been represented by counsel or has Ired full opportunity to consult witln counsel and flint each of tile parties Ires participated in the negotiation and drafting of' this Lease Agreement. Accordingly it is the intention and agreement of the parties that the language, terms and conditions of this Lease Agreement are not to be construed in ally way against or in t'avor of any party hereto by reason of file roles and responsibilities of the parties or their counsel in connection witln the preparation of this Lease Agreement. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] Site No.: NY 7313 Site Address: 415 ELIJAH'S LANE. M/\ I'ITFU(tI<. NY 11952 EXECUTION COPY 3.10. I 0 Page 9 of 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties bare caused tiffs Lease Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the dates set fortb below and acknowledge that this Lease Agreement is effective as of the date first above written. LESSOR: William J. Baxter, Jr., Patrieia Baxter, and Jane P. Gocller, as individuals~ (Si t Print Name: (SignJture) LESSEE: MetroPCS New York, LLC, Delaware ~ed~~/om~ . Title: Site No.: NY 73~3 John gosslteh for Dan Olmettl Page I0 of14 Site Address: 4.15 EL1JAH'S LANE. MAITIIUCK. NY 11952 EXECUTION COPY 3.10,10 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF LESSOR'S REAL PROPERTY to the Lease Agreement dated ,2010, by and between William J. Baxter, Jr., Patricia Baxter, and Jane P. Goeller, as individlmls as I,essor. and MetroPCS New York, LLC, a Delaware limited liability compan),, as I,essee, bessor's Property of which Premises are a part is described as Follows: W~I refill I~nl a.ld la~ nad ~il~lly IlOflfl I.nd ~w or ~eflv o~ the ~nty 197~ fe~ to ~o ~&fll or plnol ~f B~(IINNIN~, Assessors Parcel Number: District: I000 Section: 108.00, Block; 04.00 Lot: O11.003 Site No,: NY 7313 Site Address: 415 ELIJAH'S LANE, iVlA'ITI I'['CI<. NY 11952 EXECUTION COPY 3~10.10 Page I 1 ot'14 EXHIBIT B DESCR£PT1ON OF PREMISES to tbe Lease Agreement dalccl ,2010, by and between William J. Baxter, Jr., Patricia Baxter, and Jane P. GoeJler. as individuals as Lessor, and MetroPCS New York LLC, a Delaware limited liability compaoy, as I,essee. The Premises consist of those specific areas described/shown below or attached where Lessee's communications anteonae, equipment and cables occupy Lessor's Real Property. The Premises and the associated utility connections aod access, inchlding easements, ingress, egress, dimensions, and locations as described/shown, are approximate truly and may be adjusted or changed by Lessee at the time of construction to reasonably accommodale sound engineering criteria and tile physical features of Lessor's Real Property. SEE ATTACHED DRAWINGS (A final droa4,ing or co/tv afc! proper(l; survey or site plan depicting the above shall replace this Exhibi! B ~4,hen initialed by Lessor or Lessor's designated agent and may be modi. fied fi'om ti!m, lo Ume u,hen initioled by both Lessor and Lessee.) Site No.: NY 7313 Site Address: 415 ELIJAH'S LANE, MA'i'TFI't~CK. NY 11952 EXECUTION COPY 3.10.10 Page 12 oCI4 ¸%.. PLAN RELOGATEi3~ ANT ENN,I~5 5U~SMITTE~ DES~GN~ NEW YORK LLC / / / / // G P,. 0 U P- CEQUIPMENT F:LAN E~U[PklENT PLAN metroPCS. 4lB BLIJ,Z~.~ LANE LE -3 EXHIBIT C MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT CLEKK: Please return this documem m: MetroPCS New York, LLC 5 Skyline Drive Hawthorne, NY 10532 Altn.: Property Manager This Memorandum of Agreement is entered into on this day of , , by and between William J. Baxter, Jr., Ptltricia Baxter. arid .hm¢ P. Goeller. tls individuals with an office at 6915 SE Harbor Circle, Stuart, FI, 34996 (hereinafter referred to as "l.essor"), and MetroPCS New York, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, with an office at 5 Skyline Drive, Hawthorne, NY 10532 (hereinafter referred to as "Lessee"). Lessor and Lessee entered into a Commtmications Site Lease Agreement ["Agreement"] on the day of , Ibr the purpose of installing, operating and maintaining a communications facility and other improvements. All el'the foregoing is set forth in the Agreement. The term of the Agreement is for five (5) years commencing on eighteen (18) months fi'om full execution or start of construction whichever first occurs ("Commencement Date") and terminating on the fii~h (5t~') anniversary of the Cmmnencemeat Date~ with t'oar(4) successive five (5) year options to renew. In no event shall the term ~fl'the Agreemenl exceed Ihirly-fJve (35) years. 3. The Land M'fich is the subject of the Agreemeat is described in Exhibit A annexed hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandnm of Agreement as of the day and year first above written. LESSOR: individuals By: Title: Date; LESSEE: MetroPCS New York, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Title: By: Title: Date: Site No.: NY 7313 S e Add 'ess: 415 ELIJAH S LAN .. M;\[I'II[rCI4.. NY 11952 EXECUTION COPY 3.10.10 Page 13 of 14 STATE OF COUNTY OF On , be[ore me, , Notary Public, personally appeared __ , personally known to me (or proved to me on file basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to tile within instrnment and acknowledged lo me that he/she/they executed the same itl his/hefftheir authorized capacit(ies), and that by bis/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrameat. WITNESS my hand and. official seal. (SEAL) Notary Public STATE OF COUNTY OF Oil , belt)re me, , Notary Public, persoually appeared ., personally known to me (or proved to me on tire basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they execnted the same in Iris/her/their authorized capacit(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, execuled tile instrument. WITNESS my band and official seal. (SEAL) Notary Public Site No.: NY 7313 Site Address: ,[15 ELIJAH'S INANE, MATTI'I't tCI4.. NY 11952 EXECUTION COPY 3.10. l0 Page 14 of 14 MetroPCS Communications, Inc. Delegation of Authority Form Delegator: Name (print) Title Location Delegatee: Name (print) Title Location Dan Olmetti Vice-President / General Manager New York Market (5 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY 10532) John Kossitch Regional VP, Network Operations New Yoi'k Market (5 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY 10532) Delegation: [] All per Summary of Delegated Approvals: categories and amounts [] Pm~ial - describe Stm~ Date of Delegation End Date of Delegation Signature of Delegator Signature of Delegatee Instructions: It is not necessary to attach a copy of&is delegation form to each document being approved by the Delegatee. Instead, please notate on the document being approved on whose behalf you are signing. Forward original form. to ~orporate Controller to maintain for audit purposes with a copy to the Delegatee. Effective: August 8, 2007 AT&T Sim: CN228/MATrlTUCK / FA# 10075046 Me~x)PC$ Sit~: 390 RT. 25 / NY7313 This Site License Agreement ("SLA"), entered ~ ~ ~.-(~ day of [~7_~g'C.~ ~ 20 ~(~("SLA Effective Date") between New Cingular Wirele~ PCS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, hereinafter designated as LICENSOR and MetroPCS New York, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, berelnat~ designated as LICENSEE. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 10. 11. 12. This SLA is a SLA as referenced in that ca'rain Master ~ Agreement between MetroPCS, Inc. and CIi~GULAR WIRI=~ ~-SS LLC dated May 23. 2006 ("MLA"). All of the terms and conditions of the MIA are incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof without the necessity of repeating or attaching the MLA. In the event of a conUedictioil, modification or inconsistency between the terms of the MI,A and this SLA, the terms of the MLA shall govern and consol. Capitalized ten'as used in this SLA shall have the same meaning described for them in the MIA unless otherwise indicated herein. SiteNo. and Name (ifapplicable): LICENSOR: FA# 10075046/CN228/MATITl~CK LICENSEE: NY7313 / 390 RT. 25 Site Address and the Land which is more particularly described in Attachment 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein: ROUTE 25 & ~.T~AHS LANE, CUTCHOGUE, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK Site Latituda and'Longitude: 40.9994600~ N / _72.$ i 117000~ W The LICENSEE Antenna Facilities to be placed on the Property and the location of the Prerahes are detailed in and shall he consistent with Attachment 2, attached hereto end incorporated herein. The term of this SLA shall be as set forth in Sections 4 and 5 of the MLA, except: n/a The Rent commencement date of the SLA shall be the first day of the month following the earlier of either;, i) one hundred eighty (180) days after full execution of this SLA; or ii) the receipt by LICENSEE of written no/ce from LICENSOR permitting LICENSEE to commence comtruction. ~ Rent for the ini~_._term of this SLA shall be at an annual rental '1 to he paid in equal monthly t day of the month, in advance, to LICI~SO~-~t the following address: AT&T Mobility, Co-Location A/R, P.O. Box 97079, Redmond, WA 98073-9779 or to such other person, firm or place as the LICENSOR may, from time to time, designate in writing at least thirty (30) days in advance of any rental payment date. All Rent checks shall have LICENSOR's site number clearly written on the face oftbe check. If the Propet~ is subject to a prime lease, license or other such agreement grunting LICENSOR's interest of the Property, a copy of such agreement is attached hereto as Attachment 3. If consent is required from Owner, it shall be attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment 4. LICENSOR Contact for Emergency: bflqRC T~ I:.PHONE: (800) 638-2822 LICENSEE Contact for Emergency: NOC Thai h-'PHONE: (866) 672-6727 Special Provisions: (a) The Prime Lease requires that LICENSOR share ...... of the rents or license payments that LICENSOR receives from any third party users of the Proper~y~evenue Share"). LICENSEE agrees to reimburse LICENSOR for the cost of said Revenue Share ("Revenue Share Rei~m_b _m'~em._~enf'). The Revenue Share Reimbursement to be paid at the time Rent is due, itasli~ ! per month. Such Revenue Share Reimbursement shall be adjusted in the s~me manner ~an"~"~multaueonsly with the adjustments to LICENSEE's Rent payments. (b) LICENSEE hereby acknowledges that tower extension expenses and tower extension design expemes (collectively, "Tower Extension Costs") are required and will be paid to LICENSOR by LICENSEE. LICENSOR will provide LICENSEE with a frrm quote for the Tower Extension Costs. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the IvlLA, LICENSEE will have sixty (60) days from issuance of the quote to pay the Tower Extension Costs via a Purch~e Order ("PO") or check made payable to LICENSOR. Alternatively, LICENSEE shall have the right to terminate this SLA wiflfin sixty (60) days of issuane~ of the Tower Extension Costs quote. If LICENSEE does not provide a PO or cheek for payment of the Tower Extension Costs and does not elect to termln~to the SLA within sixty (60) days of issuance of the quote, LICENSOR shall have the fight, to terminate this SLA. LICENSOR h under no obligation to begin any tower extension until receipt of a PO or check from LICEIq$1~. If after the issuance of a PO to LICENSOR for payment of the Tower Extension Costs, LICENSEE elects to terminate this SLA under any other termination provision contained herein, LICENSEE shall remain obligated to pay the Tower Extension Costs to LICENSOR within ninety (90) days of such termination. LICENSEE agrees that the installation of LICENSEE's proposed equipment as more particularly dnscn'bed in Attachment 2 of this SLA, shall not occur without the issuance of a Notice to Proceed ("NTP') by LICENSOR. LICENSEE further acknowledges that, although LICENSOR's vendor shall perform the actual extension to the tower, LICENSOR and LICENSEE may share respomibility for obtalrsing the approvals necessary for the extension to the tower, including but not limited to FAA, FCC, zoning and environmental approval. At the sole discretion of LICENSOR, LICENSOR and LICENSEE will enter an additional agreement ("Tower Extension Agreement") that will document and assign those responsibilities and other applicable melters. LICENSEE agrees to reasonably cooperate at LICENSEE's sole cost and expense with LICENSOR to effectuate the intent of this paragraph. REMAINDER OF PAQ~ INTENTIONALLY BLANK SIGNATI.rRES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their respective seals the day and year first above written. LICENSOR: Nzw Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC By: AT&T Mobility Its: Man~ TITLE: ~imctor- Network MAR ~ 6 2010 DATE: WITNESS iI~:~York, LLC Dan OlmettJ NY VVlI'~M NAME: TITLE: DATE: ATTACHlv~ENTS: Attachment I: Legal Descril~ion of the L~d At~tchment 2: LICENSEE'S Premise~ Attachment 3: Prime Lease Attachment 4: Owner's Consent Attachment 5: Memorandum of Site License Agreement STATE I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Neil C. Boyer is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this insmunenL on on1~ stated that he was authorized to execute ~e insm~nent and acknowledged it aa t~e Di~-ctor-Netwotk of ATX, T Mobility Corporation, as Manage~ of New Cingulnr Wireless PCS, LLC to bc the flee and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes men~oned in the instrument. ~' ~...~ '..~'~ (Use this space for notary stamp/seal) P~m Name My commission expires ) COUNTY OF ) Ice~i~Iknoworhavesafis~d~ ~ Ol~' is~e~nwho ap~ before m~ ~d s~d p~n ~owl~g~ ~ h~she si~is ins~men~ on o~ ~ ~ h~e w~ au~odz~ to ex~u~ __.to be the free and volunta.'T act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Nota~ Public Prim Nnme My commission expires (Use this space for notar~ stamp/seal) ATTAC-'H154]/2~ 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND Being a part of District 1000, Section 108, Block 4, Lot 11.3 on the Suffolk County tax map, and more pa~icularly described in the Prime L~se attached he.to as Attachment 3, ATTACHMENT '~ LICENSEE's PREMISES The Premiss i~ defined below and plato and spedi~ation~ are a/iached hereto. Number of Antenna.s: Antenna Manufacturer and Type-Number: Weight and Dimension of Antenne(s) (L x W x D): Number of Transmission Lines: Diameter and Length of Transmission Line: Location of Antenna(s) on Tower (Approved RAD Center): Direction of Radiation (Azimuth): Dimensions of LICENSEE Ground Space: Frequencies/Max. Power Output: Additional Equipment to be placed on Tower: Six ¢6~ Andrew HBX-651 (~DS-VTM 9.9 lbs / 51.4" x 6.6" x ~,3" Twelve (12) 7/8": 4-/-123' 114.25' and 120' AGL w/tgwer exte-n~in~l 0%110°-240° 10' x 16' within UCENSOR lease ar~,~ lpm secured by a seoarate leaze with Owm*r Tx: 2130-2140: Rx: 1730-1740 MHz 24 watt~ [;~ radin N/A Notes: 1. The p~ans and specifications att~hed hereto are provided as SLA attachments only. Approved Final Con~'uctlon drawings are required Ixfor to commencement of oonetructk3n. Actual 'as built" drawing~ shall be attached and incorporated heroin at the itme of completion of construction, 2. This Attachment is to include any plans for routing lines, utility wires, etc. o~ or acress the Pmperfy. 3. Frequency and Power Output Infon'natlon is provided for purpoees of monitoring c,(xnpllance with the Interference sections only. 6 LE -2 ATTACHMENT 3 PRIME LEASE T~e Prime Lense is at'tabbed hereto. roPCS (City of Mount vernon Litigation) Transcript of Proceedings before S D N Y 20107tmetroc 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 2O 20 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES OISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK METRO PCS NEW YORK, LLC Plaintiff, 09 civ. 8348(SCR) THE CITY OF MOUNT VERNON; THE CITY OF MOUNT VERNON PLANNING BOARD, Defendants. Before: united States Courthouse white Plains, N.Y. 3uly 29, 2010 3:40 p.m. THE HONORABLE STEPHEN C. ROBINSON, District 3udge APPEARANCES CUDDY & FEDER, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff ANDREW P. SCHRIEVER CHRISTOPHER B. FISHER BRIAN P. GALLIGAN BRIAN G. 3OHNSON 3OANA H. AGGREY Assistan Corporation Counsel city of Mount Vernon Law Department CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, (914)390-4103 CRR 20107tmetroc THE DEPUTY CLERK: Your Honor, this is in the matter of Metro PCS New York, LLC v. the city of Mount Vernon and city of Mount Vernon Planning Board. Starting with the plaintiffs, can I have all counsel state their appearance for the record, please. MR. SCHRIEVER: Andrew Schriever, Cuddy & Feder, for plaintiff Metro PCS. THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. schriever. MR. SCHRIEVER: Good afternoon, your Honor. MR. FISHER: christopher Fisher, Cuddy & Feder, for Page 1 - comi Examinati 1 :roPCS (City of Mount Vernon Litigation) Transcript of Proceedings before s D N Y 11 Metro PCS. fl - Comi Examinati 12 THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Fisher. 13 MR. C~4LLIC~N: Brian Galligan, also from cuddy & 14 Feder, for plaintiff. 15 THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Galligan. i6 MR. C~LLIC~N: Good afternoon, your Honor. 17 MR. 3OHNSON: Brian G. 3ohnson for the defendant City i8 of Mount Vernon, New York. 19 THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. ]ohnson. 20 MR. 3OHNSON: Good afternoon. 21 MS. AGGREY: 3oana Aggrey for the city of Mount 22 Vernon. 23 THE COURT: Good afternoon, MS. Aggrey. 24 You all can have a seat. 25 The purpose of this conference is to follow up on my CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914)390-4103 20107tmetroc 1 opinion and order, which was dated a week ago today, 3uly 22nd. 2 In that order, I indicated that it was my opinign and decision in this case that the fees charged for the special-use permit 4 application and the consulting fees needed to be adjusted and 5 discussed. I should have probably made it clearer what I hoped 6 would happen is that the parties would themselves talk about 7 what was a reasonable fee, reach some conclusion, and simply 8 send. me a l~tter saying we've agreed, but I take it, since you 9 are here, t,at you nave not. 10 But let me first turn to anyone who wishes to tell me 11 where you are. 12 MR. SCHRIEVER: I'll jump in, your Honor. 13 THE COURT: Please. 14 MR..SCHR~E~ER: Thank you. 15 we nave nao conversations, several conversations, with 16 attorneys for the City in an effort to try to work out a 17 compromise with respect to the fee issue. Essentially where we 18 stand, your Honor, is that, as you know, there's two components 19 to your decision, with respect to the component that struck 20 the fee provision itself as invalid, the City's indicated to me 21 that, because there are a lot of players involved, 22 understandably, and we need to,do some work now in terms of 23 revising their code, that they re not yet in a position to 24 suggest what might have been the appropriate application fee in 25 this particular situation. CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914)390-4103 20107tmetroc 4 1 with respect to that and with deference to the Cit , 2 ~it~ an undgrstapding that we?e. going to work in good fait~ to 3 Implement the ot~er aspects ot the order with respect to 4 getting the permits issued, I've consented with counsel for the $ city to give them a little bit more time to get back to me and 6 see whether or not we can resolve that issue completely and get 7 that -- $ THE COURT: what do you think is a reasonable fee? 9 Really, what do you think is a reasonable fee? 10 MR. SCHRIEVER: It's a little bit of a difficult 11 question, your Honor, only because, as we argued in our papers, 12 the.special-permit fee that's required for such massive 13 pro]ects as a university or an asphalt-mixing plant, for example, big projects Involving serious environmental and 15 population Implications as opposed to a stealth rooftop site in Page 2 ~roPcs (city of Mount Vernon Litigation) Transcript of Proceedings before s D N Y - 16 this instance, for us, there was no justification for why our 17 application should have been treated differently, and were I to i8 take a position not for settlement purposes, my position would i9 be that $500 -- 20 THE COURT: okay, I'm not ~oin 21 ~ uer a ~uu Tee. MR. SCHRIEVER: understood, w~ich is also why we're 22 continuing to have that discussion with respect to the 23 application fee. 24 THE COURT: What was the fee they charged you in this 25 case? CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914)390-4103 20107tmetroc i MR. SCHRIEVER: $6,000. 2 THE COURT: SO, on the other end, you have $500? 3 ...... MR; SCHR~VER:. SO it's probably somewhere in the 4 mloole ir I m reao!ng t~e Court correctly. And I agree with 5 your Honor. But since this is a matter of some legislative 6 intent with respect to what the city is planning to do, then 7 ~ould say ~hat I respect the city's request for more time 8 oecause it s a conversation that reaches much Further 9 THE COURT: Hold on. My law clerk is telling me what 10 I really should think. Hold on one second. 11 MR. 5CHRIEVER: I get that, too, your Honor. 12 THE COURT: GO ahead. [3 MR..SCHR~EVER: SO, along those lines, I agree with 14 your Honor that this is a gap that probably can be close, but 15 it ~eally, I think, should be done in consult with what the 16 legislators from the city are thinking. And through the 17 conversation I had with Mr. 3ohnson most recently, outside the 18 courtroom, I would consider it a very productive conversation. 19 And I think working through each other as ageQts for him 20 translating to me what the legislators are th~nking, we have a 21 lot of experience in the area of Torking in Telecom, and we 22 are, therefore, glad to consult with them about it. 23 THE COURT: Well, give me the benefit of your 24 experience. You build these towers all over the place, right? 25 MR. SCHRIEVER: Correct. CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914)390-4103 20107tmetroc i THE COURT: In communities all over this county, this 2 state. 3 MR. SCHRIEVER: Absolutely. 4 THE COURT: Even the country. $ MR. SCHRIEVER: Yes, sir. 6 THE COURT: So I take it you have a lot of experience. 7 MR. SCHRIEVER: Yes. 8 THE COURT: Give me the benefit of that. 9 MR. SCHRIEVER: Okay. For that, can I defer to my 10 land-use counsel, Mr. Fisher? 11 THE COURT: Mr. Fisher. I2 MR. FISHER: Your Honor, with respect to land-use i3 applications, zoning application fees for a lot of these , i4 facilities for purposes of trying to settle this IS think we'v · case, I don t · , ,e.~ver ~een anything that reasonably would be over a 16 t~ousano ooHars ~or that type of application. Mostly I say 17 that because, beyond wireless and every other land use and 18 zoning application that we're used to dealin ' . 19 it's an office buildino, a su.ermarb~e 20 Vern~- "" k .... J .~-."'. --.~ ------, ~.~tn~F l~ S in Mount ~,, ~- ucyu.u, Chat, in tnls geographic area, typically the Page 3 6 Comi Examinat~ :roPCS (City of Hount Vernon Litigation) Transcript of Proceedings before S O N Y - Comi Examinati 21 application fees are somewhere in that neighborhood, $500 to a 22 thousand dollars. 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The intent of ~ ~pp]ication fee is an administrative expense, and if you go nlgner on these fees legis]atlvely, essentially -- CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RNR, CRR (914)390-4103 20[07tmetroc 7 THE COURT: I know, but we're one step before the legislature. YOU're before me. I can do whatever I want. MR..FISHER: Yes. I completely agree, your Honor. I'm just trying to give you the benefit of what we see from a zoning standpoint. THE COU~:. To be ~horo~ghly serious about t~is, my concern is I wou~o nave prererre~ not to.order something in this case that then someone views as a d~rective or binding on the town for what they do going lombard, so I didn't want to say a fee and then have everyone look up and say, look, the 3udge told you what a reasonable fee was or someone to point to that. so that was really my hope, that you folks would settle it. I would want to give them some reasonable leeway here. I do hear you that, you know, typically, at least in your experience, those fees are somewhere in the thousand-doll vi · ' , . ar affinity, let s say. All right, so that s where you folks You think the fee should be somewhere around there? MR. SCHR~EVER: with respect to that component -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. SCHRIEVER: -- of the fee issue in the Court's decision, yes. w~th respect to the consulting portion, on that, although we have tried and we made a couple proposals, the City CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914)390-4103 20107tmetroc 8 ipdicat~d that it's not rea]ly in a position to necessarily -- t~at it s not really able, at this point, to agree on what the reasonable consulting fee in this particular s~tuation shou]d have been. Toward that end, we did request that the City -- that its consultant be present in the event ~hat the Court wanted to simply vet the issue today, and we re prepared to move forward on that if the Court wants to. THE COURT: We]], ]et me turn to either Hs. Aggrey or Hr. 3ohnson. Tell me your view of this. where are you? You have no idea what you think, in light of my order, a reasonable fee would be? You have nothing you can know, figure, that makes sense for you? MR. 3OHNSON: We].], your Honor, we've had a week to look at the decision. An~ the breadth of the decision, obvious]y, can be far reaching for the City, so we wanted to take this time to study it. with respect to this particular application, we believe, you know, we hired our expert in good faith, we believe that the application fee is supportable, we've been told by our consultant that it is supportable. THE COURT: The a@p]ication fee or the consulting fee? HR. 3OHNSON: Both, your Honor. ' THE COURT: You really think a $6,000 to $12,000 application fee is supportable? I may be wrong. Page 4 roPCS (city of Mount Vernon Litigation) Transcript of Proceedings before s o N Y CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914)390-4103 2010?tmetroc 1 MR. 3OHNSON: NO, no. 2 THE COURT: I've been wrong before. 3 , . ~. J~HNSON: And I may be wronge too, which is why 4 we re /OOKlng rot some time to study the issue. But, as 5 counsel mentlone~, it's for administrative costs, and, you 6 know, we have quite a few City employees spending a lot of time 7 evaluating a lot of information for these fees, ~or these 8 applications. 9 _ ~? I say that to say, your Honor, the c~ty 10 respecttum/y is requesting more time to look at lt. obviously, 11 the city wants to operate in good faith with the -- 12 THE COURT: I don't ~oubt that. I don't doubt that. 13 I don t doubt that both parties are trying to operate in good 14 faith. I don't doubt that the dispute that was originally. 15 raised to the court was done i~ good faith. And both parties 16 presented their respective posltionse and ! made the best 17 ruling that I could in light of the Information that I had in i8 the limited brain cells t~at I have left. 19 so what kind of time do.you folks need? 20 MR. SCHRIEVER: Well, with respect to the 21 consulting-fee issue, we're p~epared to move forward, also 22 noting that I believe Mr. Coml traveled some distance, so, on 23 that, we can go forward today. 24 THE COURT: Wow. Okay. 25 MR. SCHRIEVER: It's up to the Court. CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914)390-4103 20107tmetroc 1 THE 2 MR. 3 THE 4 MR. 5 scope. 6 COURT: Can we do this incredibly quickly? SCHRIEVER: I can try.. COURT: Let's do this Incredibly quickly. SCHRIEVER: The issue is relatively limited in THE COURT: okay. Let's go. 7 who are you going to call? 8 MR. SCHRIEVER: I will call Richard Comi, C-O-M-I, 9 from the Center for Municipal Solutions 10. THE COURT: We have like a little mini hearing/trial 11 thing going here. 12 RICHARD COMI, i3 called as a witness by the Plaintiff, 14 having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 15 THE COURT: You have ten minutes. 16 MR. SCHRIEVER: I will do my best. Thank you, your 17 Honor. 18 THE COURT: YOU will do whatever you're going to do in 19 ten minutes. 20 MR. SCHRIEVER: Fair enough. 21 THE DEPUTY CLERK: Please state and spell your name 22 for the record. 23 THE WITNESS: Richard Comi, C-O-M-I. 24 DIRECT EXAMINATION 25 BY MR. SCHRIEVER: CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914)390-4103 20107tmetroc Comi - Direct i Q. Mr. Comi, you're a principal of Center for Municipal Page 5 - Comi Examinati 9 10 i1 roPCS (city of Mount Vernon Litigation) 2 solutions, correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And you are not $ correct? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. And you are not 8 that correct? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. And you are not 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. And you are not 13 A. There is -- Transcript of Proceedings before S D N Y a licensed professional engineer; is that a licensed New York state architect; is a certified planner; is that correct? an RF engineer; is that correct? 14 THE COURT: Not a what? 15 MR. SCHRIEVER~ An RF engineer. 16 A. There is no RF engineering degree in this country that I'm 17 aware of. I have conducted and have tremendous experience in 18 the background of RF engineering by reviewing thousands of 19 wireless applications. 20 q. Mr. Comi, do you recall testifying under oath in the, matter 21 NEXTEL Communications v. Town Of Ed~ewood, New Mexico: 'I have 22 never carried the title RF engineer ? Do you recall testifying 23 to that? 24 A. If you say so. I don't have the document in front of me. 25 That was years ago. But I don't deny that could have been CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914)390-4103 1 2 3 4 20107tmetroc Comi - Direct said. I'm not an RF engineer as there aren't any. Q. There's no such thing as an RF engineering, ~r. Comi? A. TO the best of.my kgowledge there is no aegree in this country for RF engineering. Q..My question is whether there is such a thing as an RF engineer. A. There's plenty of people that carry around a business card that says RF engineer. q. And you're not one of them? A. I don't carry a business card that says that, no. Q. You've testified in other matters tht you are not an RF engineer, also, correct? A. That's correct. Q. DO you recall testifying in the matter of American Tower v. City of Huntsvillet Alabama that you had no formal classroom training in the field of technology known as PCS? A. Again, that was years ago, but if you so state, I'm sure it's in the record. Q. okay. And do you recall testifying in that same case that you had no formal education in the area of zoning and land-use regulation? A. Again, if you so state, I don't deny that it may be in the recora. Q. okay. And do you recall being asked in that case: "what formal education or training have you had in the area of CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914)390-4103 20107tmetroc Comi - Direct legislative or regulatory drafting?" And your answer was "none"? DO you recall teat? A. Formal training -- I don't, but, again, if it's in the record, it is. Q. okay. - Comi Examinati formal And you were asked, also, in that case: "what education or training, if any, have you had in the field Page 6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 13 roPcs comi Examinati (city of Mount vernon Litigation) Transcript of Proceedings before $ o N Y - 7 of structuraT engineering pertaining to telecommunications 8 towers?" And you said, "other.than attending seminars, none." 9 DO you recall testifying to that? 10 A. Again, whatever the reco~d states is accurate. 11 Q. okay; In that same American Tower case, when you were 12 asked: what formal education or training have you.had in the 13 areas of the health or environmental effects of rad~ofrequency 14 emissions," you answered, "none." 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 DO you recall testifying to that? A. Again, if the record so states, then I'm sure I did. Q. okay. We can offer you the transcript of any of these quotes if you would like to look at them. A. well, your Hgnor said 10 minutes. I'm trying to accept what you're stating is on the record as fact, sir. Q. Fair enough. And in that same American Tower case~ you were asked what formal education or training you've had ~n the field of law, and your answer was, "none." OD you recall saying that? CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR C914)390-4103 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 14 19 20 22 23 24 25 20107tmetroc Comi - Direct A. Again, most likely, I did. Q:. ANd what we've just discussed i~ terms of qualifications, all those statements that we just d~scussed, i~ that all true as of today? And I can break it down if you l~ke. A. For myself, individually, yes. Q. okay. And is it true, alsot that you draft ordinances for municipalities to guide their w~reless siting process? A. Yes, we do have such a generic ordinance. . Q. Did you have any role in drafting that generic ordinance? A. Yes. Q. And did you draft the ordinance that's at issue in the Mount vernon case that we're ~ealing with here? A. The generic one that we d~scussed with them, and then they individualized it to their needs, yes. Q. was the $6,000 to $12,000 fee structure part of that draft ordinance? A. I don't believe it was in the draft, but it was discussed at the time it was put in place. Q. Is that something you recommended to Mount Vernon? A. Recommended, I don't believe so. As I've said, sir, it was discussed and determined that it made sense that, based on what wa~ out there in pther ?mmunitie~ and the costs for processing and maintaining t~e application, oecause I do believe that a community is allowed to charge a cost that will allow them to recover their fully aqlocated cost, which includes the CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914) 390-4103 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 li 20107tmetroc comi - Direct maintenance of the records, and we had, at that time, documentation from rural communities down south that, to maintain the prints and the access to them, et cetera, was a cost of $125 a year, and when they then took that out for a 30-year period, because these applications are into perpetuity, to maintain that record down there, they came up with over $6,000 just for the maintenance of the records and access to them, not including the cost of the meetings, the permit, the staff, and all of the other issues. And it's pretty obvious to us that costs for all of those issues, as well as staff support, et cetera, to maintain these records in the City of Page 7 14 15 roPCs (city of Mount Vernon Litigation) Transcript ~f Proceedings before s D N Y - Comi Examinati i2 Mount Vernon is substantially higher than a rural community in 13 North Carolina. 14 . THE ~OURT: I'm sorry. You.said that there were other 15 communities that charge fees like this $6,000 to $12,0007 16 THE WITNESS: There are two in westchester that charge 17 more. 18 THE COURT: who is that? 19 THE WITNESS: New Rochelle and the Town Of cortland. 20 Q. Did you have any role with respect to those ordinance~ 21 coming into place? - , 22 A. New Rochelle, yes. Town of Cortland, I -- I really don t 23 remember, we have hundreds of cliegts. ~ may have, but I may 24 not have. I don't remember how their ordinance came into place 25 at this time. CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914) 390-4103 ~ i6 20107tmetroc Comi - Direct 1 THE COURT: And when you recommend these fees, what is 2 it specifically, that you~look at? That is, do you say to the 3 town give me a listing or the individuals that are going to 4 work. on ~hi~ ~nd t~e ~umber of hours.that they're going to 5 ~en~ ano tn~lr.sa/ar~es ~o ~ can calculate that up? what is 6 l: tnat you lOO~ at t~at /eaos you to this $6,000 to $12,000 7 figure? 8 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, the numbers that I had in 9 ~ront of me, that I specifically had, and I have a copy of that 10 oocument, and that 30-year administrative cost -- 11 THE COURT: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking 12 about the fees that it cost the Town of Mount Vernon, not 13 talking a~ou~ sto?ge,.~hich ~hat's a ridiculous figure to 14 start with, but I m ta~zing aoout the people in the Town of 15 Mount Vernon who are going to handle the application, review 16 it. what did you look at that led you to a calculation that a 17 $6,000 to $12,000 fee is appropriate? 18 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, we didn't look at anything 19 specific relevant to cost of employees or services in Mount 20 vernon. We looked at what was out there, the background that 21 we had. 22 THE COURT: when ~ou say what was out there, what do 23 you mean when you say that. Are you talking about what New 24 Rochelle did or are you talking about something else? 25 THE WITNESS: Sir, we have hundreds of communities -- CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR ~ (914)390-4103 17 20107tmetroc Comi - Direct i THE COURT: YOU have hundreds of communities that 2 charge between $6,000 and $12,0007 3 THE WITNESS: NO, sir. Your Honor, I didn't get to 4 finish, we have -- 5 THE COURT: Yes, I know. This is my court. I get to 6 ask the questions, so if I cut you off, you get cut off. DO 7 you understand that? 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. 9 THE COURT: Because I conduct thing~ the way I want to l0 conduct them in my court. Do you understand. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 12 THE COURT: okay. i3 so I want to know what community did you look at that 14 had a $6,000 to $12,000 fee. You told me New Rochelle and 1S Cortland. I want to know anyone else that had a fee in that 16 range that you looked at that helped guide you that Mount Page 8 roPCS (city of Mount Vernon Litigation) Transcript of Proceedings before s o N Y 17 vernon should charge a fee between those figures. 18 THE WITNESS: No community specifically, your Honor. lg THE COURT: Okay. Well, stop. Now you can finish 20 whatever else it is you were going to say. 21 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, we.have arrangements where 22 we work for several hundred municipalities throughout the 23 country. I heard Mr. Fisher talk about application fees, and 24 he, I think, was relating to wireless, and he said that They 25 were a thousand dollars. I can tell yoU that the communities CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR C914)390-4103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 - Comi Examinati 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 18 20107tmetroc comi - Direct we deal with, which is 700, the vast majority have application fees that, for a new tower, are $S,000 or more and, for a co-location, are $2,~00 or more. So the issue of a . thousand-dollar application fee fo~ wireless is definitely not true with the hundreds of communities -- THE COURT: But in the case we're talking about here, this was a co-application. They weren't putting up a new tower. This was a co-application fee, and you're talking about a $2,500 fee in the course where they were charging between 6 at a minimum and 12. How do we bridge that gap.~ THE WITNESS: Your Honor the 6 they're charging is for co-location. It s not 6 to 12. The 12 is for a new tower. THE COURT: SO how do you get from 2,500 to 6?. THE WITNESS: In terms of the cost of maintaining in this area, there were two other communities charging more. And when we had the discussion -- THE COURT: what are those two other communities? THE WITNESS: Again, New Rochelle -- THE COURT: SO those are the two communitis that you told to charge what they charge. Is there anyone that you didn't tell them to charge the $6,000 fee that charges a $6,000 fee? Anyone in the country that you can point to? THE WITNESS: Your Honor, we didn't tell any of the communities to charge $6,000. THE COURT: Let me rephrase the question. CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914)390-4103 20107tmetroc Comi - Direct Is there anyone who charges a $6,000 fee that didn't hire you as a consultant? THE WITNESS: I do not know, sir. THE COURT: DO you know of anyone? THE WITNESS: NO, sir. THE COURT: So in your whole vast experience, you can't point to another community in the entire country that charges a $6,000 fee other than the ones you work with. Is that fair to say? THE WITNESS: That's fair to say, sir. I wouldn't know what the others charge. THE COURT: So when you point out that the fee is $2,500 for an application like this everywhere else, except for the two communities that you work with that you pointed to, is that correct? THE WITNESS: Sir, most of them are at least $2,500. we do have some that are in the $3,000 and $3,500 range. THE COURT: Got it. THE WITNESS: But that's a minority. THE COURT: Got it. I'm going to stop asking questions. You can go ahead. Page 9 19 :roPCS (City of Mount Vernon Litigation) Transcript of proceedings before S D N Y - Comi Examinati 22 MR. SCHRIEVER: Thank you, your Honor. 23 q. You have a website for center for Municipal Communications, 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sir? A. Yes. CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914)390-4103 20107tmetroc Comi - Direct Q. On the website, you say that you held local official~ ctually requlr~ -- emphasis on the webslte -- the use of county or municipal-owned property to open opportunities for new increased revenue, correct? A. I don't know. ~ would have to go back and look at the wording on the webs~te. 8ut, again, if you're quoting it and stating so, I have no reason to disbelieve it, but I cannot affirm it. Q. Okay. Can you tell me if you can affirm that, on your website, you say that you have obtained literally tens of millions of dollars fp~.communities by negotiatihg leases for tne private use or pUD/lC property, water tanks and co-locating antenna~ on public buildings? A. Again, I don't have our website in front of me, but if you state that it's there, I can't say I disbelieve it. I 'ust- can't affirm it. THE COURT: Don't you read your website? OD you ever look at your website? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: DO yOU know what it says generally? DO you know what's on your own website? THE WITNESS: Generally, yes, sir. THE COURT: okay. Q. Is it fair to say, Mr. Comi, that, on your website, you represent that you help municipalities gain revenues from CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914)390-4103 20107tmetroc Comi - Direct wireless applications? A. Yes, sqr, that's generally a valid statement. THE COURT: wait. sorry. I know I said I wasn't going to ask any more questions, but I'm not sure I understand. when you say in your website and when you just said in your testimony you help municipalities gain.revenue, do you mean by that something in addition to covering their costs or do you s~mply mean we're going to help you cover the cost of your application and consulting fees? THE WITNESS: Your Honor, those items cover much more than the application fees. when it comes to application fees -- THE COURT: Are you talking about covering more than costs for the application? THE WITNESS: NO, sir. Q. Mr. Comi, on your website, and in practice, you help cities convince carriers to place their facilities on city-owned properties.so they can gain revenue; is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And in fact, in this case, Metro CPS sought to co-locate a stealth antenna on a roofside that had been approved for three other carriers, correct? That's what this application was for? A. That's correct. Q. And in the course of this process, you asked on several occasions that Metro PCS consider utilizing OAS instead of the CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR Page i0 2O 21 :roPCS (City of Mount vernon Litigation) Transcript of Proceedings before S D N Y (914)390-4103 - Comi Examinat~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 20107tmetro¢ Comi - Direct proposed site; is that right? A. That's part of what we asked, yes. Q. And you advised Metro PC~ in a March 2nd, 2009 letter "It has been the obvious stated intent of the Mount vernon planning Board that.the.preferred method of deployment for wire]ess te]ecommunlcat~ons faci]ities within the city is via the existing DAS network;" is that right? A. Agaln, I don t have the documents in front of me; however, it has been since 2008 when Mount Vernon had Metro PCS, as a co-appl~cant, provide 9 OAS network, when that app]ication was presented to the Planning Soard, it was presented with the intent that it would cover the entire City of Mount Vernon -- Q. The city makes money from that OAS network, doesn't it, Mr. Comi? A. Can you ]et me finish, sir? THE COURT Okay, you know what? I've heard enough. z've heard enough. If the City of Mount Vernon wants to ask this witness ~gY questions, please do; otherwise, Z've heard enough from nlm. MR. SCHRIEVER: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: DO you have any questions, Mr. 3ohnson and MS. Aggrey? MR. 30HNSON: The city has no questions. THE COURT: okay. CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914) 390-4103 23 20107tmetroc Comi - Direct You're excused, Mr. Comi. Thank you very much for your testimony. (Witness excused) THE COURT: AIl right, I'm satisfied that I've got enough information. ~f you fo]k~ want to work this out wi]ling to give you time; otherwise, I'm prepared to ru~e. MR. SCHRIEVER: understood. THE COURT: YOU want to work this out or you want me to ru]e? MR. 3OHNSON: I think we can work it out, your Honor. THE COURT: okay. so you fo]ks are going to work it out and you're going to get back to me within-a wAek from today with numbers for both the consulting fees and the application fee. We've heard a bunch of numbers thrown around here. can te]] you that I am not going to approve a number of $6,000. I can tel] you that I think the number is something over $500. we heard some figures of nonc]ients of Mr. Comi's that have a $2,~0 fee. I t~ink ~ha~'s ~ good reasonable point. Z'm not seeKing to say t~at t~at s the fee in ail cases. I'm oi say that's the appropriate fee in this case, and it only ng to ~pp]ies to this ca~e and shou]dn't be he~d by anybody else to De an appropriate tee in any other case going forward. And the Town of Mount Vernon can then put in place whatever they think is appropriate and they can justify, and if there's some CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-D~ECK, RPR~ RMR~ CRR ~9~4~390-4~03 20~07tmetroc 24 problem with that in the future, somebody else wiq~ be before some judge, who certain~y wi]] not be me. Page ~! 22 :roPCs (City of Mount Vernon Litigation) Transcript of Proceedings before S D N Y 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - Comi Examinati so you folks have a week from today to get back to me. within a week from today, you both send me your proposa]s of wh~t t99se numbers ~ho~]d b~, and I'm going to issue a two-page ora? listing out tne tees TOt this and we will be in a posqtion to have everybody at least move this case forward, and then the Town of Mount Vernon will look at what they think is appropriate. ! would suggest to you that you document what it is this fee accounts for. on the average, the application takes t~n hours of this kind of time and four hours of that kind of time and whatever number of hours of this kind of time at these dollars, and that's why we charge this fee, not because somebody walked in the door and said you can make a profit on these if you charge 6 or 10 or 8 thousand dollars and it really costs you 2,000 to actually process the application. YOu'll figure out what it means. And to store this information into perpetuity, I frankly assume, at the end of the day, in today s technology, you can put it on a DVD, you put it on a CD, and you stick it ~n a file cabinet. It doesn't all have to be sent down to some warehouse in south Carolina or whatever the beck Mr. Comi was talking about. But I'm a ~imple guy. I don't get it all. I try to rule simply. And I m going to rule simply in this case. CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914)390-4103 20107tmetroc Hopefu]ly you folks wi]] agree and make it easy, but if you don't, I'm prepared to rule. Great. Thank you all. It's really wonderful seeing you. Thanks for coming in, all of you, and have a great day. 25 CHRISTINA M. ARENDS-DIECK, RPR, RMR, CRR (914) 390-4103 Page 12 Case 7:09'cv-o8348.SCR Document 28 UNITED STATES · oF ~w ~o~ ~z C~rr or Mov~ Vz~o~A~ C~ or ~ O~ Civ. ~48 (SCR) STEPHEN C. ROBESON, Dlst~ct JUdge: ~e Plainti~ in t~is c~e, ~e~opcs, is suing the Ci~ ~F ~ount Ve~on For Violations oF ~e Tel~ommunications Act (TCA ) oF1996, 47 U.S.C. New York State ~d local law by denying MetroPCS,s Wireless Facili~ application illegally ~sessing ~ling fees ~d Me~oPcs claims that ,~ COnsulting fees against Me~o . me Ci~ OfMount ~,~ ~' Speci~cally, ~,non (1) dented MetroPcs,o .... W~thout SUbstantial evidence; (2) a~em~t,~ ,~ :, ..... ' ~ ~PPhcations use o~ altemative technolo~; (3~ ~ v ~ ,o ~-e~a~y ~Pose the Ci~,s Preference for re~sing to approve a wireless facili~ ~at was indistingUiShable ~om screened facilities rOvidino ~.. ~ measonably discdminated against Metro~S by · . ~e Other C~/ers, arbitrarily aSsessed~es ~ '~nCtJonally equivalent se~ices at the site; ~d (4) process. Me~oPcs seek~n Me~oPcs ~at Were not reasonably related to the review injunction summ~ Jud~ent on these requiring the Ci~ to i~ediately approve Me~oPCS,s application. ' ' claims, and requests a pe~ent Filed07~22~2010 Page 1 of 32 ,7' Case 7:09~cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 2 of 32 The City of Mount Vernon counters that MetroPCS's application was incomplete and full of contradictory data that showed that the gap in coverage was not primarily in Mount Vernon but in the neighboring municipality of Pelham. The City also argues that MetroPCS failed to consider the less obtrusive alternative of expanding coverage using its already existing distributed antenna system (DAS). From reviewing the record that was available to the City of Mount Vernon's Planning Board, the Court finds that the City's denial was not based on substantial evidence--until the City's opposition memo, there was no mention of why the site chosen by MetroPCS was too ob~'usive, unsafe, or otherwise counter to the City's objectives in regulating wireless facility siting. The City improperly insisted that MetroPCS use the DAS system, delayed the application for an unreasonable period of time, and thus discriminated against MetroPCS in violation of the TCA. The Court grants an injunction requiring the City of Mount Vernon to approve MetroPCS's application and all concomitant permits to enable MetroPCS to erect the proposed stealth antenna. The Court finds that § 267-2g(J-)(l 7)(a) and § 267-28(.1)(12) of the City's Zoning Code are illegal as they relate to fees to apply for the collocation ora wireless telecommunications facility, and the City unreasonably assessed fees under those provisions that it must now return to MetroPCS. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The facts are taken from the Plaintiff's Rule 56.1 statements, since the Court finds that there are no material facts in dispute. MetroPCS is a telecommunications carrier licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to construct and operate a network of wireless telecommunications facilities. On June 19, 2008, MetroPCS applied 2 Case 7:09-cv-O8348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 3 of 32 to the City of Mount Vernon Planning Board for a Special Use Permit that would allow MetroPCS to install a stealth six panel antenna on the rooi~op ora building at 590 East 3ta Street in Mount Vernon, New York, pursuant to Section 267-28(J) of the Zoning Code of the City of Mount Vernon. Declaration of Andrew Schriever ("Plt's Decl."), Ex. 3. The site is located on a building that had already been approved by the Planning Board to house the same type of wireless facilities for three other competing wireless tan'lets who provide functionally equivalent services: Nextel, T-Mobile, and AT&T. See Pit's Decl., Ex. 2 at Ex. L (Planning Board resolutions approving those applications). MetroPCS chose the site in part because it qualified as the highest priority site in the community pursuant to the City's Zoning Code, Section 267-28(J)(5)(A)(1). Pit's Decl., Ex. 3. MetroPCS also modeled its proposed stealth rooftop wireless facility on the facilities that had already been approved for the three other carriers. At the City's request, MetroPCS submitted its $6,000 zoning application fee and a $8,500 check to establish an escrow account for the payment of the fees incurred by the City's consultant, Center for Municipal Solutions (CMS). Plt's Deel., Ex. 7-8. MetroPCS submitted its application on June 19, 2008. See Pit's Decl., Ex. 2. It included with its application various exhibits and reports as required by the City's Zoning Code, including a report by one of MetroPCS's radio frequency (RF) engineers who stated the MetroPCS's existing wireless network was not adequate to properly serve its customers who live in and travel through the City of Mount Vernon. Pit's Decl., Ex. 2 at Ex. C. As stated in the application cover letter, MetroPCS informed the Planning Board of the following: Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page4 of 32 · The height of the proposed antennas would not exceed the height ofthe existing rooftop structures; · As based on the drawings and photosimulations, the proposed facility would be unobtrusive; · There would be no environmental impact on the surrounding areas; · The cumulative radio frequency emissions with the addition of MetroPCS's facility would not exceed any federal or state regulation limits; · The facility would fill a critical gap in service that currently exists along the Hutchinson River Parkway, East 3ra Avenue, and Columbus Avenue. In a letter dated July 15, 2008, Mr. Comi, the principal of CMS, told MetroPCS that the application was incomplete and the RF coverage plots did not demonstrate MetroPCS's need for the proposed site. See Pit's Decl., Ex. 9. Specifically, MetroPCS's RF coverage plots did not explain how its distributed antenna system (DAS) did not provide reliable coverage. Because the map did not contain any boundaries for the City, it was impossible to tell whether MetroPCS complied with Section 267-28(J)(4)(d)(l), which provides that proposed service must be "primarily and essentially within the City with service to adjacent municipalities to not exceed 40% of the total area to be covered by the proposed facility." It was also not clear whether DAS lef~ a gap that the proposed site would fill, or whether the two systems would overlap significantly. Other major deficiencies in the application included: failure to give an analysis of any alternative sites; failure to verify that the proposed facility complied full with New York State structural standards; failure to perform cumulative RF emissions calculations Case7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 5of 32 showing all service providers at the site; and failure to include key information on the RF propagation plot such as signal strength, City boundaries, or map scale. Mr. Comi attached CMS's propagation study form and requirements, and recommended that MetroPCS redo their propagation maps according to the form. On September 23, 2008, MeIroPCS submitted supplemental material to the Planning Board. Pit's Decl., Ex. 13. The new materials included a new RF propagation plot that showed the boundary between the City of Mount Vernon and Pelham municipality, the frequency of propagation (-84 dBm), and the proposed DAS coverage. MetroPCS specified that 60% of the service to be provided by the proposed facility will be within the City limits. MetroPCS also included a revised antenna site FCC RF compliance assessment, which conclusively showed that the cumulative RF emissions would not exceed federal or state regulations; a slxuctural letter certi~ing that the installation complied with the strictest New York State regulations; and the submission to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Mr. Comi, writing on behalf of the Planning Board, responded on October 24, 2008 that MetroPCS had not addressed the material issues detailed in the initial review letter and requested more information. Pit's Decl., Ex. 14. He again requested the propagation data sheet enclosed with the first review letter. Mr. Comi also wanted a separate map of the DAS coverage and an explanation for why the proposed facility was necessary given the extensiveness of MetroPCS's currently constructed DAS. He noted that while MetroPCS claimed that 60% oftbe new service would fall within City limits, it was still not clear from the map provided and even more ttoubling was that the second set of maps showed a dramatic change in the proposed coverage without explanation. Case7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 6 of 32 MetroPCS's RF engineer, Gregory Sharpe replied to Comi's concerns via email on October 29, 2008. Plt's Decl., Ex. 15. First, he explained that CMS had the RF drivetest data for the DAS provided by ExteNet Systems (the company constructing the DAS for MetroPCS's use), and that this information clearly identified the need for the rooftop facility proposed in the application. Second, Sharpe explained that the newest maps showed -84 dBm as the design criteria and so CMS's detailed propagation data form was unnecessary. Third, he clarified that DAS was not completely constructed at since power was not at each node. Lastly, Sharpe reiterated that the current plot showing -84 dBm design criteria clearly showed that over 60% of the coverage would be in Mount Vernon, and had been verified mathematically based on the per square mile coverage within the City's boundaries. Any changes between the first set of propagation plots and the current set were due to updating the frequency to meet the design criteria of the DAS. An attachment to the email showed the DAS nodes and the gap that the proposed facility would fill. A follow up email from Sharpe dated on December 12, 2008 reflects that CMS continued to insist that MetroPCS had not provided enough information in a conference call with MetroPCS. Pit's Decl., Ex. 17. Sharpe reiterated that the coverage plots from the June 19, 2008 submission were initially propagated at -88 dBm whereas the September 23, 2008 submission reflected a -84 <iBm level to be consistent with the DAS network, which explained the change in proposed coverage. He also provided the actual breakdown in coverage, showing that the total coverage was 0.2622 square miles, with 0.16829 square miles falling with Mount Vernon, equal to 64.1838%. And, 0.09391 square miles would fall within Pelham, equal to 35.8162%. Sharpe argued that Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 7 of 32 MetroPCS was not proposing expansion of the ExteNet DAS network because it would not meet the coverage objective, defined as roads, homes, and businesses in Mount Vernon and parts of Pelham along the Hutchinson River Parkway. Pit's Decl., Ex. 17. Because MetroPCS indicated that it would not submit anything further, CMS prepared its t~mai report to the Planning Board recommending that the application be denied. Pit's Decl., Ex. 16. CMS's primary reason for its recommendation was that "the applicant has not explained why additional nodes cannot be added to the DAS network as an alternative, less intzusive means for deployment of service within the Mount Vernon coverage area, rather than the proposed rooftop facility." Pit's Decl., Ex. 18 at 2. The report also stated that "it]he propagation studies provided show considerable overlap with the DAS coverage and [CMS] feel[s] that expanding the DA$ network is a less obtrusive means to serve the coverage objectives, rather than the proposed facility within the City of Mount Vernon." Id. There was no other reason provided for denying the application. In January 2009, MetroPCS attempted one last time to satisfy the requests for information from CMS. Pit's Decl., Ex. 19. It requested that CMS give a detailed list of what information remained outstanding. On January. 12, 2009, Comi wrote a letter requesting information related to the possibility of using the DAS network to eliminate the coverage gap. MetroPCS responded off February 17, 2009 rejecting the legal or factual basis for Coral's demands and insisting that its application was procedurally complete. MetroPCS asserted that Mr. Comi was improperly trying to dictate the type of technology that MetroPCS used to provide service to the City. As in its other correspondence, MetroPCS reiterated its warning that the City's delay in scheduling a public hearing on the application was a violation of the TCA. However, MetroPCS did 7 Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 8of32 submit CMS's propagation dar form, new maps showing coverage at -g4 dBm, -85 dBm, and -95 dBm, and the drivetest data for the DAS network that showed more clearly the coverage gap. Plt's D~cl., Ex. 21. Mr. Comi replied on March 2, 2009 that the application was still considered incomplete and there were remaining inconsistencies in the data showing the need for the proposed facility. For example, the maps showing -95 dBm coverage were virtually the same as the initial propagation maps submitted in June 2008 that purportedly were propagated at -88 dBm. Logically, -95 dBm frequency should show greater coverage than -88 dBm. CMS's implication was that MetroPCS used misleading propagation plots to meet the 60% coverage requirement and minimize the appearance of coverage failing outside of the City. Comi rq~ated again that the "obvious stated intent of the Mount Vernon Planning Board [is] that the preferred method of deployment for wireless telecommunications facilities within the City is via the existing DAS network." Plt's Decl., Ex. 22 at 2. Without information on the feasibility of expanding the DAS network, CMS would not consider MetroPCS's application complete. Between March and May 2009, MetroPCS and Comi exchanged letters and eagaged in conference calls to discuss the issue of whether a feasibility study of expanding the DAS network should be required as part of the application, or even if it was legal for the Planning Board to insist on an alternative technology given the decision in New York SMS.4 Ltd. Partnership v. Town of Clarkstown, 603 F.Supp.2d 715 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Pit's Decl., Ex. 23-26. In that case, the court held that legislation codifying a preference for alternate technologies over other FCC authorized technologies Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 9 of 32 was preempted because federal law occupies the field when it comes to technical and operational aspects of wireless service. 603 F.Supp.2d 715, 725 (citation omitted). Finally, on June 1, 2009, Comi submitted the final report regarding MetroPCS's application and asked that the matter be placed on the next Planning Board agenda. Pit's Dec[, Ex. 27. Comi informed that Planning Board that MetroPCS "continues to refuse our requests for what we believe to be material information that is necessary to pave the need for this site." Pit's Decl., Ex. 27. Comi cited the same issue as the primary reason for recommending the Planning Board deny the application--the lack of information on the feasibility of using the DAS network as an alternative, less intrusive means for deploymeni of service within the City of Mount Vernon. Id. Additionally, Comi claimed that the proposed coverage maps showed that coverage outside the City would be greater than 40% and revised maps were not fully explained, leaving doubt over the accuracy of the information in MetroPCS's application. The Mount Vernon Planning Board met on September 2, 2009 and decided to deny MetroPCS's application. The Final Resolution, which was filed on September 16, 2009, stated the following reasons for denying the application: there was "conflicting and missing application material" and "applicant refused to provide the requested information and states there will be no additional material forthcoming." Pit's Dec[, Ex. 5 at 5. Specifically, the Resolution repeated Comi's concerns that MetroPCS had not provided proof of the need for the site by submitting data showing coverage could not be achieved by expanding the existing DAS network. Id. at 6. The Resolution also claimed that the applicant was asked to look at other buildings where there were fewer wireless facilities Case7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 10 of 32 in existence as alternative site candidates but MeIroPCS refused m provide this information. Id. The City also requested an additional $5,000 to replenish the escrow account because the billing from Coral's firm through July 2009 totaled $16,842.70. It noted that MetroPCS would also be responsible for fees from from July 2009 going forward which had not yet been invoiced. II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT LEGAL STANDARD Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), summary judgment is warranted if"the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." A fact is "material" when it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). An issue of fact is "genuine" if"the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Id. The burden of demonstrating that no material fact exists lies with the party seeking summary judgment. See, e.g.~l dickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). A court considering a motion for summary judgment must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing all inferences in that party's favor. See Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Jones Chem., Inc., 315 F.3d 171, 175 (2d Cir. 2003). Rather than asking if"the evidence unmistakably favors one side or the other," a court must ask whether "a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiffon the evidence presented." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. If so, the court may not grant a defendant's motion for summary judgment. Assessing the credibility of witnesses 10 Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 11 of 32 and choosing between conflicting versions of events are roles for the fact finder, not for the court on summary judgment. See Rule v. Brine, Inc., 85 F.3d 1002, 1011 (2d Cir. 1996). The non-moving party must present sufficient evidence such that a jury could reasonably find in its favor - "the mere existence ora scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiWs position" is not enough. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. "The non-moving party may not rely on mere conclusory allegations or speculation, but instead must offer some hard evidence showing that its version of the events is not wholly fanciful." D'Amico v. City of New York, 132 F.3d 145, 149 (2d Cir. 1998). III. TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 The Telecommunications Act (TCA) is an omnibus act to reform federal regulation of communication companies to promote greater competition amongst providers and improve consumer access to services. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (Feb. 8, 1996) (codified 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.); see also Cellular Telephone Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 492-93 (2d Cir. 1999). According to the Congressional Conference Committee, the TCA was intended "to provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies .... "See Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d at 492-93 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, at 206 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 124, 124). One way Congress wanted to encourage the rapid expansive of telecommunication services was to reduce the impediments imposed by local governments on the installation of facilities for wireless service. See City of Rancho 11 Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 12 of 32 Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 115 (2005). Therefore, Congress added § 332(c)(7) to impose some limits on state and local government authority to regulate the location, construction, and modification of such facilities. Id To enforce these limitations, Congress created a right of action for "[a]ny 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 the limitations set out in § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)-(iv). 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). Under the TCA, state and local regulation "(1) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services." 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i). In addition, "[a]ny decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record." 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) (emphasis added). In this, as in other contexts, "substantial evidence" is construed to mean less than a preponderance, but more than a scintilla of evidence. See Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d at 494 (2d Cir. 1999). In other words, it means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id The Second Circuit has recognized that the TCA "strikes a balance between 'two competing aims--to facilitate nationally the growth of wireless telephone service and to maintain substantial local control over siting of towers.'" Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 430 F.3d 529, 531 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Town of.4mherst, .VI:[ v. Omnipoint Communications, Inc., 173 F.3d 9, 13 (lst Cir. 1999)). Therefore, 12 Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 13 of 32 while a "local government may not regulate personal wireless service facilities in such a way as to prohibit remote users from reaching 'facilities necessary to make and receive phone calls' .... a town may reject an application 'if thc service gap can be closed by less intrusive means.'" Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Town of .4mherst, 251 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1195-96 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting Sprint Spectrum, L.P.v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 643 (2d Cir. 1999)). IV. CITY OF MOUNT VERNON ZONING CODE Thc City of Mount Vernon's Zoning Code regulates the siting of wireless service facilities in line with its stated purpose and legislative intent: The City of Mount Vernon finds that wireless telecommunications facilities may pose significant concerns to the health, safety, public welfare, character and envirnnmem of thc City and ill inhabitants. The City also recognizes that facilitating the development of wireless service technology can be an economic development asset to thc City and of significant benefit to the City and its residents. In order to insure that the placement, construction or modification of wirelass telecommunications facilities is consistent with the City's land use policies, the City is adopting a single, comprehensive, wireless telecommunications facilities application and permit process. The intent of this zoning regulation is to minimize the negative impact of wireless telecommunications facilities, establish a fair and efficient process for review and apprnval of applications, assure an integrated, comprehensive review of environmental impacts of such facilities, and protect the health, safety and welfare of the City of Mount Vernon as well as protect the scenic and aesthetic facets of thc City .... 13 Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 14 of 32 Zoning Code § 267-28(J)(1). The City of Mount Vernon has designated the Mount Vernon Planning Board to handle applications for siting of wireless service facilities, and grants permission for the Planning Board to use consultants in the review process. Zoning Code § 267-28(J)(n)(a)(1); § 267-28(J)(t2)(a). All applications for the installation of a new wireless facility must include documentation that "demonstrates the need for the.., facility to provide service primarily and essentially within the City with service to adjacent municipalities to not exceed 40% of the total area to be covered by the proposed facility." Zoning Code § 267- 28(J)(4)(d)(1). The documentation shall include propagation studies and maps of the proposed site and all other planned, proposed, in service, or existing in the City and in contiguous municipalities. Id. If the applicant is addressing a capacity issue, the applicant must submit information on "usage and forecasted or present blockage; call volume, drive-test data results, including date of test." Id. Other information is required as part of the application, such as descriptions of the proposed facility's location, size, height, proximity to landmarks and residential structures, technical specifications, fi'equency of transmission, and anticipated radio frequency emissions. The applicant must certify that the proposed facility will meet various federal, state, and local regulations, such as the FCC's limits on cumulative emissions, regulations related to structural safety, and environmental standards. Lastly, there must be a comprehensive visual impact assessment. Zoning Code § 267- 28(J)(n)(d)-O). The Zoning Code also regulates the location of wireless facilities by setting location priorities. Ifa proposed site is not the highest priority available, the application 14 Case7:09-cv-08348~SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 15 of 32 must provide a detailed explanation as to why a site of higher priority was not selected. The highest priority location is "loin existing towers or other structures without increasing the height of the tower or structure." Zoning Code § 267-28(J)(5)(a)(l). The City anticipates that towers or wireless facility sitings should be able to accommodate at least five additional collocations since it requires applicants proposing to design a new tower to provide information on how the tower will accommodate "a least five additional antunna arrays equal to those of the applicant." Zoning Code § 267-28(1)(4)0). Thc City reserves the right to deny an application, even if it is proposing a site in an area of the highest priority, for any of the following reasons: · Conflict with safety and safety-related codes and requirements; · Conflict with the historic nature or character of a neighborhood; · The use or construction of a wireless facility which is contrary to an already stated purpose ora specific zoning or land use designation; · The placement poses an unacceptable risk to residents, the public, City employees, or employees of the service provider; · Conflict with a provision of the City's wireless regulations; Almost every provision of the City's Zoning Code reinforces the City's preference for collocating wireless facilities~the filing tee for applying for a permit to collocate on an existing site is only $6,000 rather than $12,000, collocation sites are given the highest priority, and the Code specifically states that "[flotation on existing towers or other structures without increasing the height shall be preferred by the City, as opposed to the construction ora new tower." Zoning Code § 267-28(J)(17)(a); § 267- 15 Case7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 16 of 32 28(J)(6)(a). An applicant proposing a new tower faces a much higher burden to justify not using an existing tower. Id. V. DISCUSSION MetroPCS has made a claim against the City of Mount Vernon and the Mount Vernon Planning Board for violations of the TCA by failing to base the denial of MetroPCS's application on substantial evidence and unreasonably discriminating against MetroPCS. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I), § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). a. The Planning Board is not a suable entity under New York law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b) an entity can only be sued in federal court if it would be suable under the laws of the state where it was created. See Omnipoint Communications v. Town of LaGrange, 658 F.Supp.2d 539, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citation omitted). In this case, the Court applies New York law to determine who is a proper party in this action. Plaintiffhas sued both the City of Mount Vernon and the Planning Board. In New York, however, agencies of a municipality are not suable entities because they are "merely administrative arms of a municipality, [and] do not have a legal identity separate and apart fi.om the municipality." Hall v. City of White Plains, 185 F.Supp.2d 293,303 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); see also LaGrange, 658 F.Supp.2d at 552 (collecting cases). Therefore, the City of Mount Vernon is the only proper defendant in the action. The Planning Board is dismissed from the action. b. The City of Mount Vernon failed to base its denial on substantial evidence 16 Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 17 of 32 The TCA provides that a denial of a request to install wireless facilities must be "in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record." 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). To determine ifa denial is supported by substantial evidence, the Court must employ the traditional standard for judicial review of agency actions. Town ofd mherst, 251 F.Supp.2d at 1196-97 (citing Nextel Partners of Upstate N.Y. v. Town of Canaan, 62 F.Supp.2d 691,695 (N.D.N.Y. 1999)). The Supreme Court has defined substantial evidence as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. at 1197 (quoting Universal Camera v. N£RB, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951). The record before the Court consists of all letters, emails, and submissions fi.om June 19, 2008 when MetroPCS first filed its application ~ September 16, 2009 when the City of Mount Vernon filed its final resolution denying the application with the City Clerk's office.] The City of Mount Vernon claims that it based its denial of MetroPCS's application on MetroPCS's failure to demonstrate (1) the need for service; (2) the safety of its proposed installation; and (3) that the proposed action was more feasible than other options. See Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition ("Defendant's Memo of Law"), at 7. The City also claims that MetroPCS submitted an incomplete application with conflicting information. Pit's Decl., Ex. 5. The Cour~ finds that the administrative record does not support Defendant's position. First, the evidence supplied by MetroPCS demonstrates a need for service, and there is no other evidence in the record to controvert the existence ora coverage gap. Second, there is no mention in the record that the City believed MetroPCS's proposed ~ Other submissions made by the parties de hors thc record were reviewed for context but not considered part of the written record on which the City was required to base its decision. 17 Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 18 of 32 installation was unsafe or that the City had real concerns about the safety of adding another antenna to the site. Third, the City never offered any reasons why the proposed site was obtrusive, not feasible, or otherwise disfavored by the City's zoning objectives. In fact, the City's insistence that MetroPCS provide information on the feasibility of extending the DAS network is in direct tension with the City's Zoning Code, which assigns the highest priority to plans such as MetroPCS's proposal to collocate an antenna on a current structure. The administrative record shows that the City (via the recommendations of its consultants, CMS and Mr. Comi) denied MetroPCS's applications exclusively because MetroPCS refused to provide information about the viability of expanding the DAS network to fill its coverage gap. There were other concerns that the propagation plots provided by MetroPCS did not fully demonstrate the need for a wireless facility in Mount Vernon and that more than 40% of the proposed coverage would fall outside Mount Vernon's limits. However, MetroPCS eventually provided the information the City requested. The propagation maps finally showed (a) the coverage gap, (b) its relationship to the Mount Vernon boundary with Pelham, and (c) the signal frequency used to propagate the map. MetroPCS also provided its coverage per square mile analysis that demonstrated that more than 60% of the proposed coverage would fall within Mount Vernon. CMS and the Planning Board did not offer any evidence to contradict MetroPCS's submissions. In Mr. Coral's first letter to MetroPCS, he requested confirmation that the proposed stealth antenna structure met New York's revised structural capacity regulation, ANSI-TIA-222-F. Pit's Decl., Ex. 9. MetroPCS addressed this issue in its next 18 Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 19 of 32 submission to CMS by providing a letter certification, which Mr. Comi deemed satisfactory. Plt's Decl., Ex. 13; Ex. 18 at 2. The only other safety-related concern Mr. Comi raised was the possibility that the antenna could be accessed by the public from the side and so he recommended as a condition of granting the permit that the entire rooftop by tested for RF emissions post-installation to verify compliance with federal and state RF emission regulations. Pit's Deck, Ex. 18 at 2. Mr. Comi's final report, submitted on June 1, 2009, mentioned no outstanding safety concerns. Plt's Decl., Ex. 27. The Planning Board's final resolution also did not raise any concerns about the safety of MetroPCS's proposed facility. Pit's Decl., Ex. 5. The City's feasibility rationale is also not supported by any evidence. CMS and the City continued to insist that expanding the DAS network would bc more feasible than siting another antenna at 590 East 3rd Street, where three other carriers already had antennas or received approval to install similar antennas, without providing any reason why the collocation was less feasible than DAS. MctruPCS submitted evidence that (1) its proposed antenna would not increase the height of the structure, (2) there would be no visual or environmental impact of collocating its antenna on the site, and (3) this was the highest priority site according to thc City's Zoning Code. MetroPCS was not under an obligation to prove why DAS was less feasible because there was no evidence, much less an allegation, by the City that the collocation was not feasible or too obtrusive. The Zoning Code clearly states that collocation on a site with other wireless facilities is the highest priority site in the City, and the only reasons the City may reject a proposal for such a high priority site are: conflict with safety and safety-related requirements; conflict with the historic nature or character ora neighborhood; conflict 19 Case7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 20 of 32 with zoning or land use designations; the imposition of an unacceptable risk to the public; or conflict with another provision of the City's wireless regulations. The City did not state that it had any of these concerns in the administrative record. The only motivation for requiring the DAS network analysis was that it "has been the obvious stated intent of thc Mount Vernon Planning Board that the preferred method of deployment for wireless telecommunications facilities within the City is via the existing DAS network," according to Comi. Pit's Decl., Ex. 22 at 2. The Court finds that this "obvious stated intent" is belied by the Zoning Code's many provisions that favor collocation over new sites on public property such as utility poles. Defendant argues that MetroPCS purposely submitted vague maps to hide the fact that it could not support its application, and that MetroPCS never provided the information the City requested. The Court notes that MetroPCS took many months to finally submit maps to the City that contained the information requested. However, in its February 17, 2009 submission, MetroPCS included maps that contained the municipal boundary, the CMS propagation data sheet, as well as maps showing thc drive-test data of the DAS network to show the coverage gap that the proposed facility would fill Pit's Decl., Ex. 21 at Ex. A-B. The City has not put forward any reason to question MetroPCS's RF engineer's analysis of the gap. The Court Finds that the ambiguities of the first maps were satisfactorily resolved and MetroPCS demonstrated a need for service. Defendant cites to Omnipoint Holdings Inc. v. City of Cranston, 586 F.3d 38, 49 (lst Cir. 2009) for factors courts should assess in determining ifa coverage gap is significant. However, City of Cranston deals with an entirely different TCA claim than is 2O Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07122/2010 Page 21 of 32 involved in this case. In City of Cranston, the carrier was claiming an effective prohibition of wireless service which requires courts to "find a 'significant gap' in coverage exists in an area," see City of Cranston, 586 F.3d at 48, whereas this case involves a claim that the City of Mount Vernon did not base its decision on substantial evidence and unreasonably discriminated against MetroPCS. Under Plaintiff's TCA claims, the wireless carrier does not need to show that the gap in coverage is significant, only that there is a need for service. See, e.g. LaGrange, 658 F.Supp.2d at 555-56. Therefore, the Court must look at the administrative record and ask whether there is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support" the conclusion that MetroPCS did not demonstrate a coverage gap. LaGrange, 658 F.Supp.2d at 554-55 (quotation omitted). As stated above, the City (including CMS, Mr. Comi, and the Planning Board) did not identif)' any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, to support the conclusion that there was no need for service. The Cour~ grants summary judgment for the Plaintiff on its claim that the City of Mount Vernon violated the TCA by failing to base its decision on substantial evidence. e. Applieabifity of Clarkstown Deeision Plaintiff has cited the opinion in New York SMSA Ltd Partnership v. Town of Clarkstown, 603 F.Supp.2d 715 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) to support its argument that the City of Mount Vernon's preference for DAS technology interferes with a field completely occupied by federal law and is preempted by the TCA. While the Court disagrees with Plaintiffthat Clarkstown is directly on point, it finds its holding informs the decision in this case. In Clarkstown, the court struck down a town ordinance that legislated a 21 Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 22 of 32 preference for alternative technology, 603 F.Supp.2d at 726, whereas here the preference is stated by the Planning Board but not codified in the Zoning Code. The distinction is significant because in Clarkstown the preemption analysis relied on thc fact that the Town's legislated preference went beyond the individual permit decisions that are acceptable under Willoth, 176 F.3d 630 (2d Cir. 1999), and Omnipoint Comm. v. City of White Plains, 430 F.3d 529 (2d Cir. 2005), and interfered with the TCA's "pervasive scheme." Clarkstown, 603 F.Supp.2d at 726. Whereas in Willoth and City of White Plains, the Second Circuit allowed planning boards to examine aesthetic concerns with regard to applications setting forth "specific technologies to be used on specific sites," the Clarkstown Planning Board "legislated a preference for certain technology regardless of site location." Id. In contrast, it is proper for a town to express a preference for an alternative technology for a specific application. For example, in Nextel Comm. v. Town of Brookline, 520 F.Supp.2d 238, 252-53 (D.Mass. 2007), the court found the evidence presented was adequate to suppor~ the determination that DAS presented a feasible alternative to Nextel's proposal and that Nextel failed to fully investigate this option. Ncxtel proposed building a new installation on top of a private hospital, a use that was not allowed by the zoning code and was not eligible for a special use permit. Id. at 250- 51. Evidence also showed that the site would not eliminate the coverage gap and Ncxtel's RF engineer conceded that additional installations would be necessary in the future. Id at 247. While there were no other feasible sites for an antenna, the town's decision to deny the application did not have the effect of prohibiting wireless service because Nextel could use the DAS network. Id. at 252. 22 Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 23 of 32 Unlike in Town ofBrookline, Met~oPCS's proposed site was feasible and even considered highly desirable by the City's own Zoning Code. As discussed above, the collocation of an antenna at the proposed site would fill Me~xoPCS's coverage gap without leaving any negative visual or environmental impact on the surrounding area. It is also noteworthy that MetroPCS's proposal is considered to be a higher priority than DAS would be under the City's Zoning Code. Therefore, the City of Mount Vemon's stated preference for DAS was not based on substantial evidence and was arbitrarily imposed on MetrnPCS. Defendant argues that because the DAS network was constructed for MetroPCS's use, MetroPCS should be required to use it. The Court disagrees. The purpose of the TCA was to encourage competition and facilitate the spread of new technologies. See Clarkstown, 603 F.Supp.2d at 725 (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, at 113). The TCA created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to make rules and regulations for the use of personal communication services, including wireless services. Id Because Congress has expressly delegated this authority to the FCC, its certification requirements for wireless technology preempt the field and leave no room for local and state authorities to impose separate, stricter requirements. Id. This rationale applies equally to this case, even though the City of Mount Vernon did not codify its preference. The City of Mount Vernon essentially argued that because MeIroPCS chose to construct a DAS network, it should have to fill in coverage gaps using that technology rather than installing an antenna. That rationale goes against the purpose of the TCA because it discourages wireless carriers from trying new technologies and optimizing the service they provide. As discussed below, the City's stance also leads to unreasonable 23 Case 7:09-cv-08348~SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 24 of 32 discrimination. While Clarkstown is not directly on point, the Court still finds that it was improper for the City of Mount Vernon to insist on the use of alternative technology because there was no evidence that MetroPCS's application was otherwise deficient. d. The City of Mount Vernon unreasonably di$criminat~l against MetroPCS MetroPCS claims it has been subjected to unreasonable discrimination in violation of the TCA because its application was denied while the City approved applications for wireless facilities at the same site for three other competitive carriers. The record regarding the applications for the other carriers is sparse--MetroPCS only included the City's resolutions approving of Nextel and Cingular's applications--but one can see fi.om the applications that MetroPCS applied to construct very similar wireless facilities on the same location. Plt's Decl., Ex. 2 at Exs. A, L. It is also clear that the City had already determined the construction of rooftop stealth antennas on 590 East 3rd Street had no negative environmental impact and otherwise complied with the City's Zoning Code. Plt's Decl., Ex. 2 at Ex. L. Defendant does not contest that it discriminated against MetroPCS, but it argues that it was reasonable to treat MetroPCS differently than the other carriers with antennas at the site because MetroPCS is the only one with access to a DAS network. Defendant's Memo of Law, at 18. According to the legislative history of the TCA, reasonable discrimination was envisioned and expressly permiued because localities would retain the "flexibility to treat facilities that create different visual, aesthetic, or safety concerns differently to the extent permitted under generally applicable zoning requirements even if 24 Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 25 of 32 those facilities provide functionally equivalent services." Willoth, 176 F.3d at 639 (citing H.R. Conf. No. 104-458, at 208, reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 222). However, the Court finds that the City never raised any visual, aesthetic, or safety concerns about MetroPCS's application. Instead, the City wanted to require MetroPCS to the use an alternative technology even though the preference went against the Zoning Code's explicit prioritization of collocated facilities. Without demonstrating that MetroPCS's proposed wireless facility had any other defect, the City of Mount Vernon unreasonably discriminated against MetroPCS. See, e.g., Town of,~mherst, N.Y., 251 F.Supp.2d at 1195 ("The record does not suggest.., that the addition of Nextel's antenna would have any significant impacts on the environme.nt or the character of the community, and certainly none that would distinguish [its] application fi.om that of VoiceStream."). Defendant maintains that the other carriers substantiated their need for coverage using data that MetroPCS failed to provide and that it had concerns about the safety of putting yet another stealth antenna at the site. The Court has already rejected the first concern because the evidence in the record shows a coverage gap and there is no countervailing evidence to suggest that MetroPCS's propagation plot is inaccurate. The second concern must also be rejected since it was not raised during the application process and appears to be apost hoc rationalization for denying the application. The Court concludes that the only reason the City treated MetroPCS's application as different from the other carriers was MetroPCS's access to the DAS network. Since this is not a valid basis for treating an applicant differemly from similar competitor-carriers, the Court 25 Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 26 of 32 finds that the City of Mount Vernon unreasonably discriminated against MetroPCS in violation of the TCA. e. Defendant unreasonably delayed the application process Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated TCA's mandate that "a request for permission to place or construct wireless telecommunications facilities must be acted on within a reasonable time" by delaying MetroPCS's application for nearly fifteen months. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). The Court disagrees that the delay was entirely the City's fault. It took MetroPCS until February 17, 2009---eight months from its initial submission--to finally submit propagation maps that showed how the proposed coverage would fill in a gap created by the DAS network. However, it took another seven months for the City to take a final action on the application, in pa~ because of its improper insistence that MetroPCS explore the feasibility of the DAS network. CMS and Mr. Comi delayed the application by repeatedly requesting unnecessary information and belaboring issues already resolved, resulting in a failure to put the application on the Planning Board agenda for four months at, er MetroPCS made its final submission in February. See, e.g. Pit's Decl., Ex. 22, 26, 27 (finally recommending the application be placed on the agenda in June 2009). Courts have considered this sort of behavior by towns and local planning boards to constitute unreasonable delay under the TCA. See, e.g, Masterpage Comm., Inc. v. Town of Olive, 418 F.Supp.2d 66, 78-80 (N.D.N.Y. 2005); Omnipoint Comm. v. Village of Tarrytown, 302 F.Supp.2d 205, 225 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ("The facts of this case.., follow an all too familiar pattern. A wireless provider submits an application.., only to be confronted with politically motivated, interminable, delays and ineffectual excuses .... "). 26 Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 27of 32 Given that the Court has already found that it was improper to demand information about the feasibility of DAS, it follows that any delay due to those demands was also improper. The Court concludes that the City of Mount Vernon unreasonably delayed in addressing MetroPCS's application. The Court notes that injunctive relief is unavailable on this ground since the decision to deny Met~oPCS's application has already been made; see e.g Masterpage Comm. Inc. v. Town of Olive, 418 F.Supp.2d 66, 78; however, the finding of unreasonable delay is further evidence of the City's discrimination against MetroPCS as well as relevant to the reasonableness of the fees incurred throughout the application process. f. The City of Mount Vernon's assessment of fees was unreasonable The City of Mount Vernon assessed fees against MetroPCS pursuant to Zoning Code § 267-28(J)(12), which provides that: The Board and City may hire any consultant and/or expert necessary to assist [them] in reviewing and evaluating the application .... The applicant shall deposit with the City funds sufficient to rehnburse the City for all reasonable costs of consultam and expert evaluation and consultation to the City in connection with the review of any application .... [and] It]he initial deposit shall bc $8,500. Zoning Code § 267-28(J)(12)(a)-(b). There is no limitation on the amount of funds needed; in fact, the Zoning Code specifically leaves it open-ended in its provisions: "The total amount of thc funds needed as set forth in Subsection J(12)(b) of this section may vary with the scope and complexity of the project, the completeness of the application and other information as may be needed to complete the necessary review, analysis and inspection ...."Zoning Code § 267-28(J)(12)(c). Furthermore, in contrast to the charge 27 Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 28 of 32 of $500 for special use permit applications, the City charges $6,000 to $12,000 for permit applications for wireless telecommunications facilities. Compare Zoning Code § 267-25 with Zoning Code § 267-28. The City of Mount Vernon has the authority to charge fees pursuant to N.Y. MUN. HOME RULE § 10(l)(ii)(a)(9-a). The case cited by both parties, Jewish Reconstructionist Synagogue of North Shore, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Roslyn Harbor, 40 N.Y.2d 158, 162-63 (1976), addresses a village ordinance establishing fees where the New York State legislature has not provided how the village should pay its expenses. In that scenario, the New York Court of Appeals held that "the Legislature's mandate carries with it an implied limited delegation of power to the local government to enact ordinances necessary to can'y out the legislative plan." Id. at 63. It is well settled in New York that "where a license or permit fee is imposed under the power to regulate, the amount charged cannot be greater than a sum reasonably necessary to cover the costs of issuance, inspection and enforcement" and "[t]o the extent that fees charged are exacted for revenue purposes or to offset the cost of general governmental functions they are invalid as an unauthorized tax." Torsoe Bros. Const. Corp. v. Bd. of Trustees of Inc. Village of Monroe, 49 A.D.2d 461,464-65 (N.Y.A.D. 1975). Thus, even though the City of Mount Vernon has an explicit grant of authority under N.Y. MUN. HOME RUL£ § 10(1)(ii)(a)(9-a), the Court still agrees that "fees charged ... [should] be reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of the statutory command," and the fees "should be assessed or estimated on the basis of reliable factual studies or statistics." Jewish Reconstructionist Synagogue, 40 N.Y.2d at 163; see also New York 28 Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 29 of 32 Telephone Co. v. City of.qmsterdam, 200 A.D.2d 315, 317 (N.Y.A.D. 1994). Without some limitation, there is a risk that the local government will incur "not only necessary costs but also any which it, in its untrammeled discretion, might think desirable or convenient." Jewish Reconstructionist Synagogue, 40 N.Y.2d at 163. Defendant has not presented any evidence explaining why it is more labor- intensive or time-intensive to review a special permit for a wireless telecommunications facility than another major construction project subject to the $500 special use permit application fee such that the fee for a telecommunications facility should be twelve to twenty-four times higher. This is particularly true when MetmPCS submitted an application that was almost identical to three others already approved by the City and presumably would not have required that much more additional work on the City's part. The Court is also concerned that there is no limitation on the amount of consulting fees the applicant could be required to pay. The City of Mount Vernon has unlimited discretion to charge a wireless carrier prohibitive fees by simply dragging out the process and utilizing consultants for its convenience--rather than out of necessity. Furthermore, the Court has already determined that the City discriminated against MetroPCS by demanding information on the feasibility of using DAS and this led to an unacceptable delay. Therefore, the assessment of fees for work done by CMS and Mr. Comi related to the City's continued insistence on using DAS was overstated as well. Defendant argues that the fees have been charged without challenge in over thirty wireless facility special permit applications. It may be the case that a carrier whose application has been approved is disinclined to challenge the City's assessment of fees, but in any case the Court is more troubled by the absence of any guiding standard or 29 Case7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 30 of 32 limitation on how much the applicant can be charged rather than the actual amount charged in prior application processes. Therefore, the Court strikes down § 267-28(J)(12) of the City of Mount Vernon's Zoning Code for wireless facility special permit applications as exceeding the City's authority to assess fees. See, e.g., Jewish Reconstructionist Synagogue, 40 N.Y.2d at 165-66. MetroPCS is entitled to a disgorgement of the consulting fees assessed in connection with its application. The Court also finds that § 267-28(J)(17) is invalid. MetmPCS claims that there is no justification for charging $6,000 to $12,000 for a special pm-mit application for a wireless telecommunications facility, in contrast to just $500 for all other special use permits which cover such major projects as universities, drive-thru fast food restaurams, domiciliary-care facilities, private schools, radio towers for amateur radio stations, bars, nightclubs, car dealerships and repair stations, churches, day-care centers, satellite earth stations, asphalt heating/mixing plants, manufacturing facilities, and adult entertainment facilities. See Zoning Code § 267-25, Ex. 3, Fee Schedule for Applications for Permits at 7. While the City of Mount Vernon asserts that it is more expensive to review applications for telecommunications facilities, it does not adequately justify the large fee associated these applications, see ATM One LLC v. Inc. Village of Freeport, 276 A.D.2d 573,574 (N.Y. 2d Dept. 2000)---presumably the employment of interns to keep up with the extra paperwork, administering accounts, handling the follow-up communications between the applicants and the Board, consultants, building inspectors and technical analysts costs no more for a wireless telecommunications facility than any other special use permit application. See Defendant's Opposition Memorandum, at 25. Defendants 3O Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document 28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page 31 of 32 obliquely make the argument that because the TCA requires that applications for wireless telecommunications facilities be handled without unreasonable delay, this justifies the higher cost. IronicaLly, the extraordinary costs incurred in this case were largely due to unreasonable delays as the City discriminated against MetroPCS and denied its application without substantial evidence. However, the Court recognizes that some legitimate work was performed on MetroPCS's application and it would be unjust to grant the application while requiring the disgorgement of all the fees assessed throughout the application process. The Court has requested that the parties present to the Court what they believe to be a reasonable and appropriate amount that MetroPCS should be required to pay in light of the Court's decision in this case. In sum, the Court strikes §§ 267-28(J)(12) and 267-28(J)(17) of the City of Mount Vernon's zoning code on the basis that there is no codified limit to the consulting fees that can be assessed over the course of the application process and the City has not presented any explanation for the relatively high application fee. The Court will issue a summary Order imposing on MetroPCS an appropriate fee as determined by the Court and the parties and requiring the City to disgorge any additional fees it has already assessed. VI. CONCLUSION The Planning Board is dismissed from the action since it is not a suable entity. The Court grants summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and grants Plaintiff's injunction requiring the City of Mount Vernon to immediately approve MetroPCS's application and grant any associated permits to enable it to install its proposed antenna. The Court finds that the City of Mount Vernon violated the TCA by failing to base its denial of 31 Case 7:09-cv-08348-SCR Document28 Filed 07/22/2010 Page32of32 MetroPCS's application on substantial evidence, discriminating agains! MclroPCS, and unreasonably delaying its decision. The Court also strikes down the City's fec provisions § 267-28(J)(12) and § 267-28(J)(17)(a) as invalid, and will specify the amount that MetroPCS is required to pay to the ,City in a subsequent Order. Thc Clerk ofthe Court is directed to term docket entry 13. Il is So Ordered Dated: White Plains, New York'"'-/~ ~ 'ff~ ,2010 J Stephen C. Robinson, U.S.D.J. 32 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Ouality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. FrequenUy, there are aspects of a project that am subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically export in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full FAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Pact 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate er whether it is a potentially-large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. THIS AREA FOR LEAD AGENCY USE ONLY DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type I and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of FAF complated far this project: D part 1 NPart 2 NPart 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead ageney that: The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared, Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive deelmatJon w~ll be prepared. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Typo Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) website Date Page 1 of 21 PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Pleaae complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these queations will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance, Name of Action Wireless Telecommunication Facility Site lDO NY7313 Location of Action (inClude Street Address. Municipality and County) 415 Elijah's Lane, Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York Name of Applicant/Sponsor MetmPCS New York, LLC Address 5 Skyline Drive City / PO Hawthorne State New York Zip Code 10532 Business Telephone (914) 593~8500 Name of Owner (if different) William J Baxter, Jr, Patdcia Baxter, Robert A, Goeller, Jr,, and Jane P. Goeller Address 6915Harbor C~cE City / PO Stuart Business Telephone State FL Zip Code 34996 Description of Action: Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Services Facility consisting ora 10' extension to the existing AT&T 108' +/~ monopole on which MetroPCS New York, LLC will affix six antennas on T-ann brackets and install related equipment on the ground. Landscaped screening consisting of 10' arborvitaes will be placed at grade along the fenced equipment pad. Page 2 of 21 Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present Land Use: [] Urban r"l Industrial [] commercial ]Forest ~'] Residential (suburban) ~Agriculture [Z]Other Wireless Telecommunications Facility r']Rural (uon-farm) Total acreage of project area: 0.004 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rcck, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) opportunistic vegetation and a sapling PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 aores 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0.004 acres 0.004 acres What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Haven loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes a, Soil drainage: [] Well drained 1 O0 % of site [] Moderately well drained __ N Poorly drained __% of site % of site. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group I through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? acres (see I NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ~ ~ Yes L~J No a. What is depth to bedrock On feet) 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: [~-10-10% 100% ~]10- 15% % [] 15% or greater to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of DYes ~'~No 6. Is project substantiall~ontiguous Histodc Places? Il Yes ~'~ No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? 8. What is the depth of the water table? > 4 (in feet) 9. Is site located over a pdma~7, principal, or sole source aquifer? r~l Yes [] No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? N Yes [~No Page 3 of 21 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identif~l as threatened or endangered? DYes [] No Accordin~l to: IU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (see attached) Identify/each species: 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations? J~JYes []No Describe: 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? J~J Yes []No If ~/es, explain: 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? r-JYes []No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: No Size (in acres): Page 4 of 21 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ~ Yes [] No a. If YES, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? [] Yes b. If YES, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? NNo r"JYes []No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? r~JYes J~JNo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 r'-Jyes r~Juo 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? B. 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate). a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor: b. Project acreage to be developed: 0.004 acres initially; c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped: 0 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed. f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing I; proposed g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: h. nYes J~JNo 0.004 acres. 0.004 acres ultimately. NIA % 0 l/month (upon completion of project)? If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Initially Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: 6'-$" height; j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? 0 Will disturbed areas be reclaimed [] Yes [] No N N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? excavated soil will be evenly spread across the project site. Multiple Family 3' width; Oft. toes/cubic yards. Condominium 3'-2"length. (equipment cabinet) b. Wild topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? OYes [] No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [] Yes J~J No 4 How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 0.004 acres. Page 5 of 21 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? l~1 Yes ~No If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction: I If multi-phased: b. d. Witl blasting occur during construction? I'~ Yes ~ No Number of jobs generated: during construction 4 __ months. (including demolition) Total number of phases anticipated N/A (number) Anticipated date of commencement phase t: __ month __ year, (including demolition) Approximate completion date of final phase: __ month __ year. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ~ Yes [] No 9. 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 1 1. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? [] Yes If yes. explain: ; after project is complete 0 I~lNo 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? I I Yes I=INo a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? r-'] Yes ~ No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase o~ decrease by proposal? r-]Yes I~lNo if yes, explain: 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? [] Yes 16. Will the project generate solid waste? r"l Yes r~lNo a. If yes, what is the amount per month? __ tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? [] Yes ~ No c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? r'lyes r'-I No Page 6 of 21 e. if yes, explain: 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? OYes J"~JNo a, If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? __ tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? __ years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? r-]Yes r~No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? N Yes [] No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? N Yes [] No 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? r~ Yes r"-J No If yes, indicate type(s) Minimal increase in electrical power (200 AMPS) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute, 23. Total anticipated water usage per day N/A gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? r~ Yes ~'] No If: yes, explain: Page 7 of 21 25. Approvals Required: Type Submittal Date City, Town, Village Board N Yes J"~"J No City, Town, Village Planning Board JTJ Yes N No Special Exemption Site Plan Application Variance City, Town Zoning Board J~J Yes N No City, County Health Department NYes JTJ NO Other Local Agencies r"lYes JTJ No Other Regional Agencies J~J Yes J"~J No State Agencies [] Yes [] NO Federal Agencies [] Yes J~J NO Zoning and Planning Information Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? []Yes If Yes, indicate decision required: r"-j zoning amendment J~J Site plan r--]No J~J Zoning variance ]Special use permit [~] New/revision of master plan J~lResource management plan C Subdivision F'~ Other Page 8 of 21 What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? ILB: Limited Business 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 10% of lot surface 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? No Cha~ge 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ~'~ Yes D No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ¥4 mile radius of proposed action? The existing facility lies on the west side of Elijah's Lane, approximately 200 feet north of Route 25. Vineyards are located to the south and a commercial use is located to the southeast. Further to the southeast are residences. To the north and east of the subject property are residences. The wireless facilities are located behind an existing commercial building at the premises. Zoning Classifications: LB: Limited Business R-80: Residential Low Density A R-40: Residential Low Density AA AC: Agricultural Conservation 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses with a ¥4 mile? 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? [~Yes [] No Page 9 of 21 1 O, Will proposed action require any authorization(s) fo~ the formation of sewe~ or water districts? ~ Yes ~ No 1 1. Will the proposed action create a demand fo~ any communit~ provided serwces (rec~ati~, education, police, fire protection? F-'~ Yes r~No Will the proposed action result in the generatio~ of t~atfic significantly above pese~t a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic, r'"lYes I-- No D. Informational Details Attach an~' additional information as may be needed to cladf~j your project, If there are or may be any advmse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the informatio~ I~OVided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name MctroPCS New York, LLC Date 08/01/11 Signature~~------~~L l~icole Pire~.l~± Title Environmental Scientist, EBI Consulting If the action is in the Coastal ,~rea, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before pl-oceeding with this Page 10 of 21 Communication Tower Consultation in New York Existing Communication Towers The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) New York Field Office recognizes that individual project review by the Service is not required under certain conditions. The Service provides the following comments in accordance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1940 (MBTA) (40 Stat. 755; 16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-688d), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321 etseq.). Migratory birds are a Federal trust resource and are protected under the MBTA. Communication towers and antennae may pose a hazard to migratory birds in flight and may pose a threat to nesting birds in the vicinity. Risk assessment factors include tower height, physical design, lighting, and site location relative to migratory corridors and bird concentration areas. The Service has determined that the following proposed actions are not likely to adversely affect Federally-listed species in New York, nor have any significant impacts on migratory birds or other trust resources: Co-location of new equipment and antennae with an existing structure (tower, water tank, large building, etc.) where all ground disturbance occurs within previously disturbed areas and where such activities do not increase the existing height or require the addition of guy wires; Routine maintenance of existing tower sites (e.g., painting, antennae replacement); and Repair or replacement of existing towers and/or equipment, provided such activities do not increase the existing tower height or require the addition of guy wires. For projects that meet the above criteria, there is no need to contact this office for project review. This document may be used as an ESA determination of"not likely to adversely affect" for all Federally-listed species within New York. Updated July 2006 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, Albany, NewYork 12233-4757 Phone: (518)402-8935 · FAX: (518)402-9027 Website: www.dec, state.ny.us May, 2009 Guidelines for Consultation with NY Natural Heritage regarding Proposed Collocations of Telecommunication Facilities on Existing Towers and Buildings Regarding reviews oftbe databases of the New York Natural Heritage Program for rare, endangered, or threatened species in the vicinity of proposed telecommunication equipment to be collocated on existing telecommunications towers and on existing buildings: New York Natural Heritage has no records of rare or listed species which would be of concern, and therefore does not require a consultation with NY Natural Heritage, for any communication facilities projects that meet one of three criteria below: 1) New antennae or panels on existing towers, or new communications equipment installed within existing fenced equipment areas, provided that all new work is confined within existing equipment areas, no previously undisturbed land is disturbed, and no new access roads or expansion of existing access roads is involved. 2) New or existing towers, antennae, and associated equipment installed at a location currently wholly occupied by lawn, pavement and/or gravel. 3) New or existing towers, antennae, and associated equipment installed on or in existing buildings, rooftops, billboards, or bridges, with the exception of the buildings and bridges with peregrine falcon nests listed later in this letter. For projects which meet the above criteria, we do not have any records of rare species or significant natural communities which will be of concern in relation to the proposed projects. Therefore, in these cases, separate consultation with the New York Natural Heritage Program is not n¢cessa~_ for a project sponsor to complete the environmental assessment required by the FCC; this letter may serve as a finding of no known impacts on state-listed species or on other rare species. This determination may be reconsidered at any time should additional information on communication facility projects or on ram species become available. Please note that neither this office, nor the NYS DEC Endangered Species Unit, need to be consulted in the future regarding communication facilities and equipment collocated on existing towers in New York State, nor for those located on buildings and bridges except for those listed below. The NYS DEC Endangered Species Unit offers this guidance regarding cellular communication facilities atop buildings in urban areas: Them is not a concern with regards to peregrine falcons when new antennas or communications towers and associated equipment are proposed, or existing ones modified, unless they are actually on the same building or bridge that a nest is located on. Projects located in adjacent areas will not have a significant impact on this species. If the projects are proposed for construction on the same building or bridge as a nest or breeding pair, then please contact the Endangered Species Unit for further consultation at 625 Broadway, Albany, NY, 12233-4754.. For your reference, peregrine falcon nests currently occur on the following buildings and bridges in the following major urban areas: New York City buildings: Cornell Medical College, 68~ Street and York Avenue Wall Street: 48 Wall Street at Nassau Ave., and at 55 Water Street Riverside Church, Riverside Drive and 120th Met Life Building, 200 Park Avenue Candler Building, W 42"a and Fashion Avenue (near Times Square) New York City bridges: Verrazano Narrows, Throgs Neck, Hell Gate, Triborough, Outerbridge Crossing, Marine Parkway, Goethals, George Washington, Bayonne, Brooklyn, Broadway, Williamsburg, Park Avenue Railroad Bridge Town of Hempstead, Nassau County: Nassau County Medical Center in East Meadow Town of lslip, Suffolk County: Captree Island Bridge Buffalo: Statler Building (Franklin and West Genessee Streets) and City Hall (Niagara Square) Rochester: Marine Midland Plaza Building (Court and Chestnut Streets) and Eastman Kodak Building (State Street near Plymouth and Platt) Syracuse: State Tower Building (South Warren Street) Binghamton: Exchange Street Albany: Dunn Memorial Bridge Troy: Collar City (Route 7) Bridge Hudson River Bridges: Tappan Zee, Newburgh-Beacon, Kingston-Rhinecliff, Mid-Hudson, Rip van Winkle, Castleton-on-Hudson, and Bear Mountain Ogdensburg: Ogdensburg Bridge Grand Island/Niagara Falls: North Grand lsland Bridge (l- 190 over Niagara River) For proposed telecommunications facilities which do not meet the above criteria, including those projects involving the construction of new towers, please submit a request to the New York Natural Heritage Program for a review of any rare or listed species in the vicinity of the proposed project. Directions for submitting a request can be found at http://www.dec.nv.eov/animals/31181 .htmk or can be provided by NY Natural Heritage. If you have any questions regarding these determinations, please contact our office. Town of Southold LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM A. INSTRUCTIONS All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a Town of Southold agency in making a determination of consistency. *Except minor exempt actions including BuiMing Permits and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area (which includes all of Southold Town). lfany question in Section C on this form is answered "yes", then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary, modified prior to making a determination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy standards and conditions. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions, it shall not be undertaken. A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold's website (southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Office, the Planning Depa~ tment, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION SCTM# 't 0 8 4 11.3 The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response): TownBoard [-~ Planning Dept. [] Building Dept. [] BoardofTrustees [] Category of Town of Southold agency action (check appropriate response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital consaruction, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction) (b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) (c) Permit, approval, license, certification: Nmure and extent of action: Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Services Facility consisting of a 10' extension to the existing AT&T 108' +/- monopole on which MetroPCS New York, LLC will affix six panel antennas on T-arm brackets and install related equipment on the ground. Landscaped screening consisting of 10' arborvitaes will be placed at grade along the fenced equipment pad. Location of action: 415 Elijah's Lane, Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold, New York Site acreage: 1.85 Present landuse: un-manned public utility wireless communications facility Present zoning classification: LB: Limited Business If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: (a) Nameofapplicant:MetroPCS New York, LLC (b) Mailing address: 5 Skyline Drive, Hawthorne, NY 21.0532 (c) Telephone number: Area Code ( ) ( 914 ) 5 9 3 - 8 5 0 0 (d) Application number if any: Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency? Yes ~ No [] If yes, which state or federal agency?. FCC DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. See LWRP Section Ill - Policies; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes ~] No ~] Not Applicable Refer to attachment Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria Yes ~ No [~ Not Applicable Refer to attachment Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria [] Yes ~ No ~ Not Applicable Refer to attachment Attach additional sheets if necessary NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. Sec LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria [] Yes [-~ No ~-~ Not Applicable Refer to attachment Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria Yes [] No ~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria. ~-~ Yes [] No ~-~ Not Applicable Refer to attachments Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. Sec LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. ~ Yes [] No[-~ Not Applicable Refer to attachment Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes [] No [] Not Applicable Refer to attachment PUBLIC COAST POLICIES Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria. [] Yc~ No [] Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary WORKING COAST POLICIES Policy 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes [] No [] Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes ~ No [-~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes [-~ No ~ Not Applicable Refer to attachment Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes [-~ No ~ Not Applicable Created on 5/25/05 11:20 AM Town of Southold LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED FACILITY: A4etmPCS New York, U_C proposes to coUocate antennas at a centerline height of 118 feet on the existing 108-foot monopole, which will be extended to a height of 118 feet. Additionally, MetroPCS New York, /_LC proposes to place support equipment, including four equipment cabinets, at the base of the tower on a new I 0 foot by 16 foot concrete slab withign the existing compound. Proposed coaxial cables will be routed along a new cable bridge to the existing monopole. Underground utilities will be connected to a proposed meter board and PTC cabinet mounted on an existing shelter. The Project Site will be accessed via an existing driveway commencing from Elijah Lane. The Project Site area within the compound is overgrown with a sapling, woody plants and grasses. DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy I. Policy 2. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. The adverse effects of development are mitigated by collocating the proposed telecommunications facility on an existing tower on a commercial property. As such, the community character of the area, specifically agricultural land and water-dependent and water- enhanced uses (land surrounding Mattituck Inlet and Creek) will not be adversely impacted. With regards to community considerations, based on the above, the proposed undertaking meets the longstanding planning goals of the Town of Southold which are to "reflect the interest in preserv/ng and enhancing the natural and built environment and providing opp0rtun/~es for a level 0fgrowth and expansion of the econom/c base that is compatfble with the ex/stJng scale of development, availabili~/ of water, existJng sens~ve environment of the Town and its historic heritage." Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. EBI evaluated whether the stipulations contained within Na~onwide Programmatic Agreement for the Colloca~on of' Wireless Antennas (the "Collocation Agreement") allow Meo'0FCS New York, LLC to construct the proposed facility without consulting with the New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Based on the project design the Collocation Agreement's exclusionary conditions for SHPO consultation apply to this project. Based on the above, the proposed undertaking will protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria Minimize introduction of structural design components (including utility lines, lighting, signage and fencing) which would be discordant with existing natural scenic components and character. The adverse effects of the proposed project are mitigated by collocating the proposed telecommunications facility on an existing tower. Of importance, no microwave dishes will be installed. In addition, the proposed equipment will be located within an existing compound on the subject proper~y, thereby reducing any visual impact from the neighboring lots. B. Restore deteriorated and remove degraded visual components. N/A Co Screen components of development which detract from visual quality. The proposed antennas will be collocated on an existing tower and proposed equipment will be located within an existing compound on the subject property, thereby reducing any visual impact from the neighboring lots. Use appropriate siting, scales, forms, and materials to ensure that structures are compatible with and add interest to existing scenic components. The proposed project involves the collocation of antennas and equipment to an existing telecommunications facility. As such, is compatible to existing scale, ~onn and material. Preserve existing vegetation and establish new indigenous vegetation to enhance scenic quality: I. Preserve existing vegetation which contributes to the scenic quality of the landscape. 2. Allow for selective clearing of vegetation to provide public views without impairing values associated with the affected vegetation. 3. Restore historic or important designed landscapes to preserve intended or designed aesthetic values. 4. Restore or add indigenous vegetative cover that presents a natural appearance. The pr0~osed undertaking will require the removal of 0.00,~ acres of o~ortunistic vegetation that was grown within the existing fenced compound. ~xist~ng indigenous veget~on outside the compound w~ll not be disturbed. F. Improve the visual quality associated with hamlet areas. N/A G. Improve the visual quality of historic maritime areas. N/A Protect the visual interest provided by active water-dependent uses. The proposed project involves the collocation of antennas and equipment to an existing telecommunications facility. Visual interest provided by active water-dependent uses will not be adversely impacted. Anticipate and prevent impairment of dynamic landscape elements that contribute to ephemeral visual qualities. The proposed project involves the collocation of antennas and equipment to an existing telecommunications facility. Policy 4. Policy $. Dynamic landscape elements that contribute to ephemeral visual qualities will not be affected. Protect visual quality associated with public lands, including public transportation routes, public parks and public trust lands and waters. The proposed project involves the collocation of antennas and equipment at an existing telecommunications facility.. The proposed undertaking will not introduce further negative visual elements that would cause an interruption of vistas important to the character of the area. I. Limit water surface coverage or intrusion to the minimum amount necessary. N/A 2. Limit alteration of shoreline elements which contribute to scenic quality. N/A K. Protect visual quality associated with agricultural land, open space and natural resources. The proposed project involves the collocation of antennas and equipment to an existing telecommunications facility. The visual quality of agricultural land, open space and natural resources will be protected. I. Maintain or restore original landforms except where altered landforms provide useful screening or contribute to scenic quality. Existing landforms will not be altered. 2. Group or orient structures during site design to preserve open space and provide visual organization. All supporting structures will be located within the existing compound. 3. Avoid structures or activities which introduce visual interruptions to natural landscapes including: a) introduction of intrusive artificial light sources; Intrusive artificial lighting is not proposed. b) fragmentation of and structural intrusion into open space areas; open space areas will not be affected c) changes to the continuity and configuration of natural shorelines and associated vegetation The natural shoreline will not be affected Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the site area indicates that the property and the surrounding areas are not located within a Special Flood Hazard Areas inundated by 100-Year Flood. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. N/A Policy 6. of the Town of Southold and Wildlife Habitats and Protect and restore the quality and function ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish wetlands. The proposed project involves the collocation of antennas and equipment at an existing telecommunications facility and will not impact the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. According to the "Guidelines for Consultation with NY Natural Heritage regarding Proposed Collocations of Telecommunication Facilities on Existing Towers and Buildings", issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)- Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources, dated I~lay 2009, for communications facilities projects that involve "New or existing towers, antennae, and associated equipment installed at a location currently wholly occupied by lawn, pavement and/or gravel," the NYSDEC does not "have any records of rare species or significant natural communities which will be of concern in relation to the proposed projects." Inasmuch as the proposed proiect is located on land previously disturbed within an existing fenced compound, rare species or significant natural communities will not be affected by development of the proposed under.king. Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. The proposed undertaking will not generate air pollution. Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. The proposed under'caking is un-manned and will not generate solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. N/A Policy 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water- dependent uses in suitable locations. N/A Policy I I. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. N/A Polic~ 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. The proposed project involves the collocation of antennas and equipment at an existing telecommunications facility, thereby protecting agricultural land. Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. N/A MAP II-J-l: REACH '1 Long Island Sound Duck Pond Point \ \ \ \ \ ....,., ;"'%;i"~ ,'?,:'~ Project Site Proiect Site I~dius I/4, I/2, 3 and 5 ~liles National Re~ister Historic Site National Register Historic District ~ National Wildflfe Refuge DEC State Lands National Park · NYDEC Boat Launches NPS Long DistanceTrail Scenic Area of Statewide S~nificance Historical Parks I Wildlife Management Area Registe~d Antenna Structure ........ NYTrails 415 ELIJAH LANE MATTITUCK, NY I 1952 0 Note~: 1 inch equals 1 mile Town of Southold, New York Vendor Name - Payment Voucher Vendor No. 3321 Vendor Address CMS 70 Cambridge Dr. Vendor Telephone Number Glenmont, NY 12077 Vendor Contact Invoice Number Richard A. Comi L~voice Toud $125.00 125.00 ($125.00) Di~ount AmountC~imed $125.00 125.00 ($125.00) Payee Certification The undersigned (Claimant) (Acting on behalf of the above named claimant) doea hereby certify that the foregoing claim ia m~¢ and correct, that no part has been paid, except as therein stated, that the balance thereiu stated ia actually due and owing, and that taxc~ fxom which the Town is ex~mpt are excluded. !17-004 6/1/12 23927 Signature Title. Company Name Date l:~:~i~ki:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:5:i:i:!:!:!:?:3:i:i:i:i:i:i:! !:! 5:! ..................... DasofipfionofOoodsorSende~ Wireless consultinR New Cinsular;:~(AT&T~ at Orient By-the-Sea SCTM#1000-15-9-8.1 Department Certification 1 hereby certify that the materials above specified have been received by me in good condition without substitution, the services pmpcrfy performed and that the quantities thereof have been verified with the exceptions or dlscrepanclez noted, and payment is approved. Title Plannine Director Date Client:Southold NY ATT Invoice 40200 Main Rd Orient #2 SCTM# 1000-15-9-8.1 Invoice #:93117~04 The Center for Municipal Solutions 70 Cambridge Dr. Glenmont, NY 12077 Date: Description (518)439-3079 discussion with Lanza & Cummings on proof of need for 3-May height TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ $ 125.00 I, Richard A. Comi, certify that the above account in the amount of $ 125.00 is true and correct; that the items, se~ices and disbursements charged were rendered to or for the municipaitty on the dates stated; that no part has been paid or satisfied; that taxes, from which the municipality is exempt, are not included; and that the amount claimed is actually due. 6/01/12 .~'..~. ~,~ Date Signature ~' 7/1/2012 Hrs Rate; Expenses. Amount 0.5 $ 250.00 $ 125.00 $ $ 125.00 (Electronic Signature) Town of Southold, New York - Payment Voucher Vendor Name Vendor Address CMS Vendor Telephone Numbor 518 439-3079 Vendor Contact Richard A. Comi 70 Cambridge Dr. Glenmont, NY 12077 Vendor No. 3321 Numb~ 41133-004 Date ~/1/2012 Invoice Total $1,850.00 Discount Net $1,850.00 $1,850.00 .$1,850.00 ($1,850.00 [$1,850.00 Payee Certification The undemigned (Claimam) (Acting on behalf of the above named claimant) does hereby c~rtify that the foregoing claim is hue and correct, that no part has been paid, except as therein stated, that the balance therein stated is actually due and owing, and that taxes from which the Town is exempt are excluded. Signamre Title, Company Name Date Number 23058 Description of Goods or Services Consulting services: MetroPCS at Eli]ah's La Mattituck (Baxter) SCTM#108v4 11.3 Department Certification I hereby ¢ etlify that the materials above sp~ified have be~n received by me in good condition without substitution, the sen4oes properly performed and that the quantifies thereof have been verified with the exceptions or discrepancies noted, and payment is approved. Signature ~ Title Planning Director Date Client:Southold NY Metro PCS 415 Elijahs Lane Mattituck S CTM# 1000-108-4-11.3 invoice #:41133-004 Date: 3-Apr 3-Apr 3-Apr 4-Apr 4-Apr 4-Apr 4-Apr 4-Apr 5-Apr 5-Apr S-Apr 6-Apr 6-Apr 30-Apr Description Conference call Calls w/Dick and Chris S. Coniference call w/applicant engineem Draft minutes & email Call with Dick Meeting minutes Invoice The Center for Municipal Solutions 70 Cambridge Dr. Glenmont, NY 12077 (518)439-3079 call with PL. Dir on conf call on setback issue dicsuss status with engineers, review & revise dralt letter on call and send to PI. Dir Conference call with town Call w/Dick on stress levels Conference call w/Heather, etc.. prepare cover letter and send final engineer's letter to Town conference car with engineers, PB chair and Planning staff cost of 4/6 conference circuit TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ $ 1,850.00 I, Richard A. Coral, certify that the above account in the amount of $ 1,850.00 is true and correct; that the items, services and disbursements charged were rendered to or for the municipality on the dates stated; that no part has been paid or satisfied; that taxes, from which the municipality is exempt, are not included; and that the amount claimed is actually due. 5/01/12 ~'..4,, ~z Date Signature 6/1/2012 Hrs Rate: Expenses. Amount 0.9 $ 250.00 $ 225.00 0.30 $ 250.00 $ 75.00 0.90 $ 250.00 $ 225.00 0.70 $ 250.00 $ 175.00 0.5 $ 250.00 $ 125.00 0.3 $ 250.00 $ 75.00 0.3 $ 250.00 $ 75.00 1.3 $ 250.C0 $ 325.00 0.3 $ 250.00 $ 75.00 0.30 $ 250.00 $ 75.00 0.50 $ 250.00 $ 125,00 0.6 $ 250.00 $ 150.00 $ 250.00 $ 125.00 $ 250.00 $ $ $ 1,850.00 (Electronic Signature) 0.5 dUN 15 2012 :Purchase Order # ' 2 3 0 58 Tax Exemp~ # A163554 · Date November 3, 2011 Account # B 8020 4 500 500 IDeliver and send billing to: Department Address PLANNING BOARD Vendor 3321 Richard A. Comi d~b/a Ctr.forMuncipal Solutioas 70 Cambridge Dr. Glenmont, NY 12077 ITEM ,,VENDOR ~'Return this COpy and TOwn of So"ttiOld voucher itemized and mgned for payment" QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT COST TOTAL {OT TO EXCEED ~8,500.00 ~plic2 .1.3 415 THIS PURCHASE ORDER IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THESIGNAT~JREs OF THE DEPT. HEAD'AND THESUPERvISOR CERTIFY THAT THERE ARE ~UFFIClENT FUNDS AVAIEAB~.E CERTIFY '~-'IIS TO BE A JUST ;upe~r~isor V~ndor No. Town of Southold, New York - Payment Voucher Vendor Name Vendor Add.ss 70 Cambridge Dr. 3321 Vendor Telephone Number Glenmont, NY 12077 V~ndor Contact Richard A. Comi Invoice Invoice Invoice Number Date Total Discount IN:~,,iptlon of Goeds or Services 41133-003 4/1/12 $992.01 N~ Purchase Ord~ Amoum Claimed Number $992.01 23058 992.01 ($992.01) 992.01 SCTM#1000-108-4-11.3 ($992.01) Wireless Consultin~ services MetroPCS @ Elijah's La. Mattituck (Baxter) Payee Certification The undersigned (Claimant) (Acting on behalf of the above named claimant) does hereby certify that the foregoing claim is true and correct, that no par has been paid, except as therein stated, that the balance therein stated is actually due and owing, and that taxe~ from which the Town is exempt arc excluded. Signamm Title Company Name Date Department Certification I hereby certify that the materials above specified have been received by me in good condition without substitution, the services properly performed and that the quantifies thereof have been verified with the exceptions or discre~pancies noted, and payment is approved. Si~mtum ~ Title Planning Director Date Client:Southold NY Metro PCS 415 Elijahs Lane Mattituck Invoice #:41133-003 Date: 3-Mar 5-Mar 9-Mar 14-Mar 19-Mar 23-Mar 23-Mar 3G.Mar 30-Mar 30-Mar Descdppan Dick Comi ernail / registrations discussion with Planning D#. On status conference call on sthJcteral Draft code ~etter and dJs~bute Letter TIA Code Dick Comi email wi structural Review satJctural / comment reopond to Cummings email on sthJctural cost of 2/27 conference caa circuit cost of 3/9 conference call circuit Confomnce call coordinafJon TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ $ 992.01 Richard A. Corot. cer they that the above account in the amount of $ 992.01 4/01/12 ~'..,~. ~'~ Date Signature Invoice The Center for Municipal Soiotions 70 Cambridge Dr. G~enmont. NY 12077 (518)439-3079 Hfs Rate: Expenses. Amount 0.2 $ 250.00 $ 0~2 $ 250.00 0.3 $ 250.00 $ 0.7 $ 250.00 $ 0.6 $ 250.00 $ 0.2 $ 250.00 $ 1.3 $ 250.00 $ 0.2 $ 250.00 $ $ 7.43 $ 9.58 0.2 $ 250.00 $ Monroe Comi Scrader 50.00 $ 12.50 $ 12.50 50.00 $ 50.00 75.00 $ 75.00 175.00 $ 43.75 $ 43.75 150.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 $ 50.00 $ 12.50 $ 12.50 325.00 $ 81.25 $ 81.25 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 7.43 $ 9.58 50.00 $ 12.50 $ 12.50 $ 17.01 $ 975.00$ 207.50 $ 399.51 $ 6/25/2012 $ 25.00 $ 87.50 36.00 $ 24.00 $ 25.00 $ 162.50 $ 25.00 36.00 $ 24.00 $ 325.00 Total $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 75.00 $ 175.00 $ 150.00 $ 50.00 $ 325.00 $ 50.00 $ 7.43 $ 9.58 $ 50.00 $ 992.01 Town of Southold, New York - Payment Voucher Vendor Name CMS Vendor Address 70 Cambridge Dr. Vendor Telephone Number 518 439-3079 Glenmont, NY 12077 Vendor Contact Invoice $2,175.00! 2,175.00 r (2,175.00) Payee Certification The undersigned (Claimant) (Acting on behaffof the above named clsim~qt) docs hereby ce~ that the fi~regoing claim is txue and correct, that no part has been paid, except as therein stated, that the balance therein stated is actually due and owing, and that taxes flora which the Town is exempt are excluded. Signature Title Company Name Date Richard A. Comi Invoice ~voice Numb~ Date 41133-002 3/31/12 N~ Puxchase Ord~ Amour Claimed Numb~ 2,175.00 23058 2,175. 00 (2,175.00) iVendorNo. 13321 Descfipfi~ofGoods~Services 3onsulting services re ~ireless application at SCTM# i08-4~-tl.3 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::, :::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Department Certification I hereby certify that the materials above sp~ified have been received by me in good condition without substitution, the services properly performed and that the quantifies thelcof have been verified with the exceptions or discrepancies noted, and payment is approved. Signature Title Planning Dtrsctor Date ~-IqrlT-~ Ciient:Southold NY Metro PCS 415 Elijahs Lane Mattituck SCTM# 1000-108~-11,3 Invoice #:41133-002 Date: 14-Feb 14-Feb 14-Feb 15-Feb 15-Feb 16-Feb 17-Feb 17-Feb 20-Feb 21 -Feb Invoice The Center for Municipal Solutions 70 Cambridge Dr. Glenmont, NY 12077 Description (518)439-3079 Telephone call w/Dick and review information review supplemental material received today dated 2/2/2012 discuss with consultant and call Cummings discuss with structural engineer telephone call w/Dick to discuss Telephone call w/Dick discuss MTM repod with Robed Toms and with structural engineer Conference call w/Dick and Southold Review all site info and supp. application material with discussions and prepare recommendation letter to PB. Review all site info and supp. application material and prepare recommendation letter to Planning Board. 23-Feb discussion with Lanza on structural 24-Feb continued discussion with Lanza conference call with structural engineer, PB chairman and 27-Feb planning director on structural issues 28-Feb discuss PB meeting with lanza 28-Feb finalize and send draft letter to Lanza 29-Feb review, finalize and distribute leffer to Board TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ $ 2,175.00 I, Richard A. Comi, certify that the above account in the amount of $ 2,1 75.00 is true and correct; that the items, services and disbursements charged were rendered to or for the municipality on the dates stated; that no pad has been paid or satisfied; that taxes, from which the municipality is exempt, are not included; and that the amount claimed is actually due. 3/01/12 Date Signature 3/31/2012 Hrs Rate: Expenses. Amount 0.60 $ 250.00 $ 150.00 0.8 $ 250.00 $ 200.00 0.4 $ 250.00 $ 100.00 0.2 $ 250.00 $ 50.00 0.30 $ 250.00 $ 75.00 0.20 $ 250.00 $ 50.00 0.8 $ 250.00 $ 200.00 0.40 $ 250.00 $ 100.00 1.5 $ 250.00 $ 375.00 1.0 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 0.3 $ 250.00 $ 75.00 0.2 $ 250.00 $ 50.00 0.4 $ 250.00 $ 100.00 0.2 $ 250.00 $ 50.00 0.6 $ 250.00 $ 150.00 0.8 $ 250.00 $ 200.00 (Electronic Signature) $ $ 2,175.00 Town of Southold, New York - Payment Voucher ~ ~. [ V~r Co~m~ - ~ - Glenmont, NY 12077 4 .... Invoice Invoice Invoice ~ ! Nel Purchase Order Ntm~,er Dale Total ~ Disco~t !Amo~,m Number ~heek No. Entered by Audit Date Town Clerk Gcneal Ledger Fund and Ae. cotmt N~nbcr Payee Certification Department Certification Client:Southold NY Metre PCS 415 Slijahs Lane Mattituck ~)~ SCTM# 1000-108-4-11.3 I nvoice #:41133-001 Date: Description 4-Nov 7-Nov Invoice The Center for Municipal Solutions 70 Cambridge Dr. Glenmont, NY 12077 (518)439-3O79 project setup and administration initial reviw of application mate3rial Review all site info and application material with discussions 7-Nov and prepare recommendation letter to PB. 9-Nov Review all site info and application material and prepare recommendation letter to Planning Board. review draft letter from consultant and emission report in 1 0-Nov detail 10-Nov discuss emission report with Dan Collins 18-Nov discuss status of review with Planning Director 19-Nov review, revise and distribute apPlication review letter TOTALAMOUNTDUE$ $ 2,075.00 I, Richard A. Comi, certify that the above account in the amount of $ 2,075.00 is true and correct; that the items, services and disbursements charged were rendered to or for the municipality on the dates stated; that no part has been paid or satisfied; that taxes, frem which the municipality is exempt, are not included; and that the amount craimed is actually due. 12/01/11 .~, ,,,~, (7..~.¢ Date Signature 12/30/2011 2.5 $ 250.00 $ 625.00 2.0 $ 250.00 $ 500.00 0.6 $ 250.00 $ 150.00 0.4 $ 250.00 $ 100.00 0.3 $ 250.00 $ 75.00 1.2 $ 250.00 $ 300.00 $ $ 2,075.00 (Electronic Signature) Hrs Rate: Expenses. Amount 0.3 $ 250.00 $ 75.00 1.0 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS MARTIN H. SIDOR Chair VCILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L, EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III DONALD J. WILCENSKI PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 F~x: 631 765-3136 To: Accounting From: Planning Department Date: September 30, 2011 Re: Payments Please deposit the attached checks into a deferred account: B691. They represent fees for a wireless application not yet accepted by the Planning Board. Applicant/Project Name & Tax Map Amount Check bate/No. Type # Authorization Code Metro PCS Mattituck Site Plan fee 108-4-11.3 $1,000 6/30/11 - #7434 Metro PCS Mattituck Special Exception 108-4-11.3 $1,000 6/30/11 - #7433 LR Atts, METROPGS NEW YOI~.A.C 5 SKYMNE DRIVE HAWTHORNE, NY 10532 6/30/2011 PAY TO THETown of Southhold o.o .oF I$ One Thousand and 00/100 ............... **** ............ **** ..... ************ ............... **** .............. * ........... Town of Southhold DOLLARS MEMO Site Plan Application Fee NY7313 ME'mOPCS NEW YORK, LLG Town of Southhold Site Plan Application Fee NY7313 6/30/2011 7434 1,000.00 NY Imprest Site Plan Application Fee NY7313 1,000.00 METROPCS NEW YOlk, LLC 5 SKYUNE DRIVE HAWTHORNE, NY 10532 7433 6/30/2011 PAYTOTHE Town of Southhold ORDER OF [ $*'1,000.00 One Thousand and 00/100'******** ......... * ........................ * ........ ** .... ****************** ..................... Town of Southhold DOLLARS MEMO Speci~xemption Permit Fee NY7313 ,'OOOO?[,~.~,' I: ~, ~, ~,OOOO ~, ;~': t,~, ;~ ML=I~OPC6 NEW YORK, LLC Town of Southhold Special Exemption Permit Fee NY7313 6/30/2011 7433 1,000.00 NY Imprest Special Exemption Permit Fee NY7313 1,000.00 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS NL~RTIN H. SIDOR Ch~Jr WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS JAMES H. RICH III DONALD J. WILCENSKI PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 To: Accounting From: Planning Department Date: September 30, 2011 Re: Payments Please deposit the attached check into deferred account B691. It represents Consultant fee for a wireless application not yet accepted by the Planning Board. Applicant/Project Nome & Tax Mop Type ~ 108-4-11.3 Wireless consultant fee Amount $8,500 Check bate/No. Authorization Code 9/20/11 - 7623 LR Att, · .-.,i~.,~ 7623 METROPCS NEW YO~, U.C 32-1/111Q ]Xo 5 SKYLINE DRIVE F~IhffHORNE, NY 105~ ~/20/2011 PAY TO THE ORDER OF MEMO Town of Southold ] $*'8,500.00 Eight Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100 ............................................................................ Town of Southold Balance of Escrow Fees NY7313A ,'O000?r~ 2~.,' I: ~ ~ ~0000 ~ OOLL~S f ME'r~oPC8 NEW YORK, LLC Town of Southold Balance of Escrow Fees NY7313A 9/20/2011 7623 8,500.00 NY Imprest Balance of Escrow Fees NY7313A 8,500.00 1 08' SUMMIT MONOPOLE W/PROPOSED 10' EXTENSION VICINITY MAP: MATTITUCK, NY / SITE ~SITE AERIAL VIEW PROJECT SUMMARY DRAWING INDEX (770) 708-6124 - OFFICE (678) 7~5--~0~ - CELL INTEGRATED BY: THE USTED DRAWINGS REPRESENT MOOIRCA~ONS TO ~JE EX'S~INO TOWER BY ~t ~DCS~ IN~TN-UNG A N. 1 O' EXTENSION. ,N~rALUNC TRANSmO. 5-RFFENERS TO THE GPD GROUP, GENERAL NOTES CONTRACTOR NOTES MODIFICATION PLATE NOTES WELD NOTES WARNING-IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR PERSON TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT UNLESS NE ACTING UNOER THE DIRECTION OF A UCENSIE~ PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. GPD GROUP. ANTENNA SCHEDULE (a) ~-~ O) ~' m ~ (~2) ~-~/~' MODIFICATION SCHEDULE COAX LAYOUT TOWER ELEVATION ~),,,.~ Z SECTION SECTION GPD GROUP. iii DETAIL R-I/4 SECTION Q ¢/s-o~. SECTION GPD GROUP. II I'! I1.! 8'! :: DETAIL SECTION SHAFT Om.) SECTION DETAIL DETAIL GPD GROUP, MODIFICATION INSPECTION CHECKLIST BEFORE CONSTRUCTION DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION MODIFICATION INSPECTION NOTES: MODIFICATION INSPECTOR GENERAL CONTRACTOR RECOMMENDATIONS CANCELLATION OR DELAYS IN SCHEDUI. ED MODIFICATION INSPECTION CORRECTION OF FALLING MODIFICATION INSPECTION VERIFICATION INSPECTIONS klODl~ INSertION- OR *PASS ~...NOT~ M~I~llON IN~E~O~ REPORT FOR TH[ IR H T GPD GROUP. AF'Pt~.OVAL5 ii~ ~ GROUP~ ~=~,N~ A R C H I T E C T U R E Wireless for All E NGINEERINGp. O. BOX3 I ~, ~WJEgS~ 0~30 ~L: ~32.888.6210 /- ' ~ON~TRU~ ON MANA~E~ F~: ~ 3 2. 8 ~ ~. ~ 3 3 ~ ~-~B345 ~- ~GE362~ ,- - ~ . P~OJ~OT IN~O~MAT ON. ', metroPC8 J 5 S~LINE DRIVE GABLE ROUTN¢ ~ CABLE vO~T DE-A~5 -2~T~FI~ ~1~ 415 ELIdAH LANE ~ ,?)~ --I~L~ ~H~ 14. ~ ~ ~ IN ~]~E ~ ~ ~ON TO ~ IN ~E ~1~ ~ FO~O~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" HINI~ ~ 5' H~I~ Wireless for ~IFICATI~, ~T ~ITI~. 5A~ AT ~. ~A~[~, N~ I J~ ~ r~. ~O-LO~ATION i~. ~ ~ ~ ~i~ATiO~ ~ tO ~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AT ~ T~ ~ ~l~ ~i~ ~O~ ~A~ N~T~ ............. .................................... D $IGN u ECOl ~VlEI~T) TOTAL ~'ET. ~.~. I~.~ ~. F~X: 732.847.4335 '~ 0 ?V 0 ~ F O ~ M E ~ L ~ C 0 U N T y O F ~I~I~T~ ~-~22375 60' W 0 0 D E D A R E A ~ ", : ; ' - * - Wireless for All, = ~'_E~!~ ~ ~ ~ /f / / %<:: ~I~~LI~ ::::¢ ~ I ~ ;= ~ % % 5S~LINEDRIVE ~ '~'~TO~LI~ ~A-2/ ~ ~ ~.~__~,t~_~ /~ :/ -- ~ , ~ / - ~ HA~HORNE, NY10532 ' , ~ ~ -// MATTITUOK, N~ LEGEND: ' H ~ ¢~ / ~ ,, ~ / ~ z:%% ~ ./ O0-LOCATION ~'~ , ~ , ,t ~ .- , -~- ~ , BHo PMo 12~0/0~ i 'x,, ARCHITECTURE I i ~ N ~ ~L: 732.888.6210 ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ GENTE~ OF EXISTINO SPRINT ANTENNA5 ~ ~' ~028992'1 ~''075384 ~ , ~'~"~' ]i I' metroPCS Wireless for All. 'l"l, ' I iI / ~ ~(~AILI/A~) / / ~ ~ 415 ~LIJA~ LAN~ / ¢ ' LL f // // CO-LOGATION iow- .i~ ~XlS~l~ C~IS~ON ~ ~ --7~ -- -~ ~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~ONO~Ob~ ~L~VA~ION D E S I G Nu G R O U P~ A R C H I T E C T U R E ENGINEERING P. O. BOX 3 ~, ~WJERS~ 0~30 ~L: 732.888.6210 I~'~ ~ ~ 4 V4' I~0 HIL~T F~: 732.847.4335 ~ ~6~4~ ~-~345 ~- ~ GE 36209 ~ - ~ 22375 "/:Il=r-°' Wireless for ~l. ~ uoe,: OqMP~T~020 ~~c~ ~1~ ELIJAH LAN~ ' , MATTITUOK, N~ I1~ OO-LOOATION GABL~ ~OUTIN~ GABLE PO~T O~TAIL~ ,~. / ,~ ,.-~. DESI ARCHITECTURE ~ '"'~N L~I~A .] 5 ~L: 732,888.6210 ~ IO'~'+/- Hl~ ~ ~ :~ F~: 732.847.4335 ~- ~028~2-1 ~- ~ 075384 __~ ~uM ' o,~ ~ ~ - ~ 22375 .... 4"~TO~~~//~~ /2~ , k I J UTILI~ ~OUNT geTAJL ~Jmee PLANTIN~ DeTAJL Wireless ~r ~1, j 24x5~ ~N: 5/4,,=1,~. ilxl~ ~A~:N.T.~. J 24x~ ~e: N.T.5. 5 S~LINE DRI~ ~ HA~HORNE, NY 10532 ~PI~A~TO~ ~~I~~TO~~. ~15 ~ ~T ~ ~ ~ 15 ~ ~ ~T IT 15 ~lN 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 15 ~IN 2 ~J~ ~J~ ~.~,~__~ - . ~ ,' =.. BILL OF MATERIALS L%' 2 UTILI~ F~AME ~LEVATiON5 // M~I~~ ml~ ' x ...... ~, ~ ~P~ MOUNTIN~ g~TAIL ~L '~"~'~'~,~ '"~"~" ~' - ~ / D E S I G N] I~[ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ? ~ .~, .x' ,' ~ . ARCHITECTURE -' ~1 T ~ ~o.~o,~ ~o~w.~o~,~.~. ~ ~ ~- ~ 028992-1 ~ ' ~ 075384 ~ . -- I ~v ~' ~22]'75 PA ~ ~ 061412 I I ~UIPMENT ~O~T FRAME PLAN 2 ~ MOUNTIN~ HOLE LOOATION PLAN / ', metroPC ~'~ ~'~ / ~. ~t~ ~T~ ~r "~ ~ ~'~ ~/~; Wireless for All. ~ I ~TAIL 4 I ~ET~IL 5 I ~TAIL HA~HO~E, NY 10532 ~ ~o~ OqMP~TDO20 [--] 41~ ~I~A~ ~AN~ ~ ~ O0-LOOATION ,:: :-: :;'~ ; ?::~*::-~,~% ~ -:- T~f~?~ ~OUNDATION DSTAIL~ AND Ilx17 ~AL[= I/4"=1-0" 124x~6 ~: I/2"=~'-0" IIxU ~AL[: I/4"=1'-0" ~ 24xD~ ~: ~/2"=1-0" DESIGNU, G R O U P~ A R C H I T E C T U R E ENGINEERING P. O. BOX 3 ~T, ~JERS~ 0W30 ~L: 732.888.6210 F~: 732.847.4335 ~ - ~ 075384 PA - · ~1412 metroPCS Wireless for All. HA~HORNE, NY 10532 ~,~ ~o~ N~ID 41~ ELIJAH LANE 12~O/Oq ANTENNA MOUNT DETAILS DESIGNu, (~ -- ENGINEERING , x~ 2~ .? ~ P.o. Box3 T2 ~-' ~/. ·/ ~ ~fT, ~]E~ 0~30 T_~ ~ ~..~ /~~ ~: 7~2.888.62~0 ~ ~ CT- ~ 22375 PA ~ ~ ~14~ ~! ) ~ 0 IIEOUIPmENT OADINET 5~OIPICATION5 2ILTE OABINET DETAIL5 ¢&~},%c?~%~ ,,-. -' m troPCS ~ · ~2 ~ mr ~,~ ~* ~--~ ! Wireless for ~' HA~HORNE, NY 10532 ~%, " . ~ ~ ~i i ~ == ~ i 4iD ELIdAH LANE ~ ,/I ~: OO-LOOATmON C~ TO ~ ~15~ ~Ho P~O m2~o/~ ~ ~ (~ DA~ C~ - ~' x ~,34" = 11,42 ~. ~. E~UIP~ENT 5~¢[FIOATION5 ~ I BATTERY OABINET OETAIL$ 4 I PTO OA~INDT 5PEOIFIOATION$ I BETA BETA CA,~I.~ ~ eeo iooo~ (i~ ~-rfl CAeu~ 4 eeo iooo~ ~ESIGN~ R. C} LJ P~ ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 3 HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 02730 TEL: 732.888.6210 FAX: 732. 847.4335 Lou Moglmo, N~- ~ A113345 NY - ~ 028992-1 R. obert W. Torres P.E. 075384 IlmetroPC l Wireless for All. 5 SKYLINE DRIVE HAWTHORNE, NY 10532 s,T~ Jo~, N¥'I'DID 4ID F=L..I.JAH iANt~ I',"IA~'1'I'I"L)~.~--., N'T' 11~2 CO-LOCATION E~Ho ;'h-lo 12/~O/CN t~.:1:~ J ANTENNA CAttLE ~CHEt'dATIC NY - ~ 075384 WIRING METHODS LEGEND ~ON~UCTOP~sOUTSI~ E~JI~=A~S~ODB~I~IN~U~5SO~i~GIFIGALLY~D.NO~D. ~g ~G A~ LOG~ ELEG~I~ ~0~5 ~ALL ~ A~ tO. ALL E -- ~XISTIN~ ~L~]~ --'~-- ~ ~P~ SEAL/__ -- ~ ~' P~ L U/~O'~ metroPCS. Wireless for All. ~ ~o~, OqHP~T~020 ~PECIAL EMPHA~I~, CONCERNS, ANB LIMITATIONS ~YM~OL~ 4I~ =~IJ~ (~RNI~ ~o~ ELEGT~IGAL / I I ROOF: F=IAN 2 pONE LINE RICER ~6HE'r'dATI(. NOTED ($~mbol.s (~), (~), q. ~IR]~ ANP C.,ONOUIT LE~EN~ I:::'E .~ C., ~ I F:"i' I 0 N ~IRE C. ON~UIT D#D/O ,~ 1~'5~· 2#10 ~ I#1~ DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING P. O. BOX 3 HAZLET, NEV~JERSEY 07730 TEL: 732.888.6210 FAX: 732.847.4335 NJ- ~ A113345 NY - ~ 028992-1 P. obe~c W. Toms, P.E. STRUCTU I~AL ENGINEI~R ~y4¢ GE 36209 - ~¢ 075384 CT - ;~ 22375 PA - ~ 061412 IlmetroPCSI Wireless for All. 5 SKYLINE DRIVE HAWTHORNE, NY 10532 *~ uov, N'Y'~DID SI~-~ INFORMATION 4ID ELIJAH LANE HATTITtJCK, NY 11~2 CO-LO6ATION EDHo 12/DO/Oq ELE6Tt~.I OAL PLAN ARCHITECTURE 'Y" W~ OAD~LD TO FE~ff PODT VIA DLAMP. P.O. BOX 3 (T~MA5 S ~ ~20~ A~O~ ~) ~, ~JERSEY 0~30 ~ ~ A MINI~ O~ VO ~O~ ~k~X AND ER~OO F~: 7 3 2.8 4 7.4 3 3 5 N~. Lou MM~o, ~ Ro~ W. Toms P.E ~ - ~ ~ 13345 ~- ~ GE 36209 ~'~GI8 Wireless for ~-L I. AN~NNA. (~HE~ATI~ ~ENTAT~ON, ~EE HA~HORNE, NY 10532 HELL ~ETAIL ^~, ~.~ ¢-- DESI GROUP~ er=A~.qo~av ~ A R C H I T E C T U R E / ,~ ~ ~T~ANm~ ~g ~ P.O. BOX 3 (~ ~ ~ ~A~ ~ ' ~ ~ 13345 ~- ~ GE 36209 i ,6p, ANTENNA ,~OUN~IN~ DETAIL : '60NNEOTION OF GABLE O~OUND ~'Ti ' 'PTO PANEL '6HEDULEi X~F~-~/ *~ ~T*. ~. ~.~ ~o~*~ Wireless for All. ~A~ OF ¢~INeT 3. ~D~LIO~LY ~OM~ED LON~ 4 IE~UtPMENT, OABINET ¢IN~LE L~NE ~OUND ~IA~AM 5 IiMAGTE~~OUN~ ~A~ TERMINATION ~ETAIL ~NT T~DT. . tr, :, GROUP5 {~) ARCHITECTURE ~- E'~o'q£~ E N G I N E E R I N G Wireless for All P.O. ~o~, ~Z~T, NEW JERSEY 0~30 ~ ~L: 732.888.6210 F~: 732.847.4335 N - ~ GE 3~209 NJ - ~ Al 13345 075384 , .... metmPC& ~ ' ~ ' ~less ~r ~1. 2~3 rN~T[~ FI~ ~E ~ATT TUCK, 2 I ALL OON~9'Ii~LIC, TION, L~.. AND I"~A'TI~IA4_ ~NAC_L ~PLY ~ITH ALL LOGAL A~ DTA~ ~IL~N~ ~OD~D, O~INANO~ AND AGGO~ANG~ H~TH ~A~U~I~ IN~TION~ ~L ~DAGDD CONTAMINATION ~AL~ D~ ~O~ P~IO~ TO PA~NTIN~ ~~~ A~ foR~. O0-LOOATION Wireless for ~m. ~ ' EXISJ[~ ~O~' Hm~ ~o~ TO N / A R C H I T E C T U R E .O~OL~IO~TO~ N f E N G I N E E R I N G ~1~ O~ ~ ~ ~A ~ (~ ~*A}L [/A~) ~ I10-* ~ ~ 6~ ~ ~L: 732.888.6210 ~ ~ ~ , NJ-~AII3345 NJ-~GE36209 ~p~SAN~NNAs~A . ~ ~ ~ O~-O'~X~ ~ ~ PA-~061412 '< ~ / ~ tENOR OF EXISTING ATIT AN~NNA5_ ~ / ~~ I j ; F~D TO EX~DTIN~ ~ ~1~ ~DY OTHERS) CITE INFOrmATION O~VANI~P~TSnIm~KLI~T T~ ~ ~1~ ~LI~AH LANE ~: -- ~ ~ ~ EXlSTING E~UI~ENT (BY OTHE / ,,~ MATTITUGK, N~ / -- ~ Z~UI~MENT ~LAN Ilxll ~, 3/1~"=1'~" ~4x~ g~= ~/~"=l'-O" IIxll ~: l/l~"-l'O" ~ ~4x~ ~: I/~"-l'~" l- -~ U pZ . , ~A~D~K.~ ~ ~ 2 2 ~ ~)~I6~4~R~A~ NJ-~AI13345 NJ-~GE36209 ~HO~E, ~ 10~ ~ ~" OqMP~T~020 ON ~P ~ ~ e ...... ~l~P) BHo PMO 12~O/Oq MIN. ' ~) ' ~ : ~S ~ NJ- ~ AI l~M5 NJ- ~ OE 36209 51DE ~ATION F~NT EL~ATION m troP I I UT~LIW SOUNT ~ETAIL ~I~E PLANTINO, DETAIL Wimle~ ~r ~1. ~HO~ ~ 10~ / MOUNTINe B~AO~ET PLA~ Ol~ ~ B ~:j ~ ~P~ MOUNTIN~ ~TAIL = I o~ MOUNTIN~ ~ [ ~ t - ARCHITECTURE ~ o h TEL: 732.888.6210 I I [ q. F~: 732.847.4335 NJ - ~ A113345 NJ - ~ GE 36209 I,I E~UI~MENT SUPPORT F~AME PLAN 2 I MOUNTIN~ HOLE LOOATION ~LAN/ XA ,I gETAIL 4,J ~ETAIL ~ I PETAEL B~O~E, ~ N~DID 41~ ELIJAH LANE ~ ~ x O0-LOOATION f~[ FOUNDATION ~ETAiL5 AN~ I J AN~NNA ~OUNT DETAIL5 ~v =.~ ~W~ON ~ ~ ~ ~ 51T~ IN~O*~ATION 41~ ELIJAH LANE ~ - GO-LOGATION ~, ~ ..... GROUP5 ~ ~ E N G I N E E R I N G C T U R E ,~ ' P.O. BOX3 ~ ' ~ZLET, NEW JERSEY 0~30 ' ': .'/ Lou Mo~o, ~ Rob~ W. Toms. P.E. ~ ---- , ARCHITECTURE RX~X TX I~Wi ~/~" ~2~= j E N G I N E E R I N G ~x ....... ~ [ I~ ~.i W~" 4 ~= ~Z~T, NEW JERSEY 0W30 ~L: 732.888.6210 TILT~I~IN GABLE I ~O0 IOODD (l&4 FT.) 2 ~0~ ~ 10~2 ~" I j ANTENNA GABLE ~GH~MATIG ~ 2 /N LEGEND WIRING METHODS ¢ Wi~le~ ~r All. ,~ '~ ' 58~,NE DR,~ ~,, ~HO~E, ~ 105~ SPECIAL EMPHASIS, CONCERNS, AND LIMITATIONS SYMBOLS 4~5 ELIJAH LANE OON~TO~ ~ OOM~NI~AT~ON50~IN~T AND INfOrmATION I OOF LAN ~. EXISTIN~ UTILITY POLE NYTD ~I~E AND C, ON~UIT LEBEN[2 I~ESC~.IPTiON I, NI~E CONDUIT (ABOVE (BElO~ ¢~OUND) DESIGN.o GROUP: ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING P. O. BOX 3 HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 TEL: 732.888.6210 FAX: 732.847.4335 Lou Moglino, ALAI Robert W. Toms, P.E. NI-/~ A113345 JNJ-~ GE 36209 metroPCSI Wireless for All. 5 SKYLINE DRIVE HAWTHORN,. 10532 ~-I~ ELIJAH LANE MATTITUCK, N"¢' I I~f~ CO-LOCATION PMo 12~0/0'~ 2 lONE LINE RISEt~. 5C, HEMATIC, [ ~ 2. ~O~ N~ FBNGN IN~T~LATION5 BON~ ALL A R C H I T E C T U R E 4 ~ ~ F~:732.847.4335 2 IANTENNA ¢~OUN~IN~ OETAIL metroPCS .,.,~= ~ - ~ Witless ~r All. ~1~ ELIJAH LANE ~ST~L ~ST ~L D T~ST HELL DETAIL o. AN~NNA ooax~ GABLE. WATTITUOK, N~ 11~2 C,- R~ C) LT P2 a~a~r~*2~ A R C H I T E C T U R E ANTENNA, ~OUND/N¢ OETAtL 2 I CONNEGTI, ON OF GABLE ~OUN~ KIT ~ I~TO PANEL, 5GHEDULE I ,. ~l COAX,~ CA~L=5 L~AVIN~ TH= metroPCS ¢ON~¢T ~OUNDIN~ LU~ TO TH~ ~UN~ ~Ho PMo 12~O/Oq ~PIGAL). 4 I5~UI~MENT GA~INET SINGLE LINE ~ROUNO PlA¢~AM 5 IMASTE~,~OUNO BAR TERMINATION OETAIL P~NT THEFT, ELIJAH'S (so' W, aE) LANE ASPHALT ROADWAY EDGE OF ASPHALT % 25°09'10" E 197.50' ~ 298.50' WO FEN -J -,.,.,.J LL AREA: (J3 ~ 1.8478 Acres o WOODED AREA O (LOT 2) 0 N 23°52'10" W 101.47' NOW OR FORMERLY OF THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK N 23°08'10"W 39.46' SURVEY OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT' //415 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD STATE OF NEW YORK DISTRICT ....... 1 000, BLOCK ....... 4,TAX ELIJAH LANE, MATTITUCK SECTION LOT(S) ....... 108 ....... 11.3 LEGEND: RD ROOF DRAIN E.O.P. EDGE OF PAVEMENT ~- SIGN DC DEPRESSED CURB CB CATCH BASIN i SURVEY POINT ® UTIUP¢ POLE ~ SANITARY MANHOLE NOTES: RE'VISIONS DESCRIP110N BY AREK SURVEYING COMP~ Scale: 58 East Beverly Parkway 1" : 20' TEL: (516) 792--6676 ASC-09272 M~ DESIGN StTE INFOF~MATION: LATITUDE, .~O~ND ELEVATION, EXISTIN~ U~E: LOT SIZE: FOTAL LEASE AREA: "LB" LIMITED DJSINESS 40" ES 5¢" NAD '12" SO' 40" NAD ~,B '10' AMSL "B" B~51NBD¢ AND "U" ~TILITY ~AH~ U~, NO ~AWlN~ LIST: Z-t Z-2 Z-4 Z-E TITLE SHEET SITE PLAN 4 ZONING INFORMATION TO~B~ ELEVATION ( D~TAIL¢ CONTACTS: SITE CONTACT: .OHNER INFORMATION: APPLICANT: ATTORNEY: I~ILLfAM BAXTER TEL (e~l) lc,4-D%0 FIILLIAM J. BAXTER, JR., PATP, IClA BAXTER, P, OBEI~T A. GOELLER JR. ,~ JANE P. 5OELLER 4lB ELIJAH'S LANE, MATTI"f'LJCK, NY METRO PCS NEH YORK, L.L.& D SKYLINE Df~IVE HAHTHORNE, NY 105S2 P,E, NIELSEN, HUBER *~ COU~HLIN, LLP c,e NO~TH NE~ YORK AVENUE HUNTINGTON, NY TEL. (&Si) 42D-4100 PAX. (eSI) 42~-4104 ScoPE OF LUOf~K: - INSTALLATION OF (4j E~tJLPMENT r,ABINETS ON NE~ CONCRETE C,LAB. - INSTALLATION OF (6) PANEL ANTENNAS ON EXISTING MONOPOLE TOPIEP, (EXTENOEDJ. - INSTALLATION OP lO' NONOffOL~ TOHB~ EX~N~ION - INSTALLATION DP CABLE B~ID¢E PO~ ~O~TIN~ COAXIAL GABLED TO TOHER - INSTALLATION O~ COAXIAL SABL~ UP TH~ TO~ TO TH~ ANT~NNA~. - ~LOSATION O~ EXIDTIN¢ SEASON LIDHT AND LIDH~iN~ ROD TO TOP DP TOUR EXTENSION. - ~NSTALLATION OP ELE¢~I¢ AND TELEPHONE 5ERVIOE ~ON E~glPHENT NOTES: I.) CONST~CTION TO CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS AND SPEC, IFICATIONS OF THE TO~N DP c'OUTHOLD. 2.) THE P~OPOSED COMPOUND 15 AN UNMANNED FACILITY AND THEREFO~ NO PA~KIN~ HA~ B~N PROVIDED. ~ATE~ SANITARY DE~R¢ AND POE~ NOT RE~UI~ ANY ~DITIONAL SITE PARKINg. 4.) THIS SITE ~ILL BE VIDITED ON AN A~RADE EVERY POU~ TO PiX AEEK P~RIOD ~OR ~AIN~NANOE AND 5HALL BE HONffO~D ~OH A ~HOTE DA¢iLI~, 5.) THIS PROPOSED 51TE ONLY REQUIRED ELEOT~I¢ AND ~LEPHONE ~TILITIES. OONNECTION5 5H~L BE DE~EHINED BY THE APP~OP~IATE ~TILI~ ¢OHPANY ~PON AP~OVAL. ~j THESE D~ING5 A~ BEIN~ PREPAID DOR THE DU~POSE50~ M~NIOlDAL AND ADENCY ~VlE~ AND APPROVAL. THESE D~N~5 5HALL NOT BE UTILIZED FOR ¢ONSTRUOTION PURPOSES, UNTIL ALL CONDITION50~ APPROVAL HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. S I ~1:f'q,A,T LJ ~.E ~l TOHN CHAIRMAN: DATE TO~N SECRETARY. DATE ¢ONDT~DTION O~PI~IAL: DATE TO~N ENDINEE~, DATE New York, L.L.C. SITE #: NY7313 415 ELIJAH'S LANE MATTITUCK, NY 11952 SUFFOLK COUNTY SECTION: 108 BLOCK: 4 LOT: 11.3 ZON : "LB" LIMITED BUSINESS LOC4,TION MAP: SCALE: I"--Iooo' (llxl'1) KEY ['"'IA~::=~: SC, ALE: P'=~O0' (nxn) TO~N OF C,O~THOLO SC, ALE: 1"=150' (22xD4j O' 1,000' I,EO0' O' DO0' 4-50' ~ESI u EARC H IT C TU RE NGINEERING HAZLET, NEWJERSEY 07730 T: 732.888.6210 F: 732.847,4335 Lou Moglino, AIA ARCHITECT NJ - # Al 13345 NY ~/~ 028992-1 Robert W. Toms, PmE. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER NJ '/~ GE 36209 NY - ~ 075384 05/11/11 JPDATEP PER 5TRLJCTURAL ANALYSIS A OLIENT. metroPCS New York, L.L.C. 3O rd l~ 'F:LIJAH'D L,/",NtE ~ATTITUC~, NY' l Iq52 DP-.AJ,NN :PMo DATE: ]--I OO/Oq/iO OqNIPSTS020 PROPERTY ADDRESS 1070 Elijahs Ln 20505 Route 25 20105 Route 25 892 Elijahs Ln 898 Elijahs Ln 260 Elijahs Ln 450 Elijahs Ln 590 Elijahs Ln 770 Elijahs Ln 18875 Route 25 18875 Route 25 18955 Route 25 19105 Route 25 19155 Route 25 520 Gabdella Ct 670 Gabnella Ct 645 Elijahs Ln OWNERINFORMA~ON Frank C. Todrick / Nancy A. Toddck Craig Johnson / Loraine Johnson Noel P. Gawas / Gwen B. Gawas Joseph p. Skipman / Cathleen L. Skipman Joseph p. Skipman / Cathleen L. Skipman l~omas C. Wilton / Catherine M. Wilton Barbara Hofer Torrance E. Matthews / Regina B. Matthews William J. Burns / Patdcia C. Burns Jon Jacobs / Candace Jacobs NY State Charles B. Gardner Jr. / Meldred A. Gardner OWNER ADDRESS 1070 Elijahs Ln PO Box 406 Mat... 11952 20505 Route 25, Matfituck, NY 11952 20105 Route 25, Mattituck, NY 11952 985 Elijahs Ln, Mattduck, NY 11952 985 Elijahs Ln, Mattituck, NY 11952 260 Elijahs Ln, Mattituck, NY 11952 450 Elijahs Ln, PO Box 481, Mattituak, NY 11952 590 Elijahs Ln, Mattituck, NY 11952 PO Box 987, Mattituck, NY 11952 PO Box 475 Mattituck, NY 11952 Albany, NY 12200 18955 Route 25, Mattituck, NY 11952 Donald b Bergen / Mary C. Bergen PO Box 1198 Mattituck, NY 11952 Louise Cardellina PO Box 1027 Mattituck, NY 11952 Robert S. Bopp '~omas J. Riley / Jennifer J. Riley Sonia C. Hunter 845 Elijahs Ln Carl A. Skmzec Jr. / Lam Bayne 665 Gabriella Ct Dallas E. Dodge Sr. / Dianne L. Dodge 515 Gabriella Ct Derek Mclean 245 Rachaels Rd Raymond Neighley / Sally Neighley 315 Rachaels Rd Katherine M. Penningtan Shown Loper/Christina Loper Jason Wahl / Irene Wahl 365 Rachaels Rd 415 Rachaels Rd Joseph p. Shipman / Cathleen L Shipman 985 Elijahs Ln Raymond J. ZaneskJ / Christine M. Zaneski PO Sox 403 Mattituck, NY 11952 260 Eastward Ct 670 Gabriella Ct, Mattituck, NY 11952 55 S undance Dr. Cos Cob, CT 06807-1809 845 Elijahs LnMattituck, NY 11952 665 Gabdella Court, Mattituck, NY 11952 PO Box 500, Mattituck, NY 11952 245 Rachaels Rd, Mattituck, NY 11952 315 Rachaels Rd, Mattituck, NY 11952 365 Rachaels Rd, Mattituck, NY 11952 415 Rachaels Rd, Mattituck, NY 11952 985 ElJjahs Ln, Mattituck, NY 11952 ZONE E~STINGLAND USE R-40 R-80 R-80 AC Family Residence Family Residence Family Residence Nursery AC Nursery R-40 Family Residence R-40 Family Residence R-40 Family Residence R-40 Family Residence R40 Family Residence AC / R-40 Flood Control R-40 Family Residence R-40 Family Residence R-40 Family Residence AC AC Family Residence FamiLy Residence PO Box 606, Mattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Res Vac Land R-40 Family Residence AC Family Residence AC Family Residence R-40 Family Residence R-40 Family Residence R-40 Family Residence R-40 Family Residence R-40 Family Residence 19475 Route 25 / Main Rd Joan P. HiWard / Ubaldo Gonzalez 885 Orchard St, PO Box 248, New Suffolk, NY 11956 R-40 Family Residence 9625 Route 25 / Main Rd William J. Baxter Jr. 6915 SE Harbor Circle, Stuad, FL 34996 LB Automotive 535 Elijahs Ln Jason Damianos 535 Elijahs Ln, Mattguck, NY 11952 R-4O Family Residence 19380 Route 25 Barry Murphy / Koran J. Murphy PO Box 1230, Mattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence R-40 Family Residence PO Sox 1179, Southhold, NY, 11971 Town of Southold James F. Reidy I~1 Reuben b Wright Semice Bogan Eastward Court 265 Eastward Ct 55 Eastward Ct 19450 Route 25 19500 Route 25 Freddck Koehler R-40 Flood Cant rot R-40 Family Residence R40 Family Residence R-40 AC 19100 Route 25 Jacqueline K. Mitchell 265 Eastward Ct, Mattituck, NY 11952 10709 Venetia Mill Circle, Apt. A, Silver Spring, MD 20901 19450 Route 25, Mattituck, NY 11952 PO Box 198, Peconic, NY 11958 PO Box 840, Mattituck, NY 11952 R-40 Family Residence Nursery ' Family Residence SUF F OLINE)ING OWNEI S INFOrMaTION 11×1'7 SCALE. NOT TO SCALE 24x56 56ALE: LOT NUMBER LEGEND: TOP NUM. = SECTION MID. NUM. = BLOCK BOTTOM NUM. = LOT 108 4 7,40 X,l' "k7'41/ 108 108\ '",, 7,46 2.3 108 4 2.1 108 3 106- 4 -- ,/ 4\ / /" 108 4 7.23 /% 108 3 5.45 \ 3 5.9 \, 4 ', 7.4 108 ,\ 4 /108 " 7.3 4 108~\ ' /% \ 7.43 4 106 11.2 3 115 7 6 115 115 7 7, 11 12 ~ 7 108 3 5.44 108 \, 3 6 - 108 5.3 VAC. LAND 108 3 AC: FARM LAND 115 7 13.2 SITE LOCATION LANDHARK NOTE= ROPTE 25 / HAIN ROAD 15 A SCENIC BYRA¥ TOWNSNIP OF SOLITNOL~ BTF~EET /'[9Of~ES$ MAP FT. Ilxl-~ SCALE I" 24x~6 56ALE. I" O' N ESI ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING P. O. BOX3 HAZLET, NEWJERSEY 07730 T: 732.888.6210 F: 732.847.4335 Lou Moglino, AIA ARCHITECT NJ - # Al 13345 NY - ~ 028992-1 Robert W. Toms, P.E. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER NJ - ~ GE 36209 NY - ¢~ 075384 95/17/11UPE~ATED PEP-, O~NEP-,'S LIST 95/I 1/11 LJPPATEP PER 5TP-,LJCTLIRAL ANAL¥515 Db/B/lO I~LJ~_E;; ~Of~- P'ILIN~ metroPCS® New York, L.L.C. N'T"T515 L ~-I ~ EL 1 ~,/ZH'~ LANE MATTITLJCK, NY IIq52 RADIUS hdAP ~ SURP.,OUNDIN® I N F-O f~-.T'-'q,^.T I ON PRAPiN Pi-do O6/Oq/iO ZONING INFORMATION "LB" LIMITEI~ BIJSINBr~S ITEM "diN. LOT AREA 80,OOO EXISTIN® bO,4q4.15 S.F. NO CHANCE W11N,LOT PqOTH 1'75 PT Iq].50 FT. NO CHANCE i'dlN. LOT DEPTH 250 FT 4~5.60 FT. NO CHAN~E ~IN. F~ONT YA~O S~TDAOK (ANTENNA) ~OO FT. ~4.6 FT. ~ 224.4~ FT. ~IN, F~ONT ~A~D SETBACK (EQUIPNENT) IOO FT. ~4.6 FT. ~ 2BD.4D FT, ONE 20~ FT. 5.0 FT. 20~ FT. TOTAL ON~ 54.q FT. 5.0 FT. PriN. SliDE Y'ARID SETDA61<, (ANTENNA) NIIN. SLIDE YAIRO SETBACK (~QUIPMENT) FT, 162.24 FT. 41.33 FT. TOTAL 45' FT. 54.q FT. 150.1~ FT. MIN. REAR Y'ARID 5ETE~ACK (ANTENNA) '75'FT. 2qB.ql FT. qO.q[ FT. ~IN. ~EA~ YA~ SET~A6~ (EQUIPMENT) ~5' FT. 2q~.~l FT. 22~.0 FT. ~IN. LANDSCAPE AREA 25% 55.0% 5D.4% ~AX. LOT COVERASE HAX. BUILOlN~ HEISHT / STORIES ~5 FT. / 2 I/2 108 ~T - 118 FT - TO~ER EXTENSION EXJSTIN~ TO~E~ 118.5 FT - TOP OF ANTENNA ~AX. H~I~HT 80 PT. 108 FT. 12~'-0" MAX. E~UIP~ENT AREA 500 S~. PT. N/A I~0 S~. FT. KEY', ~) EXISTINg, NON-CONFOR, MITY' N/A NON APPLICABLE I'qOTES. 1 THE OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS SlflOWN IflEREON, FROIvl THE PROPEh'T kibE5 TQ THE STRUCTURES ARE FOR R SPECIFIC PURPOSE Al'ID USE THEREF,*RE THE~ ARE NOT INTEMDED TO MONUMENT PROPERT'/ LINES OR TO GMIE)E 'IHE NOTE, INSTALLATION 15 IN COHPLIANCE HITH, -ALL LOCAL AND STATE DUILDIN¢ CODES. -TILE ENERSY CONSERVATION CONSTRUCTION CODE OF NY5. (~= PROPOSED ELECTRIC FROH UTILITY POLE #NYTD (~= PROPOSED GROUND R[N~ AROUND EQUIPMENT G= PROPOSED TELCO FROH EXISTIN5 CCC CABINET I- BOUNDARY INFORMATION 15 TAKEN FROM THE FOLLOHI N¢= - PROPERTY SURVEY PREPARED FOR THE i'4Ti'4 DESIGN GROUP INC. BY: AREK SURVEY' COHPANY' NY LIC. 05056~, ON 12-16-0q - SITE i'4EASUREMENT5 TAKEN BY' HTM DESIGN CROUP, lNG. AT A 5lTL VISIT ON Oq-I'POq AREA: N 70o30,50,, E 80,49415 Sq.F. 1.84-78 Acres ~ EXISTIN& (BY OTHERS) (LOT 2) WOODED AREA EXISTIN® I"fETER BACKBOARD (BY OTHERS) EXISTIN® '/ERIZON SHELTER '475.60, 746' EXISTIIN5 RIGHT OF HAY--.... 1 HIGH STONY 24~.55' REAR YARD SETBACK FRAME (PROPOSED ANTENNAS TO PROPERTY LINE) ~' -" 224.45~ FRONT YARD SETBACK '~ (PROPOSED ANTENNAS TO 235.4D~ FRONT YARD SETBACK 22¢ REAR YARD SETBACK (PROPOSED EQUIPHENT TO PROPER~ LINE) (PROPO5~ EQUIPHENT TO PROPER~ LINE)J ~ NLM EILEC~IO ',,,/ ROUTED OV~KH~A~P~OH EXISTI N~ POLE NOTE, CLEAR EXISTIN6 BRUSH AS REQUIRED INSIDE EQUIPMENT COh4POUND FOR PROPOSED METRO PCS EQUIPHENT INSTALLATION. LEGEND: RD ROOF DRAIN E,O,P, EDGE OF PAVEMENT DC DEPRESSED CURB ~ SIGN CB CATCH BASIN ~ SURVEY POINT ~ UTIUTY ROLE ¢) SANITARY MANHOLE ~ FIRE HYBRANT ~ WATER MANHOLE ~ SPRINKLER ~) ELECTRIC MANHOLE ~' WATER VALVE (~ TELEPHONE MANHOLE ~ GAS VALVE ® DRAINAGE MANHOLE GAS BOX ~) GAS MANHOLE $ 77o.. 06 00', W section 7209, sub division 2, of tine Hew York Slote Education Law, SURVEY OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT: //415 ELIJAH LAIqE, MATTITUCI< COUNTY OF SUFFOLII< TOWN OF SOUTHOLD' STATE OF NEW DISTRICT ...... 1000,, SECTION BLOCK 4, TAX ..... 108 11 3 N ~- EXISTIN® CBC CABINET EXISTING PRIVATE PO~E EXISTIN& I0' IdlDE ACCESS ~ATE EXISTIN® EQUIPMENT SHELTER PROPOSED ELECTRIC SERVICE ROUTED UNDERCROUND PROM POLE TO COMPOUND IIxIT SCALE. I" = 4¢'-¢~" '*' F I" = 24xD6 ~c,,AL.c: 488.05 EXISTIN6 UTILITY POLE ~LILSA~ EXISTING UTILITY POLE SNYT5 / / DESIGN© GROUP5 ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING P. O. BOX3 HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 T: 732.888.6210 F: 732,847.4335 Lou Moglino, AIA ARCHITECT NJ - ¢/A113345 NY - ¢~ 0289924 Robert W. Toms, P.E. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER NJ - # GE 36209 NY - ~ 075384 05/F7/11 UPDATED PEP- OJA, NER'S LIST OS/Il/Il UPDATED PER STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Db~ID/lOI~UF=Z:D ~0~-, i=ILIN~ F~E',/I~ION metroPCS® New York, L.L.C. CLIENT PROJECT N'YT515 415 ELI.JAH'S lANE h"IATTITUCF--., NY l Iq52 ~RAkNIN~ TITLE ~1 T~I t=='1 ./".N ,~ ZONIN® INFORMATION ~RA~N 06/On/LO OeflvfpSTS020 LEGEND. RD DC CB ® ¥ [] @ NO-FES: 1 THE OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON, FRObl THE PROpEET/ LINES T~ THE STRUCTURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE THEREF,_,RE THE( ARE NOT INTENDED TO MONUMENT PROPERTY LINES OR TO OUIOE THE ERECTION OF FENCES, ADBITIOMAL STRUCTURES OR ANY OTHER IrHz'RO'/EI,AE;I ['~ 2 CONSULT WITH TIdE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT BEFORE DESIGNING, INSTALLHh~ QR MODIFYING ANY NEW OR EXIS]ING CURBS, WALRS OR ROADWAYS H~ TIdE STREET SHOWN HEREON 3 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THERE ARE NO VISIBLE STREAMS OR hlATHRM WATER BOURSES IN THE PROPER]'( AS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY REFER TO ARTICLE 36 OF THE GENERAL BUSINESS LdW AND THE FRO'RSIOIIE OF IMDUSTRIAL CODE PART (RULE NO 53) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATIDI: DR OEMOLITION IS COMMENCED THESE LAWS REQUIRE EACH EXCAV~TOB TO GIVE ADVANCE NOTICE TO ALE OPERATORS OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES OF MIS INTENT TO PERFOR~ EXCAVATION OR DEMOLITIOhl IN THE SPECIFIED AR~5 5 ALL DIMENSIOMS ARE IN U S STPHDARD MEASUREMENTS 6 P~RCEL SUBJECT TO, w) DECLAR4TION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED 12,B/~w92 IIq UBER/REEL ]]583 PAGE 3~5 b) GRANT OF EASEMENT RECORDED ~/2~/2001 IN LIBER/REEL H621 PAGE 25u c) MEMORANDIJM OF LEABE RECORDED /29/200~ IN LIBER/REEL 120W~ P~hE 286 - , 475 60' AREA // ~ / 80,494 15 Sq.F / ~/ W O O D E D A R A ~ ~ ~,~ uo 00', W ¢ 0 EXIs'IrlN¢ \ \ ROOF DRAIN DEPRESSED CURB CATCH BASIN UTILITY POLE FIRE HYDRANT SPRINKLER WATER VALVE GAS VALVE GAS BOX FLAG POLE LIGHT POLE UTILITY&LIGHT POLE MAIL BOX TREE SHRUB · GAS MARK OUT · WATER MARK OUT EDP, EDGE OF PAVEMENT ~ SIGN Z~ SURVEY POINT ® SANITARY MANHOLE ~) WATER MANHOLE ~ ELECTRIC MANHOLE ~) TELEPHONE MANHOLE (9 DRAINAGE MANHOLE @ GAS MANHOLE ® D.OT MANHOLE Q UNKNOWN MANHOLE ~ INLET TB TRAFFIC BOX SF STEEL FACE CURB 0 VENT section 7209, sub d~vision 2, of the Mew York Education Law SURVEY OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT: ELIJAN LANE, MATTITUCK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD STATE OF NEW YORk< DISTRICT 1000. SECTION . , BLOCK ... 4, TAX 108 1 [3 5IT PLAN SCALE' i" : 4d~'-®" 24x3~ SCALE' I" =- X X N X N N X R B 224.43' PROPOSED ANTENNA5 TO EXISTtN~ STREET 746' 2~5.4~' PROPOSED EQUIP~JENT TO STREET > 488.05 102 75r EXISTIN5 UTILITY POLE ~LIL3A EXISTIN® UTILITY POLE ~NYT~ DESIGN° GROUP5 ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING P. O. BOX 3 HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 T: 732.888.6210 F: 732.847.4335 Lou Moglino, AL& ARCHITECT NJ-~AI13345 lXpj'.# 028992-1 RobertW. Toms, P.E. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER NJ- #GE 36209 NY-# 075384 05/'1"7/I UPDATED F~E~ OP, NER'S LIST 05/'11/I UPDATED PER 5TRUOTURAL ANALY515 metroPCS New York~ L.L.C. OLIENT PROJECT NY-'TDID ELIJAH '~ ]--,^,NE b/rATTITUC. K, NY 1l~52 g;~-.Ak~l N® TITLE CHECKED BY. PNo .. ~ O0/O~/iO " PROPOSED METRO PC5 COAXIAL CABLE5 ROUTED ALON¢ NEPI CABLE BRIDGE TO EXISTING POLE (TO BE RUN ON OUTSIDE OF POLE) (SEE DETAIL 5/Z-4) PROPOSED METRO PCS 5PS UNIT MOUNTED ON PROPOSED CABLE BRIDGE SUPPORT POST (TYPICAL OF 2) (SEE DETAIL EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE PROPOSED LANDSGAPIN¢ SOREENIN~ AROUND METRO POS FENCED EQUIPMENT COMPOUND, I0'+/- HIGH ARBORVITAES OR APPROVED EQUAL, (SEE DETAIL S/Z-S) 300' 5AMMA SECTOR '7' IO'-O" CONCRETE BLAB 180' BETA SECTOR / / / / CLEAR EQL.IIP ENT PLAN Ilxll SCALE: .3/1~" = I'-¢" 24x.38 SCALE' .3/8" = r-¢" / / / .--EXISTIN5 108'HISH MONOPOLE TO BE EXTENDED TO 115'. PROPOSED MONOPOLE EXTENSION TO BE INSTALLED BY METRO PCS ALPHA SECTOR METRO PCS ANTENNAS(TYP. OP 2 PER SECTOR) MOUNTED TO PROPOSED MONOPOLE EXTENSION ON NEPI T-ARM BRACKETS ~EE DETAIL 4/Z-~ BTIN~ CAISSON (ABANDON) UTILITIES ROUTED UN~ER'~ROUND TO FTC CABINET -PROPOSED METRO PCS FTC CAIBINET SECURED TO PROPOSED CONCRETE SLAB ON UNISTRUT FRAME MOUNTED TO 5ALVANIZED POSTS FILTH PIoIRK LIGHT ABOVE (SEE DETAIL PCS EQUIPMENT CABINETS (TYP. OF 4) HOUNTED ON PROPOSED STEEL RAILS ANCHORED TO NEPI CONCRETE SLAB (SEE DETAIL 6/Z-4) EXIBTIN5 NEXTEL CABLE BRID®E EXISTIN® NEXTEL SHELTER PROPOSED 5" THICK 4000 PSI CONCRETE SLAB !/,IJTH 2 LAYERS OP 5x6-5/~ !dELDED ~IRE FABRIC. SEE PLANS FOR PAD SIZE (TOP TO BE LIGHTLY BRUSHED) PROPOSED CHAMFERED ED®E 4" THICK LAYER OF S/4" DIA. CRUSHED STONE BASE EXISTING UNDISTURBED VIRGIN SOIL CONCRETE SLAE DETAIL Ilxl'7 SCALE: 3/4" _4 x~,6 SCALE 112" I'-~ 3/4" ' PROPOSED METRO PCS 6PS UNIT MOUNTED ON CABLE BRID~E ~""'¢PICAL OP 2) (SEE DETAIL ~/Z-5) PROPOSED VALMONT CABLE BRID®E ASSEMBLY OR APPROVED EQUAL PROVIDE SUPPORT POSTS @ ~'-0" ON CENTER MAXIMUM metroPCS site NY7313 , .I Network Operabop Center 24/7 access line-1-866-~72-6727 o~1 SIGN DETAIL 11×77 SCALE. I 172" = I'-®" 24X5S SCALE, 3" = 1'-¢" NOTE: I. 51¢N 5HALL BE MOUNTED ON EXTERIOR 51DE OF EQUIPMENT DOOR. 2. MOUNTING HEIGHT TO BE 5'-0" ABOVE 6RAPE TO CENTERLINE OF 51~N. RADIO FREQUENCY ANTENAS AT THIS SITE PLEASE EXERCISE CAUTION AROUND ANTENNA8 DO NOT STAND IN FRQNT OF ANTENNA8 o E )SAFETY NOTICE SIGN ,Ixl'~ Sd, ALE S" = 24.',36 SCALE S" = I'-¢" RED BACKGROUND UV-RESISTANOE PLASTIC PIHITE LETTERS ,~ GRAPHICS PIHITE BACKGROUND BLAOK LETTERS COAXIAL CABLe5 ROUTED ALONe ~ABLE BRID~E 5RATII',*.ON TRAPEZE HAN~F~5 3 I/2"¢ SOHEDU .E 40 POST, AT MAXIMUM ON CENTER EXISTING SOIL 1'-4" DIA. CONCRETE FOOTINS, USE 8"xS"x. Y2" BASE PLATE FILTH DIA, ANCHORS FOR MOUNTIN~ TO 5LAB PROPOSED 6" THIOK LAYER ~/4" DIA. CRUSHED STONE BASE ( C.A LE B IDGE DETAIL Ilxl~ SGA_E I/4" = - 24x36 SCALE: I/2" = (I EQUIPMENT, I LTE ~ 2 BATTERY CABINETS)~ .~} v ON STEEL FRAME MOUNTED TO CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED METRO ~ PC5 FTC CABINET ON ~~-_1, ...... UN,STRUT FRAME r MOUNTED TO *ALVANIZEP POST ~ BEAM PROPOSED--- ~ .... OONORETE SLAB ¢RAPE I (~ dxlq SCALE I/4" : r-~" 24x~© SCALE: I/2" i'-¢" TYPICAL EQUIPMENT ELEVATION ~.--PROPOSED RACO/BELL FLOOD LIGHT MODEL tSg, lg,-5 (OR APPROVED EQUAL) LUITN ONLY (I) LIGHT FrXTURE. $ECOND LIQNT NOUSIN,3 ON FIXTURE MtJ$T BE PLUQC.~ED. FIXTURE ~' ) NAvE PARSNIELD ~LARE vISOR INSTALLED OvER TNE PAR LAMP. LAMP HOLDER UJITN 5HELD 5HALL BE POSITIONED iN A DOLUNLUA~D DIRECTION IN A MANNER Tt-IAT U~OULD CONSTITUTE ~ FULL CUT-OFF LUMINAIRE (NO MORE THAN I:,~% OF THE LUMEN oUTPUT 15 AT ANGLES BETWEE!' 5~" ,t 8¢' E~ELOUJ THE LOLUEET L[~NT-EMITTIN~ PART OF THE LUMINAIRE), EQUIPMENT CABINET PROPOSED LTE CABINET PI SS" x P 35 13/lC" x H 5'-I1~" = &qB 5Q, PT, PROPOSED EQUIPMENT CABINET PI 2'-II 3/~" X D 3'-I 13/16" X H PROPOSED BATTERY CABINET PI 2'-4 ~/16" X P 2'-4 3/4" X H F'-~ 3/16" PROPOSED BATTERY CABINET PI 2u4 q/16" X O 2'-4 314" X H 5'-'t gESI 'u ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING P. O. BOX 3 HAZLET, NEWJERSEY 07730 T: 732.888.6210 F: 732.847.4335 Lou Moglino, AL& ARCHITECT NJ - ~¢ A113345 NY - # 028992-1 Robert W. Toms, P.E. STRUCTUEALENGINEER NJ-# GE 36209 NY- ~ 075384 O5/I-~/ll UPDATED PEP, OIdNER'S LIST OD/Il/Il UPDATED PER STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS I~LJ~E? ~OF~. ~ILIN~ metroPCS New York, L.L.C. 415 ELIJAH'S LANE 'P~ATTITUd.'(., NY 11~2 Oqh,IPSTS020 DHEET NUMBER.. EXISTIN~ BEACON LIGHT TO BE RELOCATED TO TOP OF MONOPOLE EXTENSION ABOVE ?RO?OSED ANTENNAS PROPOSED METRO PCS ANTENNA5 (TYP, OF 2 PER SECTOR, 8 TOTAL) MOUNTED TO PROPOSED MONOPOLE EXTENSION ON PROPOSED T-ARH BRACKETS (SEE DETAIL 4/Z-5) PROPOSED LO' MONOPOLE EXTENSION ~. (15" DIAMETER) DY METRO PCS ~ .. TOP OF EXISTIN® TOP, ER 20.24" DIAMETER NOTE, A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING MONOPOLE HAS PERFORMED ON 02.1'LIO (REVISED APRIL 25, 2011) BY GPD GROUP (NY P.E. DAVID B. GRANGER, LICENSE ¢OTI98T-I) IN ¢_,ONFORMANCE HITN UA/EIA-222-F AND NY STATE BUILDING CODES, THE ANALYSES CONCLUDED THAT THE MONOPOLE AND FOUNDATION HILL BE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ALL PROPOSED, EXISTING AND RESERVED LOADING. TOHER MODIFICATION DRAY'lINGS AND DETAILS FOR THE PROPOSED EXTENSION ARE PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER COMPLETED BY GPD ASSOCIATES, REFERENCED IN APPENDIX G OF THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT THAT HAS COMPLETED ON JULY 2, 2010 PROPOSED METRO PCS COAXIAL CABLES ROUTED UP OUTSIDE OF MONOPOLE TO ANTENNAS (SEE DETAILS 9,$ EXISTIN® BUILDING (BEYOND) EXISTING EQUIPMENT (BY OTHERS) EXISTING CAISSON EXISTING LIGHTNING ROD (APPROXIMATEI_¥ 5'HIGH) TO BE RELOCATED TO TOP OF MONOPOLE EXTENSION ABOVE PROPOSED ANTENNAS SOO' GAMMA SECTOR ,/ TOP OF PROPOSED ANTENNAS 118'-8"± ABOVE GRADE TOP OF PROPOSED MONOPOL~ EXTENSION 118'-0"± ABOVE GRADE CENTER OF PROPOSED METRO PCS ANTENNAS TOP OF EXISTIN® RELOCATED LIGNTNING ROD + 128'-0".1./- ABOVE GRADE ALPHA ~- SECTOR ABOVE GRADE CENTER OF EXISTIN® SPRINT ANTENNAS IOq'-O"± ABOVE GRADE TOP OF EXISTING MQNOPQLE 108'-0"± ABOVE GRADE CENTER OF EXISTING AT~T DISH ANTENN,A I07-0"± ABOVE GRADE CENTER OF EXISTING AT,~T ANTENNAS q8'-O"± ABOVE GRADE CENTER OF EXISTING NEXTEL ,ANTENNAS 8S'-O"J- ABOVE GRADE 180' BETA SECTOR ANTENNA ORIENTATION Il×iq SCALE: 5/16" = I'-¢" 2-5x98 SCALE. 3/¢" = I'-®" PROPOSED METRO PCB ANTENNAS(TTP. OF 2 PER SECTOR, 8 TOTAL) MOUNTED TO PROPOSED ~ONOPOLE EXTENSION ON PROPOSED T-ARM BRACKETS(SEE DETAIL CENTER OF EXISTIN® ANTENNAS TS'-O"± ABOVE GRADE CENTER OF EXISTING T-MOBILE ANTENNAS 84'-0"± ABOVE GRADE PROPOSED METRO PCS CPS UNIT HOU1NTED ON PROPOSED CABLE BRIDGE SUPPOtRT POST (TYPICAL OF 2XSEE DETAIL 2/A~-4) PROPOSED METRO PCS COAXIAL CABLES ROUTED ALONG NEH CABLE BRIDGE TO EXISTING POLE (USE EXISTING PORT) (SEE DETAIL I-4/A-9) PROPOSED METRO PC5 EQUIPMENT CABINET5 (TYP. OF 4) MOUNTED ON STEEL RAILS ANCHOR.ED TO NEH CONCRETE SLAB (SEE ERA,dINGS A-5 ,~ ES-I) EXISTING EQUIPMENT PROPOSED METRO PCS FTC CABINET SECURED TO PROPOSED CONCRETE SLAB ON UNISTRUT FRAME MOUNTED TO GALVANIZED POSTS HITH ~ORK, LIGHT ABOVE (SEE DETAIL I/A-4) LUEST vATION I1×1~ SCALE, 24x98 SCALE: I/8" = i'-¢" HOUNTIb BRACKET PLATE PROPOSED~ MOUNTING MAST GROUND BAR TOP OF PROPOSED CPS ANTENNA / II'-6 " ~ ABOVE ~AP~E / TOP OF PROPOSED OABLE DRIDGE~ / q'-O"+ABOVE TOP OF PROPOSED EGUI?.T PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SCREENING AROUND METRO PCS FENCED EQUIPMENT COMPOUND, Lo'+/- HIGH ARBORVITAES OR APPROVED EQUAL, (SEE DETAIL 11 ~¢~PROPOBED UNIT ~-TILT HOLES FOR ADJUSTMENT I-I/4"4~ scl 40 x 18" LC. MIN SS OR GALV, PIPE " PLATE I/4 x 4-1/4 x 16-1/4 LC. GALV.(A-SC) STD. U-BOLT FOP-. 2"4~ PiPE H/DOUBLE HEX NUTS AND HASHER, GALV. STD. U-BOLT FOR 2"~ PIPE H/DOUBLE HEX NUTS AND HASHER, GALV. (SEE NOTE ~) CPS ANTENNA DETAIL Il×Pi SCALE: I/2" = I'-¢" 24x56 SCALE: I" : I'-®" PROPOSED PANEL ANTENNA: ANDRE~ - NE~X-BBI&DS-VTI'1 91 Y~llclbh 8.9" ~.~" IOepl;b, 99" FRONT I/IELU SIDE VIELU ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS ~' i 1,2" = I'-¢" INI'~ ~¢_,A_E: _~x.~6 SCALE: PROPOSED I0'-0"+/- HIGH LANDSC, APING SCREENIN~ SET OF (S) STAKES HITH~ GUY HIRES BETHEEN 1/2 AND 2/9 HAY UP TREE. 4" HIGH MULCH MOUND TO FORM SAUCER AROUND TREE. REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP I/9 OF ROOT BALL. NEH PLANT GRADE FILL. SCARIFY 4" DELOH ROOT -- BALL RECOMPACTED. STAKES TO EXTEND BELOH TREE PIT IN UNDISTURBED GROUND. T EE PLANTING DETAIL Ilxl'~ SCALE: N.T.S 24x98 SCALE: N.T.B. DESIGN-u GROUP5 NEERING HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 T: 732.888.6210 F: 732.847.4335 Lou Moglino, AIA NJ - # A113345 NY - ~4 028992-1 Robert W. Toms, P.E. STRUCTUP~/ENGINEER NJ - # GE 36209 NY - # 075384 95/I-//11 UPOATED PE~ O/A!NEP,'B LIST OB/II/Il UPDATED PEP-, STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 9b/18/10 I~U~I:~ F-Of~. FILIh4~ ~-~VISION metroPCS New York, L.L.C. N'fT515 415 ELIJAH'S /ANF= I','IATTITUC, t<, NY' 11~2 ID~.AkNIN~ TITLE TO/'4tZ P--. F:LEV,^.TI ON ,~- ZZ::::~I--T./'',. I I ~ Pl'.4o OqMPSTS020 It,, _NOTE: BASE OF EXTENSION PROPOSED TO BE WEAK` "NIH®E" THUS CAUSIN® INITIAL BREAK` TO ONLY REQUIRE I0'-0" FALL ZONE. SECONDARY BREAK. IN® POINT FOR PIODIFiED POLE HOULD BE FOR 108' HEI®HT ~HIGH EQUALS EXISTIN~ CONDITIONS THUS ~AINTAI~IN~ "FALL ZONE" THAT ~AS ORIGINALLY APP~OVEO. SECTION: 108 BLOCK,: 4 LOT~ 11.6 ZONE: LB LEGEND: RD DC CR ® ¥ [] @ ROOF DRAIN DEPRESSED CURR CATCH BASIN UTILITY POLE FIRE HYDRANT SPRINKLER WATER VALVE GAS VALVE GAS BOX FLAG ROLE LIGHT POLE UTILITY&LIGHT POLE MAIL BOX TREE SHRUB BAS MARK OUT WATER MARK OUT 70°30'50,, E NOTES' TNE OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS 8NOWN HEREON, FROM TNE PROPERTY LINKS TO TNE STRUCIURES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE TIIEREFORE THEY ARE HOT INTENDED TO MONUMENT PROPERTY I IN-S OR TO GUIDE /BE ERFCTION QF FENCES, ADRITIONAL STRUCIURES OR ANY OTNER IMPROVEMENTS 2 CONSULT WITII TIlE HIGHWAY DEPARTMEN BEFORE DESIGNING, INSTALLING OR MODIFYING ANY NEW OR EX~STING CURBS, WALKS OR ROADWAYS IH [HE S/REET SHOWN FIEREQN S TI-IS IS TO CLRTIFY TNAT TFIERE ARE NO VISBLE S~REAMS OR NATURAL WAFZR SOJRSES IH THE PROP-RTY AS SHOWN ON TIllS SURVEY REFER TO ARIIELE 5B OF TNB GENERAL BUSINESS LAW AND THE PROVISIONS OF JNDUSiRIAL CODE PAR' (RULE NO 55) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION OR DEMON ION IS COMMENCLB THESE LAWS REQUIRIZ EACH EXCAVATOR ~0 GIVE ADVANCE HOTICE FO ALL OPERATORS OF LJNDERGRODND FACILITIES OF Ills INTENT TO PERFORM EXCAVATION OR DEMOLIIlO~ IN TIdE SsECIFIED ARFAS 5 ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN U S STANDARD MEASUREMENTS 6 PARCEL SUBJECT TO a) DFCLARArON Or CQVENAN'S AND RES1RICTIOIX8 R-CORDED 12/4/1992 LN LIBER/R£EL 11583 PAGE 54B b) CRANT OF EASEMENI RECORDED 1/29/2001 IN LINER/REEL 11521 PAGE 355 c) MEMORANSUV OF EASE RECORDED 1/2B/2001 Ihl LINER/REEL 12099 PAGE 2B5 · EASEMENTS NOT SHOWI', BN THIS SMRVEY MAP ARE NOT GUARANTEED SECTION: BLOCK`: 4 LOT: %3 ZONE: R-40 475 60 80,494.15 %q.F ~ · · 8478 Acres WOODED A RF A / SECTION: 108 BLOCK`: 4 LOT 12 ZONE: R-4~ PALL ZONE RADIUS IF "BREAK`POINT" IS AT BASE OF EXTENDED HONOPOLE = EXISTIN® FALL ZONE RADIUS FOR-~ EXISTIN5 NONOPOLE = 108' -I / PROPOSED FALL ZONE RADIUS FOR PROPOSED EXTENSION = I0' 8 < E,O.P, EDGE OF PAVEMENT ~ SIGN ~ SURVEY POINT ~ SANITARY MANHOLE ~ WATER MANHOLE ~ ELECTRIC MANHOLE ~ TELEPHONE MANHOLE @ DRAINAGE MANHOLE ~ OAS MANHOLE ® D.O.T. MANHOLE © UNKNOWN MANHOLE rF~ INLET TB TRAFFIC BOX SF STEEL FACE CURB 0 VENT 7°06'00'' \ SECTION: BLOCK`: 4 LOT: 11.2 ZONE: LB R B N SURVEY 0,: PROPERTY LOCATED' AT ELDJAH AXLE, MATTITUCK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD STAFE OF NEW YORK DISIRICT . 1000, SECTION .... 108 BLOCK .. 4, TAX LOT(S) . 11.$ Ixl~ SCALE. I" = 4®'-®" 24x36 SCALE I" = ~®'-®" 224.4~' PROPOSED AiTENNiS TO EXISTIN® STR[ET I I 2~5,4~' PROPOSED EXiSTIN® UTILITY POLE ~NYTB ESI u ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING P. O. BOX3 HAZLET, NEW JERSEY 07730 T: 732.817.9090 F: 732.847.4335 Lou Moglino, AL& ARCHITECT NJ - # A113345 NY ~ ~ 028992-1 Robert W. Toms, P.E. STRUCTURAE ENGINEER NJ - # GE 36209 lX~ - # 075384 03/Iq/Z UPDATED PER ATTORNEY 60vE4ENTS 03/0Wl5 JPDATED PER ATTORNEY CO"'lh4ENTS 05/K7/I JPOATEP PEP-, OANEP-'S LIST JPDATED FER STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Ob~lb~ID I~U~E:> FOI:~. F-IL_IN~ metroPCS New Yorl~, L.L.C. 415 ELI.-.JAH'S LANE lv~ATTITUd..,'re-, NY' I1~.~ ~AYNIN® TITLE Pl',do OcHviPSTS020