The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1000-108.-4-11.3 (11)SITE PLAN USE DETERMINATION . I_nitial Determinati°~n Dat. e:--/°~/----¢ .___~? ~ ,~, Date Sent: Project Name:~ · Pro]eot Address:~Z~~--~c~--'-'-'~=-~ , ....... ,,~,~ ,,~ ~ . /_r/ _//. ~ Zoning District: ~_~_~z~--~ - Suffolk County lax Map No.:~ uuu-_~ ~ ~_-~-- --, proposed use or uses should be submitte(]J Initial Determination as to whether use is permitted:-~(~-- Initial Determination as to whether site plan is required:~ Planning Department (P.D.) Referral:_ P.D. Date Received:. Ib~__/ i_~__/ ~----- ~teP~C~cg'fFnent:---L~ '/~-/- (~ '- ~gnature o--~-~lanning Dept~a-~ Reviewer Final Determination Date:. __1__1 __ Decision:. .~-~nnnh~P. n~nO ln.~nP, ctnr 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~ From: Date: Re: Michael J. Verity, Chief Building Inspector Brian Cummings, Planner November 20, 2012 Proposed Verizon Wireless upgrades ~ Baxter SCTM#1000-108.-4-11.3 As an addendum to the attached SPUD report, please be advised that the Planning Depmhnent conducted a preliminary review of the proposed modifications in the context of requirements found in §280-67 to minimize the visual and environmental impacts of wireless communications facilities. To that end, it appears that the proposed modifications are less visually obtrusive (in size and weight) than the existing wireless communications equipment they are proposed to replace and therefore do not require site plan approval from the Planning Board. Thank you for your cooperation. Gerard R Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Homing BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall I%'V~- 53095 Main Road RO. 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 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: Tho applicant's property is located on the west side of Elijah's Lane, Mattituck. The property contains approximately 95,000 sq. ft. with 197.50 ft. frontage along the west side of Elijah's Lane, Mattituck. The property is improved with a one-story warehouse building and rear yard structures as shown on the Map dated August 13, 199, prepared by Carman-Dunne, P.C. The property is zoned Light-Business (LB). BA~I~ OF APPLICATION: Building inspector's May 31, 2000 Notice of Disapproval for the reason that applicant's proposed wireless telecommunication tower exceeds the height limited under Section 100- 162B.3 within 300 feet, at a total height of 110 feet (overall). RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant is requesting a height 10 ft. greater than its existing tower and which has an overall height 20 feet greater than other structures within 300 feet. The existing telecommunications tower is 100 ft. tall. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: Based on the testimony and record before the Board and personal inspection, the Board makes the following findings: (1) The proposed monopole tower will replace the existing tower and will add co-location facilities, which is encouraged by the Southold Town Code. Co-location of telecommunication antennas are needed and will enhance efficiency with expanded coverage. Alternate sites for the tower, to obviate the need for a vadanca, 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 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 ff. tall wireless telecommunications tower, and the new tower is a Page' i.~ - D..ecember 7, 2000 ~ App.. Nc~ 4~e2: 1000-108~1-113~111nt) Southold Town Board 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 GOI~HRT~ER, TO~,..T.~RA,~,.OLLINS, and HORNING. This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). .~" CHAIRMAN 12/z,~/00 ',/ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 TEL: (631) 765-1802 FAX: (631) 765-9502 Southo]dTown.NorthFork.net Exaraincd ,20 Approved ,20 Disapproved a/c PERMIT NO. BUILDING PER.MIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST Do you have or need the following, before applying? Board of Health 4 sets of Building PIecs Planning Board approval Survey. Check Septic Form N.Y.S.D.E.C. Trust~-~ Fiood 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 Expiration ,20__ Building Inspector · mC*T O mLDINC Date INSTRUCTIONS Z% ,20,7_ a, This application MUST be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector with 4 sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schadule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining promises 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 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 of issuance or has not been completed wittfin lg months from aneh date. If no zoning amendments or other regulations affecting the. property have been enacted in the interim, the Buil'ding Inspector may authorize, in writing; the extension of the 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 pumuant 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, building code, honsing code, and regulations, mad to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspeotlons. New York SMSA Limited Partnership dg°/a Verizon Wireless (Signature of applicant or name, if a ~ Limited Partnership 4 Centerock Road, West Ngack, NY 10994 (Mailing address of applicaa0 State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, archttect, engineer, general contractor, electrtclan, plumbe or builder Applicant is Lessee Name of owner of premises William J. Baxter, Jr., Patricia Baxter, and Robert A. Goeller, Jr., and Jane P. Goeller (As on the tax roil or latest deed) · . limited armershi . · a t a s~ dui th nzed off-leer (Name and title Builders License No. Pimnbers License No. Electricians License No. Other Trade's License No. N/A 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done: 415 £1i.jah's Lane Mattituck House Number Street County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 108 Hamlet Block 4 Lot · I 1.3 Fil;d Map No. Lot 2. State existing use and occuPancy.of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing t~se and occupancy Commercial building and public utility wireless telecommunications facility b. Intended Usc and occupancy. Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility 3. Nature of work (cheek which applicable): New Building Addition. Alteration Repair Removal . Demolition Other WorkLessee/Applicant propose to modify/upgrade its cxising public utility wireless telecommunications facility by replacin~g twelve (12) existing antennas with twelve tT~a,-,.lr,*ie, r,5 I 2 ) new ante~uas~ rep~cing twO (2) GPS unit~ with two (2) new GPS umt~ and installing one additional equipment 6~rbYt/e~ ~h'~?~'~'~xisting shelter 4. Estlmate(~ t;os~. $%~;e~.~t.z. vee . (To be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units N/A Number.0f dwelling units on each floor If garage, number of cars 'Commercial building and public utility wireless telecommtmicatiorts 6. If business, commemial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of ea}:h type of uschcility 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front Rear. .Depth Height~~ ~ ' umber of stories Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front Rear Depth Height ~ ~ c_~..,~, . Number of Stories 8. Dimensions of entire ne~' cons,t~uction: Front Rear Depth Height Iq ~ ('~*"~ ~ \\~ Number of Stories / 80,494.15 square feet 9. Size oflot:'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 Limited Business (LB) 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 fill be removed from premises? YES ' ... NO ' William J~ Baxter, Jr., Patr cia Baxter, and'Robert A. Goeller, Jr., · . c/o 415 Elijah's Lane 14. Names of Owner.of premise~and Jane P. Goeller Aditress ~.,~+?,,,.v: ~.]y ';P"h°ne'N'°'631 689 8450 X'amc of Architec~'vfiliam F. Collins, AIA Archictects,Address 12-1 Technology Dr. l~nono rqo. - - _ ~'~ LLP_,, ~3etaulcet, N Y 11/33 Phone No Name of Contractor Aoores~ · : 15 a. IS this property within 100 feetofafidalwetlandorafreshwaterwetiand? *YES. NO x · IF YES, SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTBF~ & 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 ~nd res,trictions with respeoi to this property? * YES_ X NO__ · IF YES, PROVIDE A COPY. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF (~,*~4" ~'~f~{~.. , .~being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he is the applicant (Name of indivldu'~.l stgnmg contract) above name, (S)He is the Lessee / Applicant (Contractor, Agent, Corporate Officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and ia duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statmnents contained in this application are tree 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. Sworn tg~before me this - /5 ~- day of /&(O~/x 20 tZ Notar~ pul~li~ Michael R. Bonhomme Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 B06144229 Qualified in Orange Coun,tYl., Commission Expires 04/24/20'/~ New Yo3k SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless RE, NIELSEN, HUBER & COUGHLIN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW T~PI-Io~: (0131) 4~§-4100 F~c, sx>txx~: (0~31) 4~5-4104 September 25, 2012 By Hand Mr. Michael Verity Building Department Town of Southold Annex Building 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon") Proposal to modify existing telecommunications facility at Premises: 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck SCTM#: 1000 - 108 - 4 - 11.3 Dear Mr. Verity: We are the attorneys for Verizon in connection with its proposal to upgrade its existing facility at the subject premises. The modification proposed is part of Verizon "LTE" project which will allow Verizon to provide better, faster and more reliable service in the Town. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, codified at 47 United States Code §1455, a copy of which is enclosed, provides that "a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station." This proposal is an "eligible facilities request" pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)(2) as it proposes only to replace and collocate certain transmission equipment. Specifically, Verizon proposes to replace twelve (12) existing antennas on the existing monopole with twelve (12) replacement antennas at the same height as presently existing and replace two (2) GPS units on the existing equipment shelter with two (2) new GPS units.. As such, we respectfully submit that the proposed modification will not "substantially change the physical dimensions" of the existing monopole or base station. Moreover, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, codified at 47 United States Code § 332, as interpreted by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") in its Declaratory Ruling 09-99 and Order On Reconsideration 10-144, requires that applications such as Verizon's be processed within 90 days. We enclose the following in support of the proposed eligible facilities request: 1. Town of Southold Building Permit Application form detailing the eligible facilities request; 2. Covenants and restrictions affecting the subject property; 3. Owner's Authorization Affidavit; 4. Building Permit Application fee: Check of R~, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin LLP (Check No. 1416) in the amount of $500.00; New York SMSA Limited Partne~tp d/b/a Verizon Wireless Proposal to modify existing facility at 415 Elijah's Lane, Mattituck September 25, 2012 Page 2 of 2 5. Two (2) counterparts of Antenna Site FCC RF Compliance Assessment and Report prepared by Pinnacle Telecom Group and dated March 27, 2012, demonstrating the project's compliance with the FCC's Maximum Permissible Exposure regulations; 6. Two (2) counterparts of Structural Analysis Report with design drawings, prepared by GPD Group, dated August 15, 2012, documenting the facility's structural compliance with local, state and federal codes; 7. Copy of Verizon's FCC Licenses; 8. Copy of Deed; 9. Copy of all applicable Land Lease Agreements; 10. Copy of Verizon's Certificates of Occupancy No. Z-28274, both dated March 13, 2002; 11. Copy of Verizon's (Joint Application with Sprint) Planning Board Resolution, dated February 13, 2001 approving Site Plan Application; 12. Copy of Verizon's (Joint Application with Sprint) Board of Appeals Resolution, dated December 20, 2000. 13. Copy of property survey prepared by Arek Surveying Company, dated December 16, 2009; and 14. Four (4) sets of Construction Drawings with Site Plans and Elevations, prepared by William F. Collins, AIA Architects, LLP dated April 17, 2012. We respectfully request that the instant proposal be processed in accordance with the above and that the appropriate Permit be issued at this time. We respectfully request that our office be contacted when the Permit is ready to be picked up. We can be reached at (631) 425-4100. Very truly yours, RI~, NIELSEN, HUBER & COUGIrILIN, LLP , ,& ) By: .,](.7oc~ ~.¥ ~/ , j~-" "~ ,)~-'~ ' Bailey /bi Enclosures Cc via e-mail w/o encls.: Ms. Heather Lanza, Planning Director .Pinnacle Telecom Group Professional and Technical Se~/ices Antenna Site FCC RF Compliance Assessment and Report prepared for New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless "Mattituck" Site Elijah's Lane & Route 25 Southold, NY March 27, 2012 14 Ridgedale Avenue - Suite 209 · Cedar Knolls, NJ 07927 ° 973.451.1630 CONTENTS Introduction and Summary Antenna and Transmission Data Compliance Analysis Compliance Conclusion Certification 3 5 8 13 14 Appendix A. Background on the FCC MPE Limit AppEndix B. Summary of Expert Qualifications INTROdUCTioN ANd SUMMARy At the request of New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon VVireless"), Pinnacle Telecom Group has performed an independent expert assessment of radiofrequency (RF) levels and related FCC compliance for the modification of an existing wireless base station antenna operation on an existing monopole at Elijah's Lane and Route 25, $outhold, NY. Verizon Wireless refers to the site as "Mattituck", and the antenna modifications are proposed so Vedzon Wireless can effectively operate under its licensed frequencies includinG 700 MHz, 850 MHz, and 1900 MHz. The FCC requires wireless system operators to perform an assessment of potential human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) fields emanating from all the transmitting antennas at a site whenever antenna operations are added or modified, and to ensure compliance with the Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limit in the FCC regulations. In this case, the monopole supports other existing wireless antenna operations by, Sprint-Nextel, T-Mobile, and AT&T - the RF effects of which will be included in this compliance assessment. Additionally, drawings of the site, supplied by Verizon Wireless, show MetroPCS as a "future" collocator, and the RF effects of this antenna operation will also be included in the compliance assessment (and for convenience we will include MetroPCS among the collocators referred to as "existing"). 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, 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 can be explained in layman's terms by describing the calculated RF levels as simple percentages of the FCC MPE limit. If the reference for that limit is 100 percent, then calculated RF levels higher than 100 percent indicate the MPE limit is exceeded, while calculated RF levels consistently lower than 100 percent serve as a clear and sufficient demonstration of compliance with the MPE limit. We will also describe the overall worst-case calculated result via the "plain-English" equivalent "times-below-the-limit factor". The result of the FCC RF compliance assessment in this case is as follows: [] The conservatively calculated maximum RF level from the combination of the Verizon Wireless antenna operations, as modified, along with all the other antenna operations at the site, is 1.7755 percent of the FCC MPE limit - well below the 100-percent reference for compliance. In other words, even with the significant degree of conservatism incorporated in the analysis, the worst-case calculated RF level is still more than 56 times below the FCC limit established as safe for continuous human exposure to the RF emissions from antennas. r~ The results of the calculations provide a clear demonstration that the RF levels from the combination of proposed and existing antenna operations at the site satisfy the applicable criteria for controlling potential human exposure to RF fields, and the RF levels will be in clear compliance with the FCC regulations and limit concerning RF safety. Moreover, because of the conservative methodology and incorporated assumptions, RF levels actually caused by the antennas will be even less significant than the calculation results here indicate. The remainder of this report provides the following: relevant technical data on the Verizon Wireless antenna operations as modified, along with data on the other existing antenna operations at the site; [] a description of the applicable FCC mathematical model for assessing MPE compliance, and application of the relevant technical data to that model; and [] the results of the analysis, and the compliance conclusion for the site. 4 In addition, Appendix A provides background on the FCC MPE limit, along with a list of FCC references on compliance, and Appendix B summarizes the expert qualifications of the author of this report. AntEnna and Transmission Data The table below provides the key compliance-related data for the Verizon Wireless antenna operations, as proposed to be modified, at the site. Frequency Bands Service Coverage Type Antenna Type Antenna Model 700 MHz, 850 MHz and 1900 MHz Sectorized Directional Panel Antel 70080/4CF Antenna Maximum Gain 14.1 dBi RF Channels per Sector 1 Transmitter Power / RF Channel Antenna Model 40 watts Ante170080/4CF Antenna Maximum Gain 14.1 dBi RF Channels per Sector Transmitter Power / RF Channel Antenna Model 8 20 watts Ante1171090/8CF Antenna Maximum Gain 16.6 dBi RF Channels per Sector Transmitter Power / RF Channel 4 16 watts Note that in the analysis, we will conservatively ignore the power-attenuation effects associated with the antenna cabling ("antenna line loss".) The antenna vertical-plane radiation pattern is used in the calculations of RF levels at ground level around a site. Figures 1 through 3 that follow show the vertical-plane radiation patterns of the antenna model proposed by Verizon Wireless. Note that in this type of diagram, 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. Figure 1. Antel BXA 70080/4CF Antenna - 700 MHz Vertical-plane Pattern 0 deg hodzon 5 dB / division Figure 2. Antel 7008014CF Antenna - 850 MHz Vertical-plane Pattern o deg hodzon 5 dB / division 6 Figure 3. BXA 171090/8CF Antenna - 1900 MHz Vertical-plane Pattern 0 deg horizon 5 dB / division AS noted at the outset, there are other antenna operations at the site that we need to include in the compliance assessment, each of which involves directional panel antennas arranged for sectorized wireless service coverage. In the analysis for each of the wireless carriers, we will conservatively assume operation with maximum channel capacity and at maximum transmitter power in each of their respective FCC-licensed wireless frequency bands. Sprint-Nextel is licensed to operate in both the 851 and 1900 MHz frequency bands. In the 851 MHz band, Sprint-Nextel uses as many as 12 RF channels per antenna sector and a maximum antenna input power of six watts. In the 1900 MHz band, Sprint-Nextel uses as many as six RF channels per antenna sector, with a maximum of 16 watts of transmitter power 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. 7 AT&T is licensed to operate in the 700, 850 and 1900 MHz frequency bands. In the 700 MHz band, AT&T uses as many as four RF channels per antenna sector and a maximum transmitter power of 40 watts. In the 850 MHz band, AT&T uses as many as eight RF channels per antenna sector and a maximum transmitter power of 20 watts. In the 1900 MHz band, AT&T uses as many as four RF channels per antenna sector, with a maximum of 16 watts of transmitter power per channel. MetroPCS is licensed 1o operate in the 2100 MHz frequency band, using as many as three RF channels per antenna sector with a maximum transmitter power of 24 watts per channel, and using one RF channel per antenna sector with a maximum transmitter power of 60 watts. ~--,OMpIiANCE ANAlysis FCC; Office of En9ineerin9 and Technology Bulletin 65 ("OET Bulletin 65") provides guidelines for mathematical models to calculate the RF levels at various points around transmittin9 antennas. At street-level around an antenna site (in what is called the "far field" of the antennas), the RF levels are directly proportional to the total antenna input power and the relative antenna gain in the downward direction of interest - and the levels are otherwise inversely proportional to the square of the straight-line distance to the antenna. Conservative calculations also assume the potential RF exposure is enhanced by reflection of the RF energy from the intervening 9round. Our calculations will assume a 100% "perfect" reflection, the worst-case approach. The formula for street-level RF compliance calculations for any given wireless antenna operation is as follows: where MPE% MPE% = (100 * TxPower * 10 (G~,.×-Vdis~0) . 4 ) / ( MPE * 4~ * R2 ) RF level, expressed as a percentage of the MPE limit applicable to continuous exposure of the general public 8 100 = TxPower = 10 (Gmax-Vdisc,/1 O) MPE = R = 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, referenced to any applied antenna mechanical downtilt; data on the antenna vertical-plane pattern is taken from manufacturer specifications factor to account for a lO0-percent-efficient ground reflection, and the squared relationship between RF field strength and power density (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) off the ground, as illustrated in Figure 4 below. height from antenna bottom to above ground level 0 ~'- 500 Ground Distance D from the site Figure 4, 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 represents nomcompliance 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. 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 at maximum channel capacity. In addition, the effects of 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. 10 4. The potential RF exposure at ground level is assumed to be lO0-percent enhanced (increased) via a "perfect" field reflection from the intervening ground. 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 result highlighted in bold in the last column. 11 Verizon Verizon Verizon Sprint- Ground Wireless Wireless Wireless T-Mobile AT&T MetroPCS Total Distance 700 MHz 850 MHz 1900 MHz Nextel MPE% MPE% MPE% MPE% (ft) MPE% MPE% MPE% MPE% 0 0.0574 0.2027 0.2051 0.0166 0.0012 0.0236 0.0025 0.5091 20 0.0103 0.1237 0.0498 0.0292 0,0342 0.0422 0.0039 0.2933 40 0.3195 0.0781 0.0198 0,0419 0,0281 0.0311 0.0058 0.5243 60 0,7193 0.8036 0.0380 0.0391 0.0970 0.0743 0.0042 1.7755 80 0.3180 0.6463 0.0285 0.0090 0.1686 0.0681 0.0020 1.2405 100 0.1869 0.3309 0.0113 0.1135 0.0072 0.0903 0.0013 0.7414 120 0.2232 0.3288 0.0108 0.1465 0.0765 0,3691 0.0019 1.1568 140 0.2065 0.3334 0.0165 0,1149 0.0028 0.5470 0.1573 1.3784 160 0.1173 0.2078 0.0025 0.0198 0.0758 0.3192 0.3300 1.0724 180 0.0470 0.0912 0.0002 0.0372 0.1141 0.0893 0.2274 0.6064 200 0,0065 0.0129 0.0003 0,0772 0,0607 0.0261 0.0305 0.2142 220 0.0084 0.0124 0.0087 0.0918 0.0453 0.1030 0.0016 0.2712 240 0.0268 0.0463 0.0170 0.0947 0.0609 0.2856 0.0119 0.5432 260 0.1007 0.1954 0.0497 0.1040 0.0909 0.3874 0.0079 0.9360 280 0.1421 0.2822 0.0557 0.1017 0.1115 0.3557 0.0067 1.0556 300 0.1247 0.2477 0.0489 0.0713 0.1022 0.2808 0.0246 0.9002 320 0.1669 0.3393 0.0452 0.0369 0.0902 0.1834 0.0328 0.8947 340 0.2051 0.4267 0.0367 0.0189 0.0568 0.1008 0.0324 0.8774 360 0,2479 0.5157 0.0150 0,0048 0.0237 0.0487 0.0239 0.8797 380 0.2233 0.4645 0.0136 0.0099 0.0214 0.0440 0.0115 0.7882 400 0.2604 0,5418 0,0051 0.0147 0.0193 0.0384 0.0104 0.8901 420 0.2369 0.4927 0.0047 0.0461 0.0278 0.0349 0.0033 0.8464 440 0.2662 0.5666 0.0069 0.0422 0.0254 0.0663 0.0052 0.9788 460 0.2440 0.5194 0.0063 0.0786 0.0233 0.0608 0.0048 0.9372 480 0.2245 0.4779 0.0058 0.0724 0.0872 0.1254 0.0142 1.0074 500 0.2492 0.5304 0.0162 0.0730 0,0804 0.1159 0.0131 1.0782 12 As indicated, even with the significant degree of conservatism built into the calculations, the maximum calculated RF level is 1.7755 percent of the FCC MPE limit - well below the 100-percent reference for compliance. A graph of the overall 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 rises only slightly above the graph's zero baseline, and show s an obviously clear and consistent margin to the FCC MPE limit. 120 100 ~ 80 0 O. 60 t~ 4O ~ 2O COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT RESULTS Normalized FCC MPE Limit - Total MPE% Results 0 100 200 300 400 500 Distance (ft) COMpliANCE (:oNdusioN According to the FCC, the MPE limit has been construoted in such a manner that continuous human exposure to RI= emissions up to and including tOO percent of the MPE limit is acceptable and safe. The analysis in this case shows that the maximum calculated RF level from the combination of the Vedzon Wireless antenna operations, as modified, along with the other existing antenna operations at the site, is 1.7755 percent of the F=CC MP~: limit. In other words, the worst-case calculated RF level from the oombination of antenna operations is more than $6 times below the limit established as safe for continuous human exposure to the RF em issions from antennas. 13 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. CER'I'i~icATiON It is the policy of Pinnacle Telecom Group that all FCC RF compliance assessments are reviewed, approved, and signed by the firm's Chief Technical Officer, who certifies as follows: 1. I have read and fully understand the FCC regulations concerning RF safety and the control of human exposure to RF fields (47 CFR 1.1301 et seq). 2. To the best of my knowledge, the statements and information disclosed in this report are true, complete and accurate. 3. The analysis of site RF compliance provided herein is consistent with the applicable FCC regulations, additional guidelines issued by the FCC, and industry practice. 4. The new Yerizon Wireless antennas, as detailed herein, like the original antennas, will not produce more radiation which will cause them to not be in compliance with the FCC regulations. Moreover, the combined RF effects from the antenna operations at this site are in compliance with the FCC regulations and limit concerning potential RF exposure. 3/27/12 Date 14 Appendix A. Background on the FCC MPE Limit FCC Rules and Regulations As directed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has established limits for maximum continuous human exposure to RF fields. The FCC maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits represent the consensus of federal agencies and independent experts responsible for RF safety matters. Those agencies include the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In formulating its guidelines, the FCC also considered input from the public and technical community - notably the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The FCC's RF exposure guidelines are incorporated in Section 1.301 et seq of its Rules and Regulations (47 CFR 1.1301-1.1310). Those guidelines specify MPE limits for both occupational and general population exposure. The specified continuous exposure MPE limits are based on known variation of human body susceptibility in different frequency ranges, and a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of 4 watts per kilogram, which is universally considered to accurately represent human capacity to dissipate incident RF energy (in the form of heat). The occupational MPE guidelines incorporate a safety factor of 10 or greater with respect to RF levels known to represent a health hazard, and an additional safety factor of five is applied to the MPE limits for general population exposure. Thus, the general population MPE limit has a built-in safety factor of more than 50. The limits were constructed to appropriately protect humans of both sexes and all ages and sizes and under all conditions - and continuous exposure at levels equal to or below the applicable MPE limits is considered to result in no adverse health effects or even health risk. The reason for two tiers of MPE limits is based on an understanding and assumption that members of the general public are unlikely to have had appropriate RF safety training and may not be aware of the exposures they receive; occupational exposure in controlled environments, on the other hand, is assumed to involve individuals who have had such training, are aware of the exposures, and know how to maintain a safe personal work environment. The FCC's RF exposure limits are expressed in two equivalent forms, using alternative units of field strength (expressed in volts per meter, or V/m), and power density (expressed in milliwatts per square centimeter, or mW/cm2). The table on the next page lists the FCC limits for both occupational and general population exposures, using the mW/cm2 reference, for the different radio frequency ranges. 15 Frequency Range (F) Occupational Exposure General Public Exposure (MHz) ( mW/cmz) ( mW/cm2) 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 / 1500 1,500- 100,000 5.0 1.0 The diagram below provides a graphical illustration of both the FCC's occupational and general population MPE limits. Power Density (mW/cm2) 100 5.0 1.0 0,2 · ,,,,, Occupational ',, - ........ General Public 1.34 3.0 30 300 1,500 Frequency (MHz) 100,000 Because the FCC's MPE limits are frequency-shaped, the exact MPE limits applicable to the instant situation depend on the frequency range used by the systems of interest. 16 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. Note that the FCC "categorically excludes" certain types of antenna facilities from the routine requirement to specifically (i.e., mathematically) demonstrate compliance with the MPE limit. Among those types of facilities are cellular antennas mounted on any type of tower, when the bottoms of the antennas are more than 10 meters (c. 32.8 feet) above ground. The basis for the categorical exclusion, according to the FCC, is the understanding that because of the Iow power and the directionality of the antennas, such facilities - individually and collectively - are well understood to have no significant effect on the human environment. As a result, the FCC automatically deems such facilities to be in compliance. FCC References on Compliance 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-F 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 Coremereial 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. 17 Appendix B. Summary of Expert Oualifications Daniel J. Collins, Chief Technical Officer, Pinnacle Telecom Group, LLC Synopsis: ,, 39 years of experience in all aspects of wireless system engineering, related regulation, and RF exposure · Has performed or led RF exposure compliance assessments on more than 14,000 antenna sites since the new FCC rules went into effect in 1997 · Has provided testimony as an RF compliance expert more than 1,300 times since 1997 · Accepted as an expert in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and more than 40 other states, ~ as well as by the FCC Education: ., BEE, City College of New York (Sch. Of Eng.), 1971 · MB.A, 1982, Fairleigh Dickinson University, 1982 · Bronx High School of Science, 1966 Current Responsibilities: o 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 industry magazines 18 '~" WEST NYACK, NEW YORK ' '"'' 415 ELH~~ ~ & R T ~ SO UTHOLD, NEW YO~ 11952 SITE INFORMATION I ~, ,~~ LIST OF D~WlNGS ~ ~.:,~ .~,. DWG NO. DESCRIPTION REV. VZW SITE NAME: MATTITUCK ' ~'~ ' ~' ' I ~<~ '~ 1 ~ ~ ,-~o0.00 mci s.~, 0 ANTENNAS TO BE REMOVED AND RE~kAGED WITH ' ~' ~ ~ ' S~-~00.00 SITE ?kAN 0 (~2) NEW ANTENNAS. EXISTING A~TENNA MOUNTS ,. ~ ~'~: ~: TO REMAIN. (2) G~S UNITS TO BE REMOVED AND I~~ ~ ~~ ~l. ] ~' ~-~00.00 CAR/IAI 811[ ~[AN, [[[V~IIONS, Nell8 AN~ D~/AIk8 0 PROJECT LOCATION ELIJAH'S LANE & RT. 25, SOUTHOLD, NEWYORK I ' ~L ~ ~ : ~~[ ~ ~ ~. BUILDING CONTACT: WILLIAM J. B~TER JR., (631) 734-5760 IIs~,,,¢ g '¢ ~~1 NOTES PATRICIA B~TER, ~1., ~ * ~ ~_~ ' ~J~[: II ~ ~:~> ., ~~}~ QUALITY ASSURANCE ROBERT A. GOELLER JR. ~ ~ ~ & JANE P. GOELLER I r~ ~~ q ~"fq~ , ~ S~ I A. Workmanship shall be ofthe highest quality and done by employees sk,lled ,n the practice of~e,r trade. II® ' ~o~, ~~ ~ t4~ including tho work of others damaged by the initial failure or tho ~ective repairs. LEASING CONTACT: RYAN MAYBECK(914)714-7371 ; ~ ~, ,h.I[ ~ ~~ , c. SAFETyAllitems af workidontifi,, on tho dmwinfls by nam,. note, or mate,al dosi,nation ara now. unl,ss oth,~is, not,d.& HEALTH PROVISIONS CONSIRUCIION COaT,CT: KIMBERkY SOUND (03~) 252-00~ I LATITUDE: 40° 59' 58.30" (NAD 83) ] ~ a~ , ' h h,t 2, Fire protect,on and life safety components within the building will be properly maintained, LONGIIUDE: 72° 30' 40.23" (NAD 83)~ ELEVATION:zzu-"~' AMSL {NAD83)l/ ~>~ ~ 3. Structural ,ntegr,ty of the building will be maintained. Construction materials shall be spread out ,f placed on framed ceiling or roof SECTION 108 7. There w,II bo no accumulation of ali, and dust. Tho cont~or shall leave the area ef work broom clean at the end of each day. BLOCK: 4 -- ~ LOT(S): 11.3 ZONING: "LB" LIMITED BUSINESS WILLIAM F COLLINS, AIA A R C H I T E C T S , L L P 4/17/12 ISSUED FOR BP FILING 4/13/12 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 12-1 TEGHNOLOGY DRIVE, SETAUKET, NY 11733 (P) 631.689.8450 I (F) 631.689.8459 ] www.wfcaia.com SITENAME: "MATTITUCK" WFC JOB SHEET No: SITE PLAN ~ORMATION: SITE PLAN BASED ON PROPERTY SURVEY PREPARED BY AREK SURVEYING COMPANY, 58 EAST BEVERLY PARKWAY, VALLEY STREAM, NY 11580 {DATED 12-06-09 FILE # ASC09272) METROPCS ZONING DRAWINGS PREPARED BY MTM DESIGN GROUP P.O. BOX 5 HAZLET, NJ 07750 TEL. 732-888-6210 {DATED 05/17/11 PROJECT# 09MPSTS020) NOTE: THERE WILL BE NO INCREASE IN NOISE LEVELS BASED ON THE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. EXISTING VERIZON WIRELESS EQUIPMENT SHELTER WiTH DIESEL GENERATOR WITHIN TO REMAIN EXISTING SPRINT EQUIPMENT EXISTING T-MOBILE EQUIPMEN1 f ) -- EXISTING AT&T EQUIPMENT SHELTER NEXTEL EQUIPMENT SHELTER --APPROVED METROPCS EQUIPMENT APPROVED 118'-0" HIGH MONOPOLE (12) EXISTING VERIZON WIRELESS SECTOR ANTENNAS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH (12) NEW ANTENNAS, EXISTING ANTENNA MOUNTS TO REMAIN. (4 ANTENNAS PER SECTOR), EXISTING MOUNTS TO REMAIN EXISTING FENCED COMPOUND. SEE PARTIAL SITE PLAN 1/A-100 WILLIAM F. COLLINS, AIA ARCHITECTS, LLP ]2-1 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE, SETAUKET, NY 11733 TEL: 631,689.84511 FAX: 6]1,689,8459 web address : http: www.wfcaia.com CONSULTANT: DATE SUBMISSION 4/13/12 FOR REVIEW 4/17/12 FOR BP FILING DATE REVISION KEY PLAN: AREA OF WORK- WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS MATTITUCK 415 ELIJAH'8 LANE & RT. 25 SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK TITLE: ITE PLAN ( SlT E P_L_AN SCALE = 1" = 30' O' 15' 1" = 50' 30' 60' NORTH DATE: 4/13/12 PROJECT NO: 11-9437 DRAWN BY' LE. CHECKED BY: SPM SCALE: AS NOTED DRAWING NO: SP-100.00 SHEET NO: 1 OF 1 PROPER~¥ LINE .--/ EXISTING VERIZON WIRELESS EQUIPMENT SHELTER WITH DIESEL GENERATOR WITHIN TO REMAIN (12) EXISTING 7/8"¢ VERIZON WIRELESS ANTENNA CABLES ROUTED IN EXISTING ICE BRIDGE, THEN WITHIN EXISTING MONOPOLE, TO VERIZON WIRELESS SECTOR ANTENNAS TO REMAIN EXISTING T-MOBILE EQUIPMENT- EXISTING SPRINT EQUIPMENT (12) EXISTING VERIZON WIRELESS SECTOR ANTENNAS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH (12) NEW ANTENNAS, EXISTING ANTENNA MOUNTS TO REMAIN. SEE DETAIL 3/A-100. EXISTING ONE STORY WAREHOUSE TO REMAIN / EXISTING VERIZON WIRELESS GPS UNITS SECURED TO EXISTING SHELTER TO BE REMOVEB AND REPLACED WITH (2) NEW GPS UNITS. VERIZON WIRELESS METER AND DISCONNECT SWITCH SPRINT METER AND DISCONNECT ;TING CFL CABINET ASPHALTIC PAVED AREA APPROVED 118'-0" HiGH MONOPOLE APPROVED METROPCS EQUIPMENT-- EXISTING AT&T EQUIPMENT SHELTER EXISTING NEXTEL EQUIPMENT SHELTER EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE -- 10" 20' 40' 1" = 20'-0" (" PA RT!AI_ SITE PLAN ~ SCALE: 1" =20' MAIN ROAD ~' ~' -- S.R. 25 MATTITUCK - GREENPOR. T RD. (BEYOND) LTE-A 850 AMPHENOL AMPHENOL (BXA-7OO80-4CF-EDIN -0) (BXA-7OOSO-4.CF- EBIN-O) RCX TRANSMIT DUPLEX RCX TRANSMIT BUPLEX TYPICAL ANTENNA SECTOR ARRAY AMPHENOL (BXA-7OO80-4CF-EDIN-O) RCX TRANSMIT DUPLEX AIMPHENOL (BXA- 171090-SCF-EDIN-O) RCX TR/ANSMIT DUPLEX NOTES: 1. ADHERE TO MANUFACTURER'S MINIMUM BENDING RADIUS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ANTENNA CABLE INSTALLATION (~¢PICAL FOR ALL ANTENNA CABLES) 2. PATCH, REPAIR ANB RESTORE ANY AREA WHICH IS AFFECTED BY INSTALLATION OF ANY ITEMS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WORK WITH NEW MATERIALS TO MATCH, ALIGN ANB BE CONTIGUOUS WITH EX[STING SURROUNDING SURFACES 3. ALL ANTENNA CABLES ARE EXISTING TO REMAIN. ANTENNA NOTES: THREE SECTORS (A-lO2',B-222'.G-332') CABLE: SECTORS - 7/8" DIA. CABLE (UP TO 100') SECTORS - 1 1/4." DIA. CABLE (UP TO 200') ,63 LBS/FT. SECTORS - 1 5/8" DIA. CABLE (201' OR GREATER) .70 LBS/FT. GPS - SHELTER MECH DOWN CABLES / ~PE No. ~PE WEIGHT AZIMUTH TILT DPLXR ANTENNA LTE-A A1 BXA-7OOSO-4.CF-EDIN-O 12 LBS. 92" O' y (1) 7/8" 850 A2 BXA-7OOSO-4.CF-EDIN-O 12 LBS. 92' O' Y (1) 7/8" LTE-C A3 BXA-7OOSO-4CF-EDIN-O 12 LBS. 92" O" Y (1) 7/8" PCS/AWS A4 BXA-171090-SCF-EDIN-O 11 LBS. 92' O" Y (1) 7/8" LTE-A 81 BXA-7OOSO-ACF-EDIN-O 12 LBS, 222' 6' y (1) 7/8" 850 82 BXA-7OOSO-4.CF-EDIN-O 12 LBS~ 222' 6' y (1) 7/8" LTE-C 83 BXA-7OOSO-4CF-EDIN-O 12 LBS. 222' 6' Y (1) 7/8" PCS/AWS 84 BXA-171090-8CF-EDIN-O 11 LBS. 222' 6" Y (1) 7/8" LTE-A G1 BXA-7OO80-4CF-EBIN-O 12 LBS. 332' 6' y (1) 7/8" 850 G2 BXA-7OOSO-4CF-EBIN-O 12 LBS. 332' 6' y (1) 7/B" LTE-C G3 BXA-7OOSO-4.CF-EBIN-O 12 LBS. ,332' 6° Y (1) 7/8" PCS/AWS G4 BXA-171090-8CF-EBIN-O 11 LBS. 332' 6" Y (1) 7/8" GPS GPS-1 GPS-TMG-HR-26N 0.6 LBS. SHELTER (1) 1/2" UNITS_: GPS-2 GPS-TMG-HR-26N 0.6 LBS. SHELTER (1) 1/2" (1) RF'S FDL85002 DIPLEXER TO BE INSTALLED ON 1ST AND 2ND MASTS AND (1) RPS FDgRSO04 DIPLEXER TO BE INSTALLED ON 3RD AND 4TH MASTS. (4) TOTAL DIPLEXERS PER SECTOR. DISTRICT l O0 SECTION: 1 OB BLOCK: 4 LOT(S): 11.3 ZONING: "LB" LIMtTEB BUSINESS LATTITIDE: 40' 59' 58.30" (NAD 85) LONGITUDE: 72' 30' 40.23" (NAD 83) ELEVATION: ~29' AMSL (NAD 83) 1. ALL INDICATIONS OF NORTH ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY IN FIELD TRUE NORTH PRIOR TO SECTOR ANTENNA INSTALLATION. 2. PROVIDE DOWNTILT AND MOUNTING BRACKETS FOR MOUNTING UP TO A 3-1/2" O.D. GALV. STEEL PIPE. THE MODEL NUMBERS FOR THE RESPECTIVE ANTENNAS EMPLOYED ON THIS PROJECT ARE ~-36114003, ~26799999 NORTH NOTE DRAWINGS DEPICT THE INSTALLATION OF NEW ANTENNAS TO BE PLACED ON AN EXISTING MONOPOLE. A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS, PRrOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE NEW ANTENNA COMPONENTS. ANALYSIS SHALL BE PERFORMEB, SIGNEB ANB SEALED BY A CURRENT NEW YORK STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ANB SHALL BE SUBMWrED SEPARATELY FROM THESE BOCUMENTS. APPROVED METROPCS ANTENNAS EXISTING ANTENNAS BY OTHERS ~p. U.O.N. (12) EXISTING VERIZON WIRELESS ANTENNAS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH (12) NEW ANTENNAS (TYP. 4 ANTENNAS PER SECTOR). EXISTING ANTENNA MOUNTS TO REMAIN EXISTING NEXTEL EQUIPMENT SHELTER (BEYOND) (12) EXISTING 7/8"¢ VERIZON WIRELESS ANTENNA CABLES ROUTED IN EXISTING ICE BRIDGE, THEN WITHIN EXISTING MONOPOLE. TO VERIZON WrRELESS SECTOR ANTENNAS (2) EXISTING VERIZON WIRELESS GPS UNITS SECURED TO EXISTING SHELTER TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACEB WITH (2) NEW OPS UNITS EXISTING VERIZON WIRELESS EQUIPMENT SHELTER WITH DIESEL GENERATOR WITHIN TO REMAIN EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING WAREt EL EV_A_T_ION SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 126.0' ::LAGL ~ T.O. APPROVED LIGHTING ROD 118.0' ±AGL T.O. APPROVED EXTENDED MONOPOLE 116.25' ±AGL OF APPROVED METROPCS ANTENNAS 109' ~AGL ¢/ OF EXISTING SPRINT ANTENNAS ~- OF 102' ±AGL {~_ EXISTING AT&T 2' DISH 98' ±AGL EXISTING AT&T ANTENNAS 88' ~AGL~ EXISTING NEXTEL ANTENNAS 80' ±AGL ,d~_ T.O. (12) EXISTING / NEW ~ VERIZON WIRELESS ANTENNAS 65' :bAGL T.O. EXrSTING T-MOBILE ~:~ ANTENNAS APPROVED 118'-0" HIGH MONOPOLE O' 8" 16' 32' 1/16" = 1'-0" LOCATION OF (4-) VERIZON WIRELESS GAMMA SECTOR ANTENNAS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH (4-) NEW ANTENNAS. EXISTING ANTENNA MOUNTS TO REMAIN EXISTING ANTENNA MOUNTING FRAME EXISTING ANTENNA MOUNTING PIPE AND HARDWARE TO LOCATION OF (4) VERIZON WIRELESS BETA SECTOR ANTENNAS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACEB WITH (4) NEW ANTENNAS. EXISTING ANTENNA MOUNTS TO REMAIN APPROVED 118'-0" HiGH MONOPOLE ANT_ENN A _MOUNTING DETAIL SCALE = 3/4"=1'-0" LOCATION OF (4-) VERIZON WIRELESS ALPHA SECTOR ANTENNAS TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH (4-) NEW ANTENNAS. EXISTING ANTENNA MOUNTS TO REMAIN -- NEW DIPLEXER SECURED TO EXISTING ANTENNA MOUNTING PIPE. TYp, EXISTING ANTENNAS TO BE REPLACED: ~ MANUFAC~TURER: ALLGON ANTENNA MANUFACTURER: SWEDCOM CO. MODEL NO.: 7184-.15 ANTENNA MODEL: SC-9012 WEIGHT: 19 LBS. WEIGHT: 20 LBS 5.0" 3,1" 6.5" B" FRONT SIDE FRONT SIDE VIEW VIEW VIEW VIEW *6'5 PLAN VIEW PLAN VIEW PANEL ANfEI~8 NEW ANTENNAS: ANTENNA MANUFACTURER: AMPHENOL MODEL NO.: BXA-7OOSO/4OF (LTE) WEIGHT: 12 LBS /9.0/.9" FRONT SIDE VIEW VIEW 4,8,0-4, PLAN VIEW PANEL ANteNNA8 ANTENNA MANUFACTUR_EI~: AMPHENOL ANTEN~: 8XA-171090/SCF (PCS) .WEIGHT: 11 FRONT VIEW PLAN VIEW LBS SIDE VIEW ~ANU FACTURER: PCTEL MODEL NO,: GPS-TMG-HR-26N 3.2" A NT_ENN A__DETAILS C FW-A2: 4-Lines 7AC-,8B 7AC-SD 7AC-SD 7ACSB-PA 7AC-DB 7ACSB-PA i1 I T=_EN NA PLUMBING DIAGRAM WILLIAM F. COLLINS~ AIA ARCHITECTS LL P 12-1 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE, SETAUKET, NY 11733 TEL: 631.689.8450 FAX: 631.689.8459 CONSULTANT: DATE SUBMISSION ,4/13/12 FOE BEVEW 4/17/12 FOR BP FILING DATE REVISION KEY PLAN: AREA OF WORK WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS MATTITUCK 415 ELIJAH'S LANE & RT. 25 SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK TITLE: PARTIAL ROOF PLAN ELEVATIONS NOTES AND DETAILS DATE: 4/13/12 PROJECT NO: 11-9437 DRAWN BY: TM CHECKED BY: SPM SCALE: AS NOTED DRAWING NO: A-IO0.O0 SHEET NO: 1 OF 1