The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About37209-ZTown of Southold Annex P.O. Box 1179 54375 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 3/12/2013 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No: 36163 Date: 3/11/2013 THIS CERTIFIES that the building Location of Property: 21855 CR 48 CUTCHOGUE, SCTM #: 473889 Sec/Block/Lot: 96.-1-19.1 Subdivision: Filed Map No. conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore W1RELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS 3/23/2012 pursuant to which Building Permit No. was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of thc applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is: extend & co-locate to an existing wireless tower as applied for. (Metro PCS) Lot No. filed in this officed dated 37209 dated 5/10/2012 The certificate is issued to Arthur V Junge (OWNER) of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL ELECTRICAL CERTIFICATE NO. PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED 37209 10/16/12 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, NY BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES WITH ONE SET OF APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) Permit #: 37209 Permission is hereby granted to: METRO PCS/ARTHUR JUNGE 418 MOULTON HILL ROAD LYMAN, NH 03585 Date: 5110/2012 To: extend & co-locate to an existing wireless tower as per Planning as applied for At premises located at: 21855 CR 48 CUTCHOGUE SCTM # 473889 Sec/Block/Lot # 96..1-19.1 Pursuant to application dated To expire on 111912013. Fees: 3/23/2012 and approved by the Building Inspector. CO - COMMERCIAL NEW COMMERCIAL, ALTERATION OR ADDITIONS Total: $50.00 $5OO.00 $550.00 Form No. 6 TOWN OF $OUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL 765-1802 APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF occUPANcy This' application must be filled in by typewriter or ink and submitted to the Building Department with the following: ]For new building or new use: 1. Final survey of property with accurate location of all buildings, property lines, streets, and unusual natural' or topographic features. 2. Final Approval from Health D0pL of water supply and sewerage-disposal (S-9 form). 3. Approval of electrical installation from Board 0fFire Underwriters. 4. '$w. orn statement from plumber certifying that the solder used in system centains less than 2/10 of 1% lead. 5. Commercial building, industrial building, multiple reaidences and similar buildings and installations, a certificate of Code Compliance'from architect or engineer responsible for the building. .6. Submit planning Board Approval of completed site plan requirements. For existing buildings (prior to April 9, 1957) non-conforming uses, or buildings and "pre-existing" land uses'.' 1. Accurate survey of property showing all property lines, streets, building and unusual natural or topographic features. '~ 2. A properly ~mpleted application and consent to inspect signed by the applicant. If a Certificate of Occupancy is denied, the Building Inspector shall state the reasons therefor in writing to the applicant. C. Fees I. Certificaie of Occupancy - New dwelling $50.00, Additions to dwelling $50.00, Alterations to dwelling $50.00, Swimmit~g po01 $50.00, Accessory building $50.00, Additions to accessory building $50.00, Businesses $50.00. Certificate of Occupancy on Pre-existing Building - $100.00 3. Copy of Certificate of Occupancy - $:25 4. Updated Certificate of Occupancy- $50.00 5. Temporary Certificate o£Occupancy - Residential $15.00, Commercial $15.00 Old or Pre-existing Building: House No. Street New Construction: Location of Property: - Owner or Owners of Property: ~-~ ~ Suffolk County Tax Map No 1000, Section Subdivision Block Filed Map. Applicant:. Health Dept. Approval: Planning Board Approval: Request for: Temporary Certificate Fee Submitted: $ SD - ~D (cheek one) ~' Hamlet Iq:l Undervaiter~ Approval: Final Certificate: (cheek one) ~ J. Coughlin Attorney for Applicant, MetroPCS New York, LLC Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Telephone (63 l) 765-1802 Fax (63 !) 765-9502 ro~ler, richert~town.southold, ny. us BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRICIAL COMPLIANCE SITE LOCATION Issued To: Metro PCS Address: 21855 County Road 48 City: Cutchogue St: NY Zip: 11935 Building Permit #: 37209 Section: 96 Block: 1 Lot: 19.1 WAS EXAMINED AND FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE Contractor: DBA: Charles M Dwyer Inc LicenseNo: 4278-me SITE DETAILS office Use Only Residential ~ Indoor ~ Basement ~ Service Only ~ Commerical Outdoor 1st Floor Pool New Renovation 2nd Floor Hot Tub Addition Survey Attic Garage INVENTORY Service 3 ph Hot Water GFCl Recpt Main Panel NC Condenser Single Recpt Sub Panel NC Blower Range Recpt Transformer Appliances Dryer Recpt Disconnect Switches Twist Lock Other Equipment: 200a single phase, underground service Ceiling Fixtures~ ~ HID Fixtures Wall Fixtures I I Smoke Detectors Recessed Fixtures CO Detectors Fluorescent Fixture Pumps Emergency Fixture Time Clocks Exit Fixtures ~ TVSS Notes: Inspector Signature: Date: Oct 16 2012 81-Cert Electrical Compliance Form.xls TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPT. 765-1802 I NSPECTION [L/]/FOUNDATION 1ST [ ] ROUGH PLBG. [ ] FOUNDATION 2ND [ ] FRAMING / STRAPPING [ ] FIREPLACE & CHIMNEY [ ] INSULATION [ ] FINAL [ ] FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION [ ] RRE RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION [ ] FIRE RESISTANT PENETRATION [ ] ELECTRI.CAL (ROUGH) [ ] ELECTRICAL (FINAL) REMARKS. ~ DATE /~/~//~"-~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPT. 765-1802 INSPECTION [ ] ROUGH PLBG. [ ] ~L~ATION I )~FINAL [ ] FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION [ ] FIRE RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION [ ] FIRE RESISTANT PENETRATION [ ] ELECTRICAL (ROUGH) [ ] ELECTRICAL (FINAL) []FOUNDATION 1ST []FOUNDATION 2ND []FRAMING / STRAPPING []FIREPLACE & CHIMNEY REI DATE INSPECTOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 TEL: (631) 765-1802 FAX: (631) 765-9502 SoutholdTown.NorthFork.net 37 ? Examined (/~ , 20 ! ~ Approved d~/0, 20..L~ - Disapproved a/~ ~I~-._Q~,,-)~-'-~J~.~ ~--f--~. ~ ~ Bulldog ~sp~ctor BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CI-I~CK.LIST Do you have or need the following, before applying? Board of Heal~h 4 sets of Building Plans Phnni~g Board approval Survey. Che~k Septic Form N.Y.S.D.E.C. Tmst~e~ Flood Permit Storm-Wat~,' As~essmeet Form Cont~ct: Attorney for Applicant: Mail to: Re, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP 36 N. New York Ave., Huntington, NY 11743 Phone: 631-425-4100 · APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date INSTRUCTIONS a. This application MUST be completely filled in by Vjpewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector with 4 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 tm 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 inspiration throughout the work. e. No building shall tm occupied or used in whole or in p~rt 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 within 18 months from such date. If no zoning amendments or other regulations affecting the property have been enacted in the interim, the Building lmpoctor may authorize, in wrifing~ the extension ofth~ permit for an addition six months. Thereafter, a new permit shall bo required. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to tho Building Department for the iszuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of thc Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or Regulations, for the construction of building.% additions, or alterations or for removal or demolition as herein described. The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building ~ode, housing code., and regulatious, and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for noces.~ury inspections. MetroPCS New York, LLC (Signature of applicant or name, ifa corEoration) 5 Skyline Drive, Hawthorne NY 10532 (Mailing address ofapplic~n0 State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, eleetrici~, plumber or builder Applicant is Lessee Name of owner of premises Artl~ur V. Junge /~ ,~,ff/ (As on the tax mil or latest deed) ][f. apvl~Ot is ~.cqrgo$~ioJt, ~duly authorized officer" tvterror~ ~ew forK; t.L. By: ~ (Name and title of ~'p-omte officer) Builders License No. Plumbers License No; Electricians License No. Other Tmde's License No. N/A 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done: 21855 Count,/Road 48 House Number Street Cu!chosue ' Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 96 Block 1' Lot' 19.1 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot 2. State existing use and o~cupaney, ofpmmises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing USe and occupancy Commercial and public utili .fy wireless telecommunications facility b. Intended Use and occupancy. Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility 3. Nature of work (cheek which applicable): New Building Addition- Alteration Repair Removal · . Demolition 'Other Work Applicant propose to extend the existing rnonopole and colocate its public utilit~ ~i~'eless teleCommunicatiOns antennas or[ the extension, and install related ~quipmpnA on the ground, all as depicted in the plans submitt~ herewith. 4. Esttmareo~ost $1oo_000.00 . eec . (To be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units N/A Number.of dwelling units on each floor If garage, number of cars 'Commercial and public utility wireless telecommunicatioA 6. If business, commeroial~or mixed occupancy, specify natare and extent of each type of usefacili _ty 7. Dimensions of. existing structures, if any: Front Rear Depth Height Number'of Stories * Existing 100.5'+/- monopole Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front Rear Depth Height. Number of Stories * 109'+/- monopo]e with relocated . lightning rod thereon 8. Dimensions of entire ne~' construction: Front. .Rear Depth Height Number of Stories* Proposed 8.5'+/~ extension to existing monopole and proposed 360 square / 45,589 square feet foot equipment area 9. Size of lot: Front Rear Depth 10. Date of Purchase 4/6/1987 . .Name of Former Owner .Timothy Scott Gray· 1 !. Zone or use district in which premises are situated Light Industrial District 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 x 418 Mohlton Hill Rd~ 14. Names of Owner.of promises Arthur V. Jun~e Name of Architect MTM Design Group, Inc. . Name of Contractor NO Address Lvman. NH 03585 Phone No. 603-838-8982 Address P.O. Box 3) Hazlet, NJ I/hone No 732-888-6210 Address 07730' Phone Nol 15 a. is this property :within 100 feet qf a tidal wetiand or a freshwater wetiand? *YES NO__ * IF YES, SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUS ..T~.. & 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. 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 pr below, must Provide topographical data on survey. 18. Are there any covenants ~nd restrictions with respee~ to this property? * YES X NO __ · IF YES, PROVIDE A COPY. STATE OF NEw YORK) SS: COUNTY OF~ '"~C~, Y'~ ~1 ~ i being daly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) above named, (S)He is the Lessee / Applicant (Contractor, Agent, Corporate Officer, etc.) of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are hue 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. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DONALD J. WILCEl~SKI Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS PIERCE RAFFEHTY JAMES H. RICH HI MARTIN II. SIDOR PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD bl~.~IG ADDRI/SS: P.O. Box 1179 Southo]d, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (~or. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 6~1 765-3136 February 26, 2013 John Coughlin, Esq. 36 North New York Avenue Huntington, NY 11743 Re: Proposed Site Plan for MetroPCS ~ Junge Located at 21855 CR 48, +1- 800' west of Cox Lane, Cutchogue SCTM#1000-96-1-19.1 Zoning District: Light Industrial (LI) Dear Mr. Coughlin: The Planning Board, at their February 25, 2013 Work Session, found that the requirements of the above-referenced site plan and special exception have been completed based on the site inspection made February 20, 2013. The site is now in conformance with the Approved Site Plan, dated May 11, 2010, prepared by MTM Design Group, Inc., last revised May 18, 2011. This letter does not condone any changes from the approved site plan and approvals from other agencies; Planning Board approval is required prior to any significant changes to the site. Please, if you have any questions regarding this site plan or its process, do not hesitate to call this office_ Very truly yours, Donald J. Wilcenski Chairman CC: Planning Board Heather Lanza, Planning Director Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector Jamie Richter, Town Engineer 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 State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination Non-Significance March 12, 2012 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cot. Main Rd. & Youngs AveJ Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Name of Action: SCTM#: Location: SEQR Statue: Type I ( ) Conditioned Negative Declaration: Description of Action: 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. MetroPCS, New York at Junge 1000-96-1-19.1 21855 CR 48, ±800' West of Cox Lane, Cutchogue Unlisted (X) Yes ( ) No (X) This application is for proposed 8'6" pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 100'5" monopole, and install related base equipment in a LI Zoning District on CR 48, Cutchogue. 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 requires Special Exception Approval from the Southold Town Planning Board pursuant to Section 280-70(E) of the Southold Town Code. SEQR Negative Declaration - Pa~qe Two - March 12, 2012 The property is currently improved with a 100'.5" monopole and equipment area within a fenced compound (see photo below)~ The property is zoned Light Industrial (LI). Zoning districts located within the vicinity of the parcel include LI (Limited Business) to the north (town landfill), R-40 (Residential) immediately to the west and AC (Agricultural Conservation) to the south. Figure 1. Subject parcel (black arrow) with zoning boundary lines. The land use on site is Light Industrial (motor vehicle repair) and private utility. Surrounding land uses within the vicinity of the site are residential and commercial. Based on the existing use and improved facilities, the proposed action will not cause a substantia~ intensification of use over the current use. Further, the proposed action wi~t 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 wil~ occur as a result of the proposed action. The tower is visible from County Route 48 and New York State Route 25, New York State Scenic Byways and secondary roads. A Visual Analysis (dated May 4,2010), prepared by EBI Consulting, has been submitted. Based upon the analysis, the proposed action will not result in a significant impact to the existing view. Therefore, the Planning E~oard has determined that the 8'6" pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on the existing 100'.5" monopole will SEQR Ne.qative Declaration - Pa.qe Three - March 12, 2012 not result in significant impacts to the view sheds important to the community. Equipment cabinets will be located in a fenced compound and screened with 18 evergreen trees 10 feet in height. No exterior lighting is proposed, Further, 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 (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. 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. No impact to soils is proposed. The New York Department of Environmental Conversation in a 2009 policy memorandum entitled Guidelines for Consultation with NY Natural Hedtage regarding Proposed Co-locations 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. However, an Osprey nest (Species of Special Concern) has been constructed on the monopole in the top antennae array. Ospreys are migratory and use nests between March and October. This nest has been active in past years. The NYSDEC was contacted to determine protocols for nest removal. If there are no birds present prior to March 31st' the nest can be removed. If the nest is to be removed after March 31st' a Migratory Bird Depredation Permit from USFWS is required: Link http:l/www.aphis.usda.Rov/ws/calnewslusfws mi.qratory bird depredation permit.pdf. Construction is not permitted once the birds return. It is recommended that due to the safety issues the nest poses to the antennae array, it is recommended that the nest be removed prior to March 31. Interference with a migratory wildlife species will occur if the action is implemented as planned. An Osprey nest will be removed from the antennae array of the monopole. This, however, would affect the Osprey on site and will not result in a significant impact to the species local population. No significant impacts to a significant habitat area will OCCUr. The site is improved, therefore, the action would not result in adverse impacts to cultural/historic resources. Similarly, the proposed action will not 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 SEQR Neqative Declaration - PaRe Four- March 12, 2012 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: Mark Terry, Principal Planner Southold Town Planning Board 631-765-1938 cc: Town Board 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 $OUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hail 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: Approval: Special Exception for MetroPCS New York at Junge Located at 21855 CR 48, +800' West of Cox Lane, Cutchogue SCTM#1000-96-1-19.1 Zoning District: Light Industrial Dear Mr. Coughlin: The Southold Town Planning Board adopted the following resolutions at a meeting held on Monday, March 12, 2012: WHEREAS, an application for a Special Exception & Site Plan Approval for a public utility wireless communication facility was accepted for review on November 22, 2011, including a site plan prepared by MTM Design Group Inc., dated May 18, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board reviewed the above-referenced request for a Special Exception for a proposed 8'6" pole extension to co-locate a wireless communication facility of 6 antennas (2 per sector) on an existing 100'5" monopole, and install related base equipment in a LI Zoning District on CR 48, Cutchogue; and WHEREAS, on November 22, 2011, 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 January 9, 2012, a public hearing was held and closed; and MetroPCS ~,, Jun,qe PaRe Two March 13, 2012 WHEREAS, on February 23, 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 WHEREAS, on February 27, 2012, the General Requirements in 280-70 were met; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2012, the Southold Town Planning Board made a determination that the applicant has satisfied the requirements for a Special Exception pursuant to Town Code Section 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. 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 overall appearance. That all proposed structures, equipment and material shall be readily accessible for fire and police protection; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2012, the Southold Town Planning Board reviewed the application to determine whether it met the additional standards for a Special Exception Approval for a Wireless Communication Facility pursuant to §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; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2012, the Southold Town Building Inspector reviewed the plan and certified that the proposed action is a permitted use in this Light Industrial Zoning District; 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; and be it further MetroPCS (~, Jun.qe Pa.qe Three March 13, 2012 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 Co-location Facility as shown in the site plan application for "MetroPCS Co- location", prepared by MTM Design Group, Inc., dated May 3, 2011, and last revised May 18, 2011. Please also note the following requirements in the Southold Town Code relating to Special Exceptions: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. Enclosed please find a copy of the Negative Declaration for your records. If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this resolution, please contact the Planning Board Office. Very truly yours, ~ilcenski Chairman Encl. cc: Town Engineer Building Dept. Town H~ Annex ~4~75 M~in Road P,O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 119714)959 Telephone (631) 765.1802 m-er rio' -"~'~ REQUESTED BY: ' Name: Name: No.: BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPLICATION FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTION Date: JOBSITE INFORMATION: (*Indicates required information) *Name: *Address: I~ *Cross Street: *Phone No.: Permit NO.: ,~2~Q Tax Map District: 1000 . Section: ~ *BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK (Please Print Clearly) Block: I Lot: (Please Circle All That Apply) *Is job ready for inspection: ~~--~ Rough In Final *Do.you need a Tamp Certificate: Tamp Information (If needed) New Service: Re-connect ~..unaergmun , ~ber of M6ter~_._Chan ....................... "~'"~'~'_~Y~L.. ,xu,,,u~, u~ ,~_~j_.~,nange o~ ~er ,ce uvam~ Additional Info~a~n: PA~ENT DUE WITH APPLICI .......... ~ ~,o '~, JUL DeGenova, Lori IContractorl From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Aker, Julie Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:08 AM Frederick Hamilton Hickman, Alan; Hamilton, Barbara; DeGenova, Lori (Contractor); Sands, Russell (Contractor); Barbara Loucks; Michelle Gibbons; Turcotte, Allen; Khan, Mohamed RE: NYSDEC R1 Osprey Removal / 806579 FW: Photos Osprey Nest NY7314 806579 ny cutchogue Hi Chip, The nest was removed yesterday - see attached photos for your records. [hanks, Julie From: Frederick Hamilton [mailto:fxhamilt@gw.dec.state.ny.us] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 3:03 PM To: Aker, .]ulie Cc: Hickman, Alan; Hamilton, Barbara; DeGenova, Lori (Contractor); Sands, Russell (Contractor); Barbara Loucks; Michelle Gibbons Subject: RE: NYSDEC R1 Osprey Removal / 806579 Thank you 3ulie, I will inform the local ECO. [f you have any questions or are un able to preform the work by the 31st please let me know. Yes if you could notify me that the removal has been completed ! would appreciate it. Thank you. Chip Hamilton Senior Wildlife Biologist NYS DEC Region 1 50 Circle Road SUNY Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11790 631) 444-0308>>> "Aker, ]ulie" <]ulie. Aker(~crowncastle.com> 3/9/2012 1:55 PM >>> Hi Chip, Attached is the completed form for the removal of an inactive Osprey nest. All work will be completed by March Do you need an email once the nest has been removed? Please provide your approval at your earliest convenience. lhank you, Julie From: Frederick Hamilton [mailto:fxhamilt@gw.dec.state.ny.us] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 12:44 PM To: Hickman, Alan Cc: Barbara Loucks; rvlichelle Gibbons Subject: NYSDEC R1 Osprey Removal Hello Allan, Please see the attached PDF's regarding the conversation we had today about the removal of the Osprey nest in Cutchogue NY. Please fill out and send back the Removal Notification Form before any work is done in the area of the nest. As well keep in mind the importance of finishing all work by the March 31st dead line. if you have any questions or issues please let me know ASAP. Chip Hamilton Senior Wildlife Biologist NYS DEC Region ~. 50 Circle Road SUNY Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY ! !790 63:~) 444-0308 This email may contain confidential or privileged material. Use or disclosure of it by anyone other than the recipient is unauthorized. If you are not an intended recipient, please delete this email. NIELSEN, HUBER & GOUGHLIN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT L~W TI~LI~PHOlgE: (0131) 425-4100 Fxcsz~ing: (631) 425-4104 March 26, 2012 By Hand Building Department lown of Southold Annex Building 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Attn.: Mr. Michael Verity RE: MetroPCS New York, LLC (Site No. NY7314) Building Permit Application Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: 21855 County Road 48, Cutchogue, New York SCTM#: 1000-96-1 19.1 Dear Mr. Verity: 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. We enclose herewith the following documents required for processing the Building Permit: I. MetroPCS Check No. 8396 in the amount of $500.00, which sum represents the Building Permit fee pursuant to Town Code Section 280-74A(1)(a); 2. Copies of Planning Board Site Plan and Special Exception Approvals, dated March 13, 2012, along with SEQR Negative Declaration, dated March 12, 2012; and 3. Photographs, taken March 13, 2012, documenting the removal of the existing osprey nest at the site, along with a copy of the email correspondence of Julie Aker of Crown Castle to Chip Hamilton of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation providing notice of said removal of nest, pursuant to Condition I set forth in the Planning Board's Site Plan Approval. Please contact our office once the Building Permit is ready so that we can pick up same from the Building Department. Very truly yours, R~, NIELSEN, HUBER & COUGHLIN, LLP By: ~N.~~ JC:mk Enclosures Cc via email: Heather Lanza, (with copy of line item 3 above) MAR 2 6 20]2 BI DG 0EPI TO?v!' ()F ~;r)!IDqO! D DESIGNu GROUP5 ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING · PO BOX 3 · HAZLET NEW ]ERSEY 07730 · TEL: 732 817 9090 · FAX: 732 847 4335 · April 26, 2012 Mike Verity Town of Southold Building Deportment Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: MetroPCS proposed installation 21855 County Road 48, Cutchogue Section: 096, Block: 1, Lot: 19.1 AP~-27 2012 TRANSMI11'AL PROJECT # DESCRIPTION MTM PROJECT # # OF COPIES NY7314 S&S Construction Drawings rev5 09MPSTS014 (1 lx17) We have enclosed the above documents for your use. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Jenna Esposito MTM Design Group, Inc. RI , NIELSEN, HUBER & GOUGHLIN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 30 NOaT:4 Nsw Yo~g AVSN~JE HUNTINGTON, NEw YOH 11743 TELEPHONE: (631) 425-4100 FACSIMILE: (631) 425-4104 Ma5 14,2012 VIA UPS Building Department Town of Southold Annex Building 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 Attn.: Ms. Connie Bunch RE: MetroPCS New York, LLC (Site No. NY7314) Application for Certificate of Occupancy and CO Fee Check for pendiug Building Permit No. 37209 Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: 21855 C.R. 48, Cutchogue, NY SCTM#: 1000-96- I - 19.1 l)ear Ms. Bunch: On behalf of MetroPCS New York, LLC ("MetroPCS"), and pursuant to your request, we enclose, I~ct'cwith. thc following documents: 1. Application for Certificate of Occupancy; and 2. Our firm's check number 1317 in the amount of $50.00, which amount represents tile required Certificate of Occupancy fee. Be respcctfally request that our office be notified once tile Btfilding Permit is issued so that we may pick up same from the Town. l'hanking y'ou for your courtesies, we remain Very truly yours, R['L NIEI.SEN. HUBER & COUGHLIN, LLP J.IC:mk Euclosures MAY 1 5 2012 BI (}g DEPf. Dv,,'r, or SO[:THOLD RI , NIELSEN, HUBER & COUGHLIN, LLP ATTORNEYS 2~T LAW TI~LI~PHOI~I~: ((101) 425-4100 FAG$Ii*IILB: ((~01) 425-4104 July 5,2011 Bv Hand Building Department Town of Southold Annex Building 54375 Route 25 Southold, NY 11971 RE: MetroPCS New York, LLC (Site No. NY7314) Revised Submission for Pending Building Permit Application Proposed Public Utility Wireless Telecommunications Facility Premises: 21855 County Road 48, Cutchogue, New York SCTM#: 1000- 96- 1 19.1 JUL ,-7 2011 BLOG, DEPT. TOWN 0F SOUTHOLI) [)ear Sir or Madam: 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. MetroPCS' Building Permit Application was filed with your office on March 31, 2010 and a Notice of Disapproval was issued on April 21, 2010. MetroPCS' Site Plan and Special Exception Permit Applications were filed with the Planning Board on July 2, 2010. However, in light of the enactment of Local Law No. 4 of 2010 and the amendments made therein to Town ('ode Article XVII addressing the zoning of "Wireless Communications Facilities," MetroPCS has modified ~ts proposal and revised a number of documents to further comply with the Town's Code provisions. You will note that MetroPCS has reduced the proposed height extension from 12' to 8'6". Accordingly, we submit herewith the following revised documents for issuance of an updated Notice of Disapproval: 1. Updated Building Permit Application Form; 2. MetroPCS Check No. 7435 in the amount of $50.00, which sum represents the fee for an updated Notice of Disapproval; 3. Two (2) counterparts of revised Antenna Site FCC RF Compliance Assessment and Report of Pinnacle Telecom Group, dated June 30, 2011, demonstrating the project's compliance with the Maximum Permissible Exposure regulations pursuant to Code §§ 280-74B(1)(a) and 280-70(K); 4. Two (2) counterparts of revised Structural Analysis Report, prepared by GPD Group, dated April 29, 2011, documenting the facility's structural compliance with local, state and federal codes pursuant to (;ode §280-74B(1)(b); 5. Updated Gap and Propagation Maps, dated June 17, 2011, pursuant to Code§ 280-74B(1)(d) and (e); 6. Updated RF Affidavit of Nicholas Balzano, pursuant to §280-74B(l)(e); 7. CD Rom, with digital shapefiles of updated gap and propagation maps, §280-74B(1 )(f); and 8. Four (4) sets of revised Construction Drawings with Site Plans and Elevations, prepared by MTM Design Group, Inc., revision 4, dated May 18,2011. Town of Southold Building Department Re: MetroPCS (.~ 21855 C.R. 48, Cutchogue, NY July 5, 2011 Page 2 of 2 We have not submitted an additional Building Permit Application fee check in the amount of $500.00 as same was submitted with our original application in 2010 (MetroPCS Check No. 5117). In addition, please note that copies of all other Building Permit Application filing requirements, including Owner's Authorization, FCC License, FAA Determination, Search Ring Maps, Lease, Deed and Surveys are on file with your office and are not impacted by the modified design; accordingly those items have not been revised. Should you require any additional copies or further information, please advise. Very truly yours, RI~. NIELSEN, HUBER & COUGHLIN, LLP By: ~nCo(~ JC:mk Enclosures Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Telephone (631 ) 765-1802 Fax (631) 765-9502 December 18, 2012 BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Re, Nielsen, Huber & Coughlin, LLP 36 North New York Ave Huntington, NY 11743 Re: Metro PCS New York, LLC (Site No. NY7314), 21855 CR 48 Cutchogue NY TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Following Items Are Needed To Complete Your Certificate of Occupancy: __ Application for Certificate of Occupancy. (Enclosed) Electrical Underwriters Certificate. (contact your electrician) A fee of $50.00. Final Health Department Approval. Plumbers Solder Certificate. (All permits involving plumbing after 4/1184) Trustees Certificate of Compliance. (Town Trustees # 765-1892) V/~Final Planning Board Approval. (Planning # 765-1938) Final Fire Inspection from Fire Marshall. Final Landmark Preservation approval. Final inspection by Building Dept BUILDING PERMIT: 37209- Wireless Telecommunications Facility 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"): 21855 County Road 48 Cutchogue, New York District 1000 Section 96, Block 1, Lot 19.1 [MetroPCS Site No. NY 7314] STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) AFFIDAVIT OF RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEER 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' wireless telecommunications network in Suffolk County. 2. I submit this affidavit in support of MetroPCS' application for approval to install a wireless telecommunications facility at the Premises. Pursuant to this application, MetroPCS requests approval to affix public utility wireless telecommunications antennas to a proposed extension on an existing monopole and install related equipment on the ground as depicted in the plans submitted herewith. 3. MetroPCS is considered a public utility for zoning purposes under the laws of the State of New York and is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to serve the public within Suffolk County and throughout much of the United States. MetroPCS strives to provide reliable service throughout its licensed coverage area. 4. MetroPCS is in the process of establishing a wireless telecommunications network throughout Suffolk County. The proposed facility will allow MetroPCS to provide reliable coverage in the vicinity of the proposed site. Unreliable service can represent an inconvenience to users of MetroPCS' services and can have serious consequences during times of emergency or disaster. 5. In order to understand why the proposed antenna site is needed, it is necessary to understand how MetroPCS' system works from an engineering standpoint. MetroPCS' wireless telecommunications system is designed so that low powered base stations are strategically located at determined distances apart and at predetermined heights. Due to such factors as hills, valleys, trees, buildings, and other physical obstructions and due to the nature of radio waves, each coverage area or "cell" is irregularly shaped. With sufficient signal strength from each base station, the MetroPCS user can reliably transmit, receive or maintain voice or data connections. The sites are ordinarily engineered to cover a limited area so that an antenna facility will cover only the area surrounding it but will not interfere with other sites in the system. 6. MetroPCS has established design criteria so that its wireless network will provide reliable wireless service to its customers, whether those customers are on the street, in a vehicle, or in a building. Providing reliable service to MetroPCS' customers within vehicles and buildings is critical for MetroPCS to provide the quality of wireless service that customers demand and successfully compete with other wireless providers. 7. To meet customer demands and expectations, MetroPCS strives to provide In-Vehicle (or In-Car) coverage and In-Building coverage. These coverage levels represent the minimum signal strength and reliability of service needed to transmit, receive or maintain a voice or data connection at the mobile handset as the environment changes. 8. MetroPCS has reliable In-Vehicle coverage when a customer can place or receive a call within a vehicle successfully across 95% of a site's coverage area. In-Vehicle coverage generally results in unreliable in-building coverage. Since the signal level is stronger closer to the antenna site than further away from the antenna site, there will be some coverage within buildings close to the site. 9. MetroPCS has reliable In-Building Residential coverage when a MetroPCS customer can place or receive a call while in a building that is three stories or less in height successfully across 95% of the site's coverage area. This type of coverage will typically provide reliable coverage over the majority of the cell coverage area; however in some areas, and specifically at the outer geographic boundaries of the cell site's coverage area, coverage will be restricted and will likely lead to customers dissatisfaction if customers try to place or receive a call inside a windowless room, cellars or emergency shelters. 10. MetroPCS has reliable In-Building Commercial overage when a MetroPCS customer can place or receive a call while in a building that is greater than three stories in height successfully across 95% of the site's coverage area. In-Building Commercial coverage is targeted for urban residential centers and business districts with high-rise buildings, and suburban business centers. Coverage issues may still occur in hard to serve locations such as within elevators and parking structures. l 1. To provide these levels of coverage, MetroPCS has scientifically determined the strength of the wireless signal ("signal strength") necessary to provide these levels of coverage. Because wireless signals are attenuated (i.e. degraded or partially blocked) by obstructions such as trees, automobile windows, automobile sheet metal, and building materials such as wood, brick and metal, a wireless signal must be of sufficient strength in the ambient environment (i.e. outside with no obstructions) to reliably penetrate into automobiles and buildings. 12. Wireless signal strength is measured on a logarithmic power scale referenced to I milli- watt of power. Signal strength levels less than 1 milli-watt being negative. The smaller the negative dBm number, the stronger the signal. For example, -75dBm is a stronger signal level than 85dBm. An ambient signal level of-95dBm would provide reliable In-Vehicle coverage on MetroPCS' system. MetroPCS' system requires an ambient signal level of-85dBm to provide reliable In-Building Residential coverage, and an ambient signal level of-75dBm to provide reliable In-Building Commercial coverage. These signal level requirements provide the basis for MetroPCS' design criteria. 3 13. MetroPCS' design criteria for wireless facilities serving an area are based upon providing 95% reliable signal over a site's coverage area to ensure reliable service for customers. This standard reflects a business judgment that 100% reliability is an unrealistic goal at this time due to financial, technical and environmental constraints. A 95% level of reliability is consistent with the level of service provided by MetroPCS' competitors and is the standard in the industry. Providing service at this level allows MetroPCS to satisfy customers' demands and compete on an equal footing with competitors serving the market. 14. To achieve the 95% reliable design goal, MetroPCS conducts extensive analysis based upon MetroPCS' technology and the area served. 15. In order to eliminate the service deficiency in a particular area, MetroPCS performs signal propagation studies to determine the height and location of the needed cell site. Based on its studies, MetroPCS determined that an antenna facility would have to be established within a narrowly defined search area in order to remedy the service gap in question. In this case, we determined that the installation of the proposed facility will allow MetroPCS to provide reliable service in the vicinity of the Premises. 16. what coverage MetroPCS could provide if it located its antennas at the next available height on the existing monopole (60'). Such a facility would provide approximately 1.58 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 3.183 square miles of reliable coverage at -85dBm. The proposed extension will allow MetroPCS to provide an additional 1.603 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 MetroPCS to provide such reliable service in the vicinity of the Premises. The location and height of the antennas is determined by some or all of the following factors: availability The existing monopole is the tallest structure in the search area. I conducted studies of 4 of existing structures, willingness of property owners to enter into leases, drive test data, location of existing antenna sites in the area, topography in the surrounding area, land cover features in the area such as buildings and foliage, and the results provided by computer propagation software that enables radio frequency engineers to predict the anticipated signal propagation at a given height and location. 18. In order to illustrate the effect that the proposed site would have on coverage in its vicinity, propagation maps have been prepared demonstrating the different coverage levels summarized above. The maps depict the areas presently enjoying reliable service in the vicinity, and the area to be served by the proposed site. As the maps indicate, the proposed facility is of vital importance to MetroPCS' efforts to provide reliable service to the area in question. Unless this application is granted, MetroPCS will be unable to provide reliable service in the vicinity of the Premises. 19. The antennas proposed will not interfere with radio or television service or public safety telecommunications in the surrounding area. S_w..o. II! to before me this ~'fJ')~ ~L ~ ,[~011. o~ - ~.HOLAS~A~ANO 5 Date: April 29, 2011 Cheryl Schultz Crown Castle USA Inc. 3530 Toringdon Way; Suite 300 Charlotte, NC 28277 (704) 405-6632 Subject: Carrier Designation: Crown Castle Designation: Structural Analysis Report Metro PCS Co-Locate Carrier Site Number: Carrier Site Name: Crown Castle BU Number: Crown Castle Site Name: Crown Castle JDE Job Number: GPD GROUP GPD Group 520 South Main St.; Suite 2531 Akron, OH 44311 (330) 572-2137 icheronis(o~(~od(~rouD.com NY 7314 NY 7314 806579 NY Cu~hogue 958280 149440 Engineering Firm Designation: GPD Associates Project Number: 2011178.90 Site Data: 21855 Country Rd., Cutchogue, NY 11935, Suffolk County Latitude 41° 1 '46.57', Longitude -72° 29' 50.29" 100 Foot - Monopole Tower wi 8.5' Extension Dear Ms. Cheryl Schultz, GPD Group is pleased to submit this "Structural Analysis Report" to determine the structural integrity of the above mentioned tower. This analysis has been performed in accordance with the Crown Castle Structural 'Statement of Work' and the terms of Crown Castle Purchase Order Number 413832, in accordance with application 116487, revision 4. The purpose of the analysis is to determine acceptability of the tower stress level. Based on our analysis we have determined the tower stress level for the structure and foundation, under the following load case, to be: LC1: Structure w/Existing + Reserved + Proposed Note; See Table I and Table II for the proposed and existing/reserved loading, respectively. Sufficient Capacity The analysis has been performed in accordance with the TIA-222-G standard and all local code requirements based upon a wind speed of 120 mph 3-second gust. We at GPD Group appreciate the opportunity of providing our continuing professional services to you and Crown Castle USA Inc. If you have any questions or need further assistance on this or any other projects please give us a call. ~i~~Respe ully submitt d by:~~ 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 Schomer Burns and DeHaven, Inc Akron. Cleveland. Columbus. Marion. Youngstown. Indianapolis. Atlanta. Seattle. Phoenix Crown Castle USA, Inc. 1 O0 Ft Monopole w/8.5' Extension Tower Structural Analysis Project Number 2011178.90, Application 116487, Revision4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) INTRODUCTION 2) ANALYSIS CRITERIA Table 1 - Proposed Antenna and Cable Information Table 2 - Existing and Reserved Antenna and Cable Information Table 3 - Design Antenna and Cable Information 3) ANALYSIS PROCEDURE Table 4 - Documents Provided 3.1 ) Analysis Method 3.2) Assumptions 4) ANALYSIS RESULTS Table 5 - Section Capacity (Summary) Table 6 - Tower Component Stresses vs. Capacity - LC1 4.1 ) Recommendations 5) DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES 6) APPENDIX A RISATower Output 7) APPENDIX B Base Level Drawing 8) APPENDIX C Additional Calculations April 29, 2011 CCI BU No 806579 Page 2 RISATower Repod - version 5.4.2.0 Crown Castle USA, Inc. 1 O0 Ft Monopole w/8.5' Extension Tower Structural Analysis Project Number 2011178.90, Application 116487, Revision 4 Ap~ 29,2011 CCIBU No 806579 Page 3 1) INTRODUCTION The existing monopole has 12 sides and is evenly tapered from 36" (fiat-fiat) at the base to 14.5" (flat-fiat) at the top. It has three major sections, connected with slip joints. The tower is painted white and has no tower lighting. The tower was originally designed by EEl in August of 1991 for a wind speed of 80 mph per EIA-222-D. Modifications designed by PJF (Job #: 41704-152, dated 11/30/05) have been installed and were considered in the analysis. They consisted of installing modification plates to the pole shaft and adding anchor rods to the base plate. Modifications designed by GPD (Project #: 2010111.14 Rev. C, dated 8/18/10) have also been installed and were considered in this analysis. They consist of installing modification channels to the pole shaft, removing existing fiat plate reinforcement on the pole, installing additional anchor rods to the base plate, and installing a concrete collar to the tower base foundation. The proposed 12' tower extension called out in these drawings was not installed was therefore not considered. The modifications designed by GPD (Project #: 2011111.18, dated 3/30/11) which consist of adding an 8.5' extension to the top of the tower were considered in this analysis. 2) ANALYSIS CRITERIA The dgorous structural analysis was performed for this tower in accordance with the requirements of TIA-222-G Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures using a 3-second gust wind speed of 120 mph with no ice, 50 mph with 0.75 inch ice thickness and 60 mph under service loads. Table I - Proposed Antenna and Cable Information I center! MountingI Line LeVel (ft)I Ei~ati°n 30 I 30 of Antenna AntennasI Manufaotumr 6 Kathrein 1 I Maxrad 1 Antenna Model 800 10504 T-Arm Mount ['FA 702-3] GPS-TMG-26NMS Pipe Mount [PM 601-1] Lihes: I $~ze (in); 12 1-5/8 1 3/8 1 1/2 Notes: 1) See Appendix B for the proposed coax layout. RISATower Report - version 5.4.2.0 Crown Castle USA, Inc. 100 Ft Monopo/e w/ 8.5' Extension Tower Structural Analysis Project Number 2011178.90, Application 116487, Revision 4 Ap~ 29,2011 CCIBU No 806579 Page 4 Table 2 - Existing and Reserved Antenna and Cable Information Feed Center NUmber Antenna ~tehn~ M~d~i ~ d Line of M~nUf~cturer Lih~ 6 I Antel ADA-85408580CF 104 3 I Antel i ADA-63406380CF 100 ! 1 ] PlafformMount [LP 602-1] 1 Comsat RSI T A-18A24N-U 100 I T-Arm Mount ['FA 602-3] Andrew I E15S08P80 TMA 7/8 3/8 [ 6 I Andrew ~ TMB~-6516-~M ...................................... [---3~-'---'~ ....... ~i; ...... ~' AP13-850/065D/DT6 12 7/8 1 82 70 80 1 !Platform Mount [LP 305-1] 3 I Powerwave f LGP17205 TMA I 6 Powerwave 3 ~ Kathrein I 800 10121 3 T Powerwave I 7770.00 I 3 ~ Powerwave I 7250.02 70 7/8 2 12 7/8 1 '~ f' T-Arm Mount [TA 602-3] Notes: 1 ) SLA loading. 2) Both the existing and SLA loadings were considered. The existing loading was found to control the analysis. Table 3 - Design Antenna and Cable Information Center Number Numberl MOunting Line Antenna Ahtenna M~i of Feed Line Level (ft) E!~ation Manufacturer 12 ; ALP 9212 100 100 1 ~I ~ AMPS type platform 3 ~' DB560 8' 80 80 2 , Standard Dishes RISATower Report - version 5.4.2.0 Crown Cestle USA, Inc. 100 Ft Monopole w/ 8.5' Extension Tower Structura/ Analysis Project Number 201117&90, Application 116487, Revision4 Apd129,2011 CCI BU No 806579 Page 5 3) ANALYSIS PROCEDURE Table 4 - Documents Provided Document Remarks Original Tower Drawings i EEl Job #: CSONY257, dated 8/21/91 .... DOC ID # 642734 Crown I~-i~l~" Edwards & Kelcey, Inc. Dwg #: 92-8012, DOC ID # 260900 Crown DMZ Foundation Drawings I dated 7/31/91 Modification Drawings ! PJF Job #: 41704-152, dated 11/30/05 DOC ID # 2412725 !' GPD Project #: 2010111.14 Rev. C, Modification Drawings dated 8/18/10 DOD ID #2619474 Crown DMZ Post Modification i GPD Project #: 2010111.68, dated 8/26/10 DOC ID # 2710931 Crown DMZ Inspection Report Previous Analysis i GPD Project #: 2010111.18, dated 3/30/11 DOC ID # 2861709 Crown DMZ Modification Drawings ! GPD Project #: 2011111.18, dated 3/30/11 ~OC ID # 2861710 Crown DMZ Crown DMZ J 3.1) Analysis Method RISATower (version 5.4.2.0), a commercially available analysis software package, was used to create a three-dimensional model of the tower and calculate member stresses for various loading cases. Selected output from the analysis is included in Appendix A. 3.2) Assumptions 1 ) Tower and structures were built in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 2) The tower and structures have been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specification. 3) The configuration of antennas, transmission cables, mounts and other appurtenances are as specified in Tables 1 and 2 and the referenced drawings. 4) When applicable, transmission cables are considered as structural components for calculating wind loads as allowed by TIA-222-G. 5) Mount sizes, weights, and manufacturers are best estimates based on site photos provided and were determined without the benefit of a site visit by GPD. 6) The existing splice plates and end connections for the bent plate pole reinforcement were considered adequate and were not analyzed due to lack of information. Additionally the intermediate bolt connection spacings were assumed due to lack of information. 7) Transition stiffeners at the base of the tower were not considered in this analysis. However, the tower base section was found to be adequate based on the modified reactions due to the installed anchor rod modifications. 8) Additional moment due to tower eccentricity on the modified pad foundation was considered in this analysis. 9) All member connections and foundation steel reinforcing are assumed designed to meet or exceed the load carrying capacity of the connected member and surrounding soils respectively unless otherwise specified in this report. 10) The modification drawings designed by GPD (Project #: 2011111.18, dated 3/30/11) were considered in this analysis and shall be installed pdor to the proposed loading. This analysis may be affected if any assumptions are not valid or have been made in error. GPD Associates should be notified to determine the effect on the structural integrity of the tower. RISATower Report - version 5.4.2.0 Crown Castle USA, Inc. 100 Ft Monopole w/ 8.5' Extension Tower Structural Analysis Project Number 2011178.90, Application 116487, Revision 4 Apd129,2011 CCIBU NO 806579 Page 6 4) ANALYSIS RESULTS Table 5 - Section Capacity (Summary) '=d I c-°-I ' ' ' L~ 108.5- 100.5 Pole TP12x1"2x0.375 / 1 / -~91 431.40 / 17.6 Pass L2 100.5-100 Pole TPi4.5x12x0.375 ~-----'~ 431.40 I"~--~; L3 ['100 - 82.083 Pole TP18.5521x14.Sx0.1875 ~-3 -~]~ 785.~ ~-~---] Pass L6 60.1667 - Polo & Reinf. TP28.093x22.9987x0.9102 6 -22.50 5583.55 33.7477 16.2083- 12.9583 L9 Pole & ReinL ~00.~*~ Pass L10 I 12.9583- 9 Pole & Reinf. 'I--~---~' Pass Lll I- 9- 0 Pole & Reinf. TP36x33.943x0.8124 11 ~ -39.52 6275.66 I'-~)"6~4~[ Pass Pole (L3) / 9~;4--'~' Pass Rating = 'I'-"*~. ~l Pass *See Appendix C for Modified Monopele Capacities Table 6 - Tower Com 1 mnent Stresses vs. Capacity - LC1 Base Plate I 76.2% *l Pass Base Foundation =~ I 69.8% Pass Flange Bolts 100' i~ 8.2% -Ii Pass Flange Plate *~*' 100' 'I 12.7% i Pass Notes: 1) See additional documentation in "Appendix C - Additional Calculations" for calculations supporting the % capacity consumed. 4.1) Recommendations The designs of the modified tower and its modified foundation are sufficient for the proposed loading and do not require further modification. RISATower Report - version 5.4.2.0 April 29, 2011 CCI BU No 806579 Page 7 Crown Castle USA,/nc. 100 Ft Monopo/e w/8.5' Extension Tower Structural Analysis Project Number 2011178.90, Application 1'~6487, Revision 4 5) 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 propedy fabricated, erected, maintained, in good condition, twist free, and plumb. The engineering services rendered by GPD GROUP in connection with this Rigorous 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 matedal 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. RISATower Report - version 5.4.2.0 Crown Castle USA,/nc. Apd129, 2011 100 Ft Monopole w/8.5' Extension Tower Structura/ Analysis CCI BU No 806579 Project Number 2011178.90, Application 116487, Revision 4 Page 8 APPENDIX A RISA TOWER OUTPUT RISATower Report -version 5.4.2.0 i © DESIGNED APPURTENANCE LOADING I TYPE ELEVATION TYPE I ELEVATION i (2) 8~0~1 ~.w_~l_~nt FI pe r{~_ .......... 4) DB845N65ZAXT w/M~mt Pipe ~.8~_. ....... ~3)A~)~F w/Mour~ P~pe 10(~ 7250 02 WI Mount ~:~p~ ....... ~70 E~ ....... ~ (2) ~AW~}<X~0112~01 MATERIAL STRENGTH TOWER DESIGN NOTES 1. Tower is located in Suffolk County, New York. 2, Tower designed for Exposure C to the TIA-222-G Standard. 3. Tower designed for a 120 mph basic wind in accordance with the TIA-222-G Standard. 4. Tower is also designed for a 50 mph basic wind with 0.75 in ice. Ice is considered to increase in thickness with height. 5, Deflections are based upon a 60 mph wind. 6. Tower Structure Class II. 7. Topographic Category 1 with Crest Height of 0.00 fl 162fl 130fl ALL REACTIONS ARE FACTORED AXIAL 62K TDROUE 0 tdp-fl 50 mph WIND - O. 7500 in ICE AXIAL 40K SHEA~ MOMENT 41 K 3028 kip-fi TORQUE 3 kip-ft REACTIONS- 120 mph WiND GPD Group ~b: NY Cutcho~lue, Bl~i: 806579 520 S. Main St. Suite 25311p~j~: 2oItf78.90 I Akron, OH 44311 Ic : Cron Cast,~ CbUdO '; I Phone: (~0)572-2100 ~: TIA-~2-G ~e:~/29/11 ~s~: NT~ Rcund Flat Feedline Distribution Chart 0' - 108'6" Face A 82081 Face B 100OO 72.25 Face C G~PZ) (~ro~J~ ~: NY CutchoElue, BUtt: 806579 I 520 S. Main St. Suite 2531 ~Fr~j~:2011178.90 { Akron, OH 44311 ~c,e.t Crown Castle{e'a''n b~ cburton{App'd: I Phone: (330)§72-2100 ~cc~: TIA-222-G /Date:04/29/11 /sca~: NTS{ FAX: (330) 572-2101 ~ Pat h: N ~011~20111 ?8~RISA~806579~ p Dwg N°' E-7~ RISA Tower dob Page NY Cutchogue, BU#: 806579 1 of 9 GPD Grnup Project Date 520 S. Main St. Suite 2531 2011178.90 15:52:17 04/29/11 Akron, 0H44311 Client Designed by Phone: (350) 572-2100 Crown Castle F/X: ($$0) 572-2101 cbu~o~ Tower Input Data There is a pole section. This tower is designed using the TIA-222-G standard. The following design criteria apply: Tower is located in Suffolk County, New York. Basic wind speed of 120 mph. Structure Class II. Exposure Category C. Topographic Category 1. Crest Height 0.00 fl. Nominal ice thickness of 0.7500 in. Ice thickness is considered to increase with height. Ice density of 56 pcf. A wind speed of 50 mph is used in combination with ice. Temperature drop of 50 °F. Deflections calculated using a wind speed of 60 mph. A non-linear (P-delta) analysis was used. Pressures are calculated at each section. Stress ratio used in pole design is 1. Local bending stresses due to climbing loads, feedline supports, and appurtenance mounts are not considered. Options Consider Moments - Legs Consider Moments - Horizontals Consider Moments - Diagonals Use Moment Magnification Use Code Stress Ratios Use Code Safety Factors - Guys Escalate Ice Always Use Max Kz Use Special Wind Profile Include Bolts In Member Capacity Leg Bolts Are At Top Of Section Seconda~ Horizontal Braces Leg Use Diamond Inner Bracing (4 Sided) Add IBC .6D-W Combination Distribute Leg Loads As Uniform Assume Legs Pinned Assurae Rigid Index Plate Use Clear Spans For Wind Area Use Clear Spans For KL/r Retension Guys To Initial Tension Bypass Mast Stabili'ff Checks Use Azimuth Dish Coefficients Project Wind Area of Appan. Autocalc Torque Arm Areas SR Members Have Cut Ends Son Capacity Reports By Component Tfiangnlate Diamond Inner Bracing Treat Feedline Bundles As Cylinder Use ASCE 10 X-Brace Ly Rules Calculate Redundant Bracing Forces Ignore Redundant Members in FEA SR Log Bolts Resist Compression All Leg Panels Have Same Allowable Offset Girt At Foundation Consider Feedline Torque Include Angle Block Shear Check Include Shear-Torsion Interaction Always Use Sub-Critical Flow Use Top Mounted Sockets Tapered Pole Section Geometry Section Elevation Section Splice Length Length LI 108.50-100.50 8.00 0.00 L2 100.50-100.00 0.50 0.00 L3 100.00-82.08 17.92 0.00 Number Top Bottom Wall Bend Pole Grade of Diameter Diameter Thicleness Radius Sides in in in in Round 12.0000 12.0000 0.3750 A53-B-35 (35 ksi) Round 12.0000 14.5000 0.3750 A53-B-35 (35 ksi) 12 14.5000 18.5521 0.1875 0.7500 A572-65 RISA Tower NY Cutchogue, BU#: 806579 2 of 9 GPD Group Project Date 520S. Main St. Suite 2531 2011178.90 15:52:17 04/29/11 Akron, 0H44311 Client Designed by Phone: (330) 572-2100 Crown Castle FAYE. (330) 572-2101 cburton Section Elevation Section Splice Number Top Bottom Wall Bend Pole Grade Length Length of Diameter Diameter Thick:ness Radius fi fi ~ Sides in in in in (65 ksi) IA 82.08-70.23 11,85 3.16 12 18.5521 20.5386 0.7269 2.9076 A572-65 (65 ksi) 1.5 70,23-60.17 13.22 0.00 12 18.5555 22.9987 0.7502 3.0008 A572-65 (65 ksi) L6 60.17-33.75 26.42 4.13 12 22.9987 28.0930 0.8909 3.5636 A572-65 (65 ksi) L7 33.75-30.50 7.38 0.00 12 25.5149 29.0291 0.9002 3.6008 A572-65 (65 ksi) L8 30.50-16.21 14.29 0.00 12 29.0291 32.2955 0.8978 3.5912 A572-65 (65 ksi) L9 16.21-12.96 3.25 0.00 12 32.2955 33.0830 0.9036 3.6144 A572-65 (65 ksi) LI0 12.96-9.00 3.96 0.00 12 33.0830 33.9430 0.9784 3.9136 A572-65 (65 ksi) LII 9.00-0.00 9.00 12 33.9430 36.0000 0.7501 3.0004 A572-65 /65 ksi) Feed Line/Linear Appurtenances - Entered As Round Or Flat Description Sector Component Placement Total Number Start/End Width or Perimeter Weight Type Number Per Row Position Diameter ft in in ky LDF7-50A (1-5/8 FOAM) C Surface Ar 108.00 - 8.00 I 1 0.000 1.9800 0.00 (CaAa) 0.000 LDF7-50A (1-5/8 FOAM) C Surface Ar 108.00 - 8.00 11 11 0.000 0.0000 0.00 (CaAa) 0.000 LDF2-50A (3/8 FOAM) C Surface Ar 108.00 - 8.00 i I 0.000 0.0000 0.00 (CaAa) 0.000 LDF4-5OA( 1/2") C Surface Ar 30.00 - 8.00 1 I 0.000 0.0000 0.00 (CaAa) 0,000 MP3-08 Mod Channel (Rev G) B Surface Af 15.50 - 8.00 1 1 0.000 7.9300 24.9100 0.00 (CaAa) 0.000 MP34)8 Mod Channel (Rev G) B Surface Af 30.50 - 15.50 I 1 0.000 7.9300 24.9100 0.00 (CaAa) 0.000 MP3-06 Mod Channel (Rev G) B Surface Af 66.25 - 30.50 I I 0.000 6.8900 21.9900 0,00 (CaAa) 0.000 MP3-06 Mod Channel (Rev G) B Surface Af 75.50 - 72.25 1 1 0.000 6.8900 21.9900 0.00 (CaAa) 0.000 MP34)6 MOd Channel (Rev G) B Surface Af 85.50 - 75.50 1 I 0.000 6.8900 21.9900 0.00 (CaAa) 0.000 Bridge Stiffeners B Surface Af 72.25 - 66.25 I 1 0.000 1.2500 32.0000 0.05 (Ca.~a) 0.000 Bridge Stiffeners B Surface Af 81.50 - 75.50 I I 0.000 1.2500 32.0000 0.05 (CaAa) 0.000 Bridge Stiffener s C Surface Af 72.25 - 66.25 1 l 0.000 1.2500 32.0000 0.05 (CaAa) 0.000 Bridge Stiffeners C Surface Af 81.50 - 75.50 I 1 0.000 1.2500 32.0000 0.05 (C~) 0.000 R~S,e~ Towgr Job Paae NY Cutchogue, BUff: 806579 3 of 9 Project Date GPD Group 520 S. Main St. Suite 2531 201 1 178.90 1 5:52:17 04/29/11 Akron, 0H44311 Client Designed by Phone: (330) 572-2100 Crown Castle cburton FA~' (330) 572-2101 Feed Line/Linear Appurtenances - Entered As Area Description Face Allow Component Placement Total C~Aa Weight or Shield Type Number LDF5-50A (7/8 FOAM) A No Inside Pole 70.00 - 8.00 12 No Ice 0.00 0.00 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.00 l" Ice 0.00 0.00 LDF5-50A (7/8 FOAM) B No Inside Pole 100.00 - 8.00 9 No Ice 0.00 0.00 I/2" Ice 0.00 0.00 1" Ice 0.00 0.00 LDF2-50A (3/8 FOAM) B No Inside Pole 100.00 - 8.00 1 No Ice 0.00 0.00 1/2" Ice 0,00 0.00 1" Icc 0.00 0,00 LDFS-50A (7/8 FOAM) C No Inside Pole 90.00 - 8.00 24 No Ice 0.00 0,00 1/2" Ice 0.00 0,00 1" Ice 0.00 0.00 LDF5-50A (7/8 FOAM) C No Inside Pole 80.00 - 8.00 12 No Ice 0.00 0.00 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.00 1" Ice 0.00 0.00 [ Discrete Tower Loads ] Description Face Offset Offsets: Azimuth Placement C~A~ C~4~ Weight or Type Horz Adjustment Front Side Leg Lateral Vert ft ft ff f~ K T-Ann Mount [TA 702-3] C None 800 10504 w/Mo~mt Pipe A From Leg 3,46 2.00 2.00 800 10504 w/Mount Pipe A From Leg 3.46 2,00 2.00 (2) 800 10504 w/Mount Pipe B From Leg 3.94 0.69 2.00 (2) 800 10504 w/Mount Pipe C From Leg 3.94 0.69 2.00 Platform Mount [LP 602- I ] C None 2" x 60" Mount Pipe A From 3.80 Centroid-Le -I .24 g 0.00 2" x 60" Mount Pipe B From 3.80 Centroid-Le -1.24 g 0.00 2" x 60" Mount Pipe C From 3.80 Centroid-Le -1.24 g 0.00 (3) ADA-85408580CF w/ A From 3.80 Motmt Pipe Centroid-Le -1.24 g 4.00 0.0000 108.00 No Ice 5.64 5,64 0.34 1/2" Icc 6.55 6.55 0.43 1" Ice 7.46 7.46 0.52 30.0000 108.00 No Ice 3.94 3.53 0.04 1/2" Ice 4.55 4.59 0.08 I"lcc 5.06 5.36 0,12 40.0000 108.00 No Ice 3.94 3.53 0.04 1/2" Ice 4.55 4.59 0.08 l" Ice 5.06 5.36 0.12 10.0000 108.00 NoIce 3.94 3.53 0.~4 I/2" Ice 4.55 4.59 0.08 1" Ice 5.06 5.36 0.12 10.0000 108.00 Nolce 3.94 3.53 0.04 1/2" Ice 4.55 4.59 0.08 1' Ice 5.06 5.36 0.12 0.0000 100.00 No Ice 32.03 32.03 1.34 1/2" Ice 38.71 38.71 1.80 1" Ice 45.39 45.39 2.26 -18.0000 100.00 No Ice 1.00 1.00 0.03 1/2" Ice 1.39 1.39 0.04 l" Ice 1.70 1.70 0.05 -18.0000 100.00 No Ice 1,00 1.00 0.03 1/2" Ice 1.39 1.39 0.04 1" Ice 1.70 1,70 0.05 -18,0000 100.00 Nolce 1.00 1.00 0.03 1/2" Ice 1.39 1.39 0.04 l" Ice 1.70 1.70 0.05 -18.0000 100,00 No Ice 5.41 3.44 0,03 1/2" Ice 5.86 4,04 0.07 1" Ice 6.32 4.66 0.12 RISA Tower Job NY Cutchogue, BU#: 806579 4 of 9 Project Date GPD Group 520 S. Main St. Suite 2531 20'1 Akron, 0H44311 Client Designed by Phone: (330) 572-2100 Crown Castle cburton F~'~' (330) 572-2101 Description Face Offset Offsets: Azimuth Placement C, u4A CaAA Weight or Type Horz Adjt~tment Front Side Leg Lateral Fert ft fi ff ft~ K (3) ADA-85408580CF w/ B From 3.80 -18.0000 100.00 Nolce 5.41 3.44 0.03 Mount Pipe Centroid-Le -1.24 1/2" Ice 5.86 4.04 0.07 g 4.00 I" Ice 6.32 4.66 0.12 (3) ADA-63406380CF w/ C From 3.80 -18.0000 100.00 No Ice 8.62 4.07 0.06 Mount Pipe Centroid-Le -I .24 1/2" Ice 9.29 4.94 0.I 1 g 4.00 1" Ice 9.91 5.67 0.18 A-18A24N-U C From 4.00 0.0000 100.00 Nolce 6.57 0.54 0.02 Cemroid-Fa 0.00 1/2" Ice 6.91 0.70 0.04 ce 0.00 1" Ice 7.25 0.86 0.06 T-Arm Mount [TA 602-3] C None 0.0000 90.00 No Ice 11.59 11.59 0.77 (2) TMBXX-6516-R2M w/ A From Leg 3.46 Mount Pipe 2.00 0.00 (2) TMBXX-6516-R2M w/ B From Leg 3.46 Mount Pipe 2.00 0.00 (2) TMBXX-6516-P,2M w/ C From Leg 3.46 Mount Pipe 2.00 0.00 (2) RR65-19-02DP w/mount A From Leg 3.46 pipe 2.00 0.00 (2) RR65-194)2DP w/mount B From Leg 3.46 pipe 2.00 0.00 (2) RR65-19-02DP w/mount C From Leg 3.46 pipe 2.00 0.00 E15S08P80 A From Leg 3.46 2.00 0.00 EISS08P80 B From Leg 3.46 2.00 0.00 E15S08P80 C From Leg 3.46 2.00 0.00 E15S09P94 A From Leg 3,46 2.00 0.00 EI5S09P94 B From Leg 3.46 2.00 0.00 E15S09P94 C From Leg 3.46 2.00 0.00 Platform Mount [LP 305-1] C None (4) DB845N65ZAXT A Prom 3.46 w/Mount Pipe Centroid-Le 2.00 g 2~00 (4) DB845N65ZAXT B From 3,46 w/Mount Pipe Centroid-Le 2.00 g 2.00 1/2" Ice 15.44 15.44 0.99 1" Ice 19.29 19.29 1.21 30.0000 90.00 No Ice 7.56 5.72 0.06 1/2" Ice 8.34 6.92 0.12 l"Ice 9.07 7.97 0.19 30.0000 90.00 No Ice 7.56 5.72 0.06 1/2" lce 8.34 6.92 0.12 1" Ice 9.07 7.97 0.19 30.0000 90.00 No Ice 7.56 5.72 0.06 1/2" Ice 8.34 6.92 0.12 1" Ice 9.07 7.97 0.19 30.0000 90.00 No Ice 5.87 4.17 0.04 1/2" Ice 6.32 5.16 0.08 1" Ice 6.79 5.96 0.13 30.0000 90.00 No Ice 5.87 4,17 0.04 1/2" Ice 6.32 5.16 0.08 1" Ice 6.79 5.96 0.13 30.0000 90.00 No Ice 5.87 4.17 0.04 1/2" lce 6.32 5.16 0.08 I" Ice 6.79 5.96 0.13 30.0000 90.00 No Ice 0.23 0.12 0.00 1/2" Ice 0.30 0.17 0.00 I" Ice 0,38 0.24 0.01 30.0000 90.00 No Ice 0.23 0.12 0.00 1/2" Ice 0.30 0.17 0.00 1" Ice 0.38 0.24 0.01 30.0000 90.00 No Ice 0.23 0,12 0.00 I/2" Ice 0.30 0.17 0.00 1" Ice 0.38 0.24 0.01 30.0000 90.00 No Ice 0.66 0.37 0.01 1/2" Ice 0.78 0.46 0.02 1" Ice 0.90 0.56 0.03 30,0000 90.00 No Ice 0.66 0.37 0.01 1/2" Ice 0.78 0.46 0.02 1" Ice 0.90 0.56 0.03 30.0000 90.00 No Ice 0.66 0.37 0.01 1/2" Ice 0.78 0.46 0.02 1" Ice 0,90 0.56 0.03 0.0000 80.00 Nolce 18.01 18.01 1.12 1/2" Ice 23.33 23.33 1.35 1" Ice 28.65 28.65 1.58 30.0000 80.00 No Ice 6.31 6.63 0.04 1/2" Ice 6.97 7.80 0.10 I" Ice 7.57 8.69 0.17 30,0000 80.00 No Ice 6.31 6.63 0.04 1/2" Ice 6.97 7.80 0A0 1' Ice 7.57 8.69 0.17 RIS 4 Tower Job P.ge NY Cutchooue, BU#: 806579 5 of § · ' ~ro"~ Project Date GPD 520 S. Main St. Suite 2531 2011178.90 15:52:17 04/29/11 Akron, 0H44311 Client Designed by Phone: (330) 572-2100 Crown Castle cburton FAX: (330) 572-2101 Description Face Offset Offsets: Azimuth Placement C~A~ C~AA Weight or Type Horz Adjustment Front Side Leg Lateral Vert fi ft ft~ ft~ K ft (4) DB845N65ZAXT C From 3.46 30.0000 80.00 No Ice 6,31 6.63 0.04 w/Mount Pipe Centroid-Le 2.00 1/2" lce 6.97 7.80 0.10 g 2.00 1" Ice 7.57 8.69 0.17 T-Arm Mount [TA 602-3] C None 0.0000 70.00 No Ice 11.59 11,59 0.77 I/2" Ice 15.44 15.44 0.99 1" Ice 19.29 19.29 1.21 800 10121 w/Mount Pipe A From Leg 3.76 20.0000 70.00 Nolce 5.69 4.60 0.07 1.37 1/2" Ice 6.18 5.34 0.11 0.00 1" Ice 6.67 6.04 0.17 7770.00 w/Mount Pipe A From Leg 3,76 20,0000 70.00 No Ice 6.58 4.94 0.08 1.37 1/2" Ice 7.21 5.86 0.13 0.00 1" Ice 7.80 6.64 0.19 7250,02 w/Mount Pipe A From Leg 3.76 20.0000 70.00 No Ice 4.24 3.32 0.04 1.37 1/2" Ice 4.71 4.30 0.07 0.00 1" Ice 5.17 5.05 0.11 800 10121 w/Mount Pipe B From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 No Ice 5.69 4.60 0.07 0.00 1/2" Ice 6.18 5,34 0.11 0.00 1" Ice 6.67 6.04 0.17 7770.00 w/Mount Pipe B From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 No Ice 6.58 4.94 0.08 0.00 1/2" Ice 7.21 5.86 0.13 0.00 l"lce 7.80 6.64 0.19 7250.02 w/Mount Pipe B From Leg 4,00 0.0000 70.00 No Ice 4.24 3.32 0.04 0.00 1/2" Ice 4.71 4.30 0.07 0.00 1" Ice 5.17 5.05 0.11 800 10121 w/Mount Pipe C From Leg 4.00 0.00OO 70.00 No Ice 5,69 4.60 0.07 0.00 1/2" Ice 6.18 5.34 0.11 0.00 I" Ice 6.67 6.04 0.17 7770.00 w/Mount Pipe C From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 No Ice 6.58 4.94 0.08 0,00 1/2" Ice 7.21 5.86 0.13 0.00 1" Icc 7.80 6.64 0.19 7250.02 w/Mount Pipe C From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 No Ice 4.24 3.32 0.04 0.00 1/2" Ice 4.71 4.30 0.07 0.00 1" Ic¢ 5.17 5.05 0.11 LGPI7205 A From Leg 3.76 20.0000 70.00 Nolce 1.95 0.50 0.03 1.37 1/2" Ice 2.13 0.62 0.04 0.00 1" Ice 2.33 0.75 0.06 (2) TTAW-0000112-001 A From Leg 3.76 20,0000 70.00 Noi¢¢ 0.44 0.15 0.01 1.37 I/2" Ice 0.53 0.21 0.01 0.00 1" Ice 0.63 0.29 0.01 LGP 17205 B From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 No Ice 1.95 0.50 0,03 0.00 I/2" Ice 2.13 0.62 0.04 0.00 1" Ice 2.33 0.75 0.06 (2) TTAW-0000112-001 B From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 No Ice 0.44 0.15 0.0 I 0.00 I/2" Ice 0.53 0.21 0.01 0.00 1" Ice 0.63 0.29 0.0 I LGP 17205 C From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 No Ice 1.95 0.50 0.03 0.00 1/2" Ice 2.13 0.62 0.04 0.00 1" Ice 2.33 0.75 0.06 (2) ~rAW-0000112-001 C From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 Nolce 0.44 0.15 0.01 0.00 I/2" Ice 0.53 0.21 0.01 0.00 1" Ice 0,63 0.29 0.01 Pipe Mount [PM 601-1 ] A From Leg 0.50 0.0000 30.00 No Ice 3.00 0.90 0.07 0.00 I/2" Ice 3.74 1.12 0.08 0,00 1" Ice 4.48 1.34 0.09 GPS-TMG-26NMS A From Leg 1.00 0.0000 30.00 Nolce 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.00 1/2" Ice 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 1" Ice 0.28 0.28 0.01 RJSA Tower Job Page NY Cutchogue, BU#: 80{3579 t3 of 9 GPD Group Project Date 520 S. Main St. Suite 2531 2011178.90 15:52:17 04/29/11 Akron, 0H44311 Client Designed by Phone: (330) 572-2100 Crown Castle Fdd~. (330) 572~2101 cbudon Maximum Tower Deflections - Service Wind Section Elevation Horz. Gov. Tilt Twist No. Deflection Load fi in Comb. L1 108.5 - 100.5 10.882 44 0.9640 0.0044 L2 100.5 - 100 9.284 44 0.9471 0.0034 L3 100 - 82.083 9,185 44 0.9460 0,0034 LA 82.083 - 70.2338 6,041 44 0.6923 0,0012 L5 73.3913 - 60.1667 4.834 44 0.6307 0.0010 L6 60.1667 - 33.7477 3.230 44 0.5146 0.0007 L7 37.8773 - 30.5 1.291 44 0.3130 0.0003 L8 30.5 - 16.2083 0.840 44 0.2620 0.0002 L9 16.2083 - 12.9583 0.243 44 0.1386 0.0001 LIO 12.9583 - 9 0.158 44 0.I 120 0.0001 L11 9 - 0 0.077 44 0.0826 0.0001 [ Critical Deflections and Radius of CUrvature - Service Wind ] Elevation Appurtenance Gov. Deflection Tilt Twist Radius of Load Curvature ft Comb. in ft 108.00 T-Arm Mount [TA 702-3] 44 10.782 0.9629 0.0043 20746 100.00 Platform Mount [LP 602-1] 44 9.185 0.9460 0.0034 7998 90.00 T-Arm Mount [TA 602-3] 44 7.326 0.8183 0.0021 4232 80.00 Platform Mount [LP 305-1] 44 5.735 0.6720 0.0011 4268 70.00 T-Arm Mount [TA 602-3] 44 4.396 0.6066 0,0009 8542 30.00 Pipe Mount [PM 601-1] 44 0.813 0.2582 0.0002 6721 Maximum Tower Deflections - Design Wind Section Elevation Hotz. Gov. Tilt Twist No. Deflection Load fi in Comb. LI 108.5 ~ 100,5 77.291 12 6.8288 0.0326 L2 100.5 - 100 66.003 12 6.7114 0.0263 L3 100 - 82.083 65.306 12 6.7035 0.0261 LA 82.083 - 70.2338 43.030 12 4.9281 0.0113 L5 73.3913 - 60.1667 34.449 12 4.4910 0.0103 L6 60.1667 - 33.7477 23.042 12 3.6691 0.0070 L7 37.8773 - 30.5 9.215 12 2.2345 0.0032 L8 30.5 - 16.2083 6.001 I2 1.8708 0.0025 L9 16.2083 - 12.9583 1.736 12 0.9898 0.0012 L10 12.9583 ~ 9 1.127 12 0.8002 0.0009 L11 9 - 0 0.551 12 0.5898 0.0007 Critical Deflections and Radius of Curvature - Design Wind I RISA Tower Page NY Cutchogue, BU#: 806579 7 of 9 GPD Group Project Date 520 S. Main St. Suite 2531 2011178.90 15:52:17 04/29/11 ~4kron, 0H44311 Client Designed by Phone: (330) 572-2100 Crown Castle cburton F~.J~' (330) 572-2101 Elevation Appurtenance Gov. Deflection Tilt Twist Radius of Load Curvature ft Comb. in ~2 108.09 T-Arm Mount [TA 702-3] 12 76.582 6.8213 0.0322 3074 100.09 Platform Mount [LP 602-1] 12 65.306 6.7035 0.0261 1192 90.00 T-Arm Mount [TA 602-3] 12 52.145 5.8142 0.0167 620 80.00 Platform Mount [LP 305-1] 12 40.858 4.7842 0.0110 613 70.00 T-Ann Mount [TA 602-3] 12 31.340 4.3201 0.0097 1216 30.00 Pi~¢ Mount [PM 601-1 ] 12 5.807 1.8440 0.0025 944 Compression Checks Pole Design Data Section Elevation Size L L~ Kl/r A P. ~P. Ratio No. P. fi fl fl in~ K K ~p~ L1 108.5 - 100.5 TP12x12x0.375 8.00 0.00 0.0 13.6954 -0.91 431.40 0.002 (1) L2 100.5 - 100 (2) TP14.5x12x0.375 0.50 0.00 0.0 13.6954 -0.91 431.40 0.002 L3 100-82.083 TPI 8.5521 x14.5x0.1875 17.92 0.00 0.0 11.0876 -4.85 785.50 0.006 (3) IA 82.083 - TP20.5386X 18,5521 x0.7269 11.85 0.00 0.0 45,1326 -8.85 3326.73 0.003 70.2338 (4) L5 70.2338 - TP22.9987x 18.5555x0.7502 13.22 0.00 0.0 53.7445 -14.77 3961.50 0.004 60.1667 (5) [6 60.1667 - TP28.093x22.9987x0.8909 26.42 0.00 0.0 75.7503 -22.50 5583.55 0.004 33.7477 (6) L7 33.7477 - 30.5 TP29.0291 x25.5149x0.9002 7.38 0.00 0.0 77.0513 -25.30 5679.45 0.004 (7) L8 30.5 - 16.2083 TP32.2955x29.0291x0.8978 14.29 0.00 0.0 90.7681 -32.65 6690.52 0.005 (8) L9 16.2083 - TP33.083x32.2955x0.9036 3.25 0.00 0.0 93.6289 -34.11 6901.39 0.005 12.9583 (9) LI0 12.9583 -9 TP33.943x33.083x0.9784 3.96 0.00 0.0 103.853 -36.04 7655.02 0.005 (10) 0 LII 9-0(11) TP36x33.943x0.7501 9.00 0.00 0.0 85.1399 -39.52 6275.66 0.006 Pole Bendin9 Desitin Data Section Elevation Size Mw q~M= Ratio M, {M, Ratio No. M~ fl la~-fl kip ft ~M= kip-fl kip-ft L1 108.5 - 100.5 TP12x12x0.375 23.08 133.07 0.173 0.00 133.07 0.000 (1) L2 100.5 - 100 (2) TP14.5x12x0,375 23.08 133.07 0.173 0.00 133.07 0.000 L3 100-82.083 TP18.5521x14.Sx0.1875 254.60 293.22 0.868 0.00 293.22 0.000 (3) IA 82.083 - TP20.5386x 18.5521 x0.7269 451.38 1269.35 0.356 0.00 1269.35 0.000 70.2338 (4) L5 70.2338 - TP22.9987x 18.5555x0.7502 832.37 1750.78 0.475 0.00 1750.78 0.00O 60.1667 (5) L6 60.1667 - TP28.093x22.9987x0.8909 1577.43 2928.69 0.539 0.00 2928.69 0.000 RISA Tower . oe NY Cutchogue, BU#: 806579 8 of 9 GPD Group Project Date 520 s. Main St. Suite 253/ 2011178.90 15:52:17 04/29/11 Akron, 0H44311 Client Designed by Phone: 030) 572-2100 Crown Castle F/~- (330) 572-210l cburton Section Elevation Size MM {oMa Ratio M~ q[M,v Ratio No. M~ fl Mp-ft kip-fi ~M~ kip-ft kip-ft ~M,q 33.7477 (6) L7 33.7477-30.5 TP29.0291 x25,5149x0.9002 1725.20 2998.49 0.575 0.00 2998.49 0.000 (7) L8 30.5 - 16.2083 TP32.2955x29,0291x0.8978 2382.57 4193.62 0.568 0.00 4193.62 0,000 (8) L9 16.2083 - TP33.083X32.2955 x0.9036 2509.39 4435.70 0.566 0.00 4435.70 0.000 12.9583 (0) L10 12.9583-9 TP33.943x33.083x0.9784 2665.81 5032.30 0.530 0.00 5032.30 0.000 (10) Lll 9-0(11) TP36x33.943x0.7501 3028.49 4447.82 0.681 0.00 4447.82 0.000 Pole Shear Design Data Section Elevation Size Actual ~g. Ratio Actual ~T, Ra~io No. V~ V~ Tx T. L1 108.5 - 100.5 TP12x12x0.375 2.82 215.70 0.013 0.24 202.31 0.001 (1) L2 100.5 - 100 (2) TP14.Sx12x0.375 2.85 262.09 0.011 0.24 202.31 0.001 L3 100 - 82.083 TP18.5521 x14.5x0.1875 16.21 392.75 0.041 0.65 594.56 0.001 (3) L4 82.083 - TP20.5386x 18.5521 x0.7269 23.75 1663.36 0.014 0.65 2573.84 0,000 70.2338 (4) L5 70.2338 - TP22.9987xlS.5555x0.7502 31.79 1980.75 0.016 0.54 3550.05 0.000 60.1667 (5) L6 60.1667 - TP28.093x22.9987x0.8909 35.38 2791.78 0.013 2.32 5938.47 0,000 33.7477 (6) L7 33.7477- 30.5 TP29.0291x25.5149x0.9002 36.35 2894.82 0.013 2.32 6080.00 0.000 (7) L8 30.5- 16.2083 TP32.2955x29.0291x0.8978 38.81 3345.26 0.012 2.32 8503.33 0.000 (8) L9 16.2083 - TP33.083x32.2955x0.9036 39.25 3450.69 0.0ll 2.31 8994.25 0.000 12.9583 (9) L10 12.9583 - 9 TP33.943 x33.083x0.9784 39.80 3827.51 0.010 2.31 10203.92 0.000 (10) LI1 9-0(11) TP36x33.943x0.7501 40.85 3137.83 0.013 2.31 9018.83 0.000 Pole Interaction Design Data Section Elevation Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Comb. Allow. Criteria No. P~ Mu M. V. T, Stress S~ress ft ~P, ~M,~ ~M~r ~V~ ~T, Ratio Ratio L1 108.5-100.5 0.002 0.173 0.000 0.013 0.001 0.176 1.000 4.8.2 (1) L2 100.5-100(2) 0.176 1.000 4.8.2 0.876 1.000 4.8.2 0.002 0.173 0.000 0.011 0.001 L3 100 - 82.083 0.006 0.868 0.000 0.041 0.001 (3) RISA Tower Job .a.e NY Cutchogue, BU#: 806579 9 of 9 GPD Group Project Date 520 S. Main St. Suite 2531 2011 1 78.90 15:52:1 7 04/29/11 A~on, 0H44311 Client ~signed by Phone: (330) ~72-2100 Crown Castle F~- (3~0) 572-2101 cbuKon Section Capacity Table Section Elevation Component Size Critical P ePouo~ % Pass No. fi Type Element K K Capacity Fail LI 108.5 - 100.5 Pole TP12x12x0.375 I -0.91 431.40 17.6 Pass L2 100.5 - 100 Pole TP14.5x12x0.375 2 -0.91 431.40 17.6 Pass L3 100-82,083 Pole TPI 8.5521 x14.5x0.1875 3 -4.85 785.50 87.6 Pass L4 82.083 -70.2338 Pole TP20.5386x18.5521xO.7269 4 -8.85 3326.73 * Pass L5 70.2338 - Pole TP22.9987x 18.5555x0.7502 5 -14.77 3961.50 * Pass 60.1667 L6 60.1667 - Pole TP28.093x22.9987x0.8909 6 -22.50 5583.55 Pass 33.7477 L7 33.7477 - 30.5 Pole TP29.0291 x25.5149x0.9002 7 -25.30 5679.45 * Pass L8 30.5 - 16.2083 Pole TP32.2955x29.0291 x0.8978 8 -32.65 6690.52 * Pass L9 16.2083 - Pole TP33.083x32.2955x0.9036 9 -34,11 6901.39 * Pass 12.9583 L10 12.9583 -9 Pole TP33.943x33.083x0.9784 10 -36.04 7655.02 * Pass L11 9 - 0 Pole TP36x33.943x0.7501 11 -39.52 6275.66 * Pass *See Appendix C for Modified Monopole Calculations. Program Version 5.4.2.0 - 6/17/2010 File:N:/2011/2011178/90/RISA/806579.eri Crown Castle USA,/nc. Apr# 29~ 2011 100 Ft Monopole w/ 8.5' Extension Tower Structural Analysis CCI BU No 806579 Project Number 2011178.90, Application 116487, Revision 4 Page 9 APPENDIX B BASE LEVEL DRAWING RISATower Repot[ - version 5.4.2.0 / 0 1 2 5FT SCALE [~ASE LEVEL DRAWING J 1 Crown Castle USA, Inc. April 29, 2011 100 Ft Monopole w/ 8.5' Extension Tower Structural Analysis CC/BU No 806579 Project Number 20'11178.90, Application 116487, Revision 4 Page 10 APPENDIX C ADDITIONAL CALCULATIONS RlSATower Report - version 5.4.2.0 Reinforced Monopole Analysis NY Cutchogue BU: 806579 AISF= ii i ; il Max Capacib/: 53.4% 71.9% Pass 52.7% 72.6% Pass 60.6% 79,6% Pass 59.0% 78.2% Pass 59.0% 80.6% Pass 78.4% 96.4% Pass GPD Modified MonopoJe Analysis GPD GROUP Job 2011178.90 Sheet No I Of 1 GPD GROUP ANCHOR ROD TRANSFORMATION fRev. Gt Moment from RISA (M) = kip-f[ Axial from RISA fA) = kip Shear from RISA (V) = Kip ExistingBoltAroa(A~x)= iiiii!!iiiiii~i~iin.z Number Existing Bolts (nE) ~iiiiiii?iiiiiii~!i Distsnce from neutral axis (d) = ~ in, (der ermined in CAD) Fu Calculated By CB date 4/29/2011 Checked By DJP date 4/29/2011 Modified Bolt (1) Diameter in.* Modified Bolt Area (A~od) = ~;~7 in? Number Modified Bolts {nM) Distance from neutral axis (d) = ~L~ in. (determined in CAD) ~ ks~ Modified Bolt (2) Diameter 2 ~ in.* Modified Bolt Area (A~) = Number Modified Bolts (nM) *Taken from DSI Spec Sheet Distance from neutral axis (d) = ~5~ in. determined in CAD Fy Fa (Combined MOl of existing and post installed rods determined in CAD, Existing & Modified (2) Anchor Rod Capacity Controlling) (Combined MOl of existing and post instaged rods determined in CAD, Modified (d) Anchor Rod Capacity Controlling) f~= 169.95 kips (Mod 1 ) freed = 164.28 kips (Mod 2) fm~d = 306.44 kips Ax~= 2.31 kips (Mod 1}Axe. a= 1.84 kips (Med 2) Ax.~= 3.54 kips Total= 40.00 kips Maximum compressive force in existing rods = 172.26 kips Maximum compressive force in modification (1) rods = 166.12 kips (f~+AXmod) Maximum compressive force in modification (2) rods = 309.98 kips (f~od+AXm~) Ultimate Axial Strength: Existing Rods kips Ultimate Axial Strength: Modification (1) Rods (ftys)= i kips Ultimate Axial Strength: Modification (2) Rods (f~ = ~kps basedonpu res oad of 502 k ps referenced in PMI by GPD dated 8/26/10) Modification Rod (1) Rating= 53.1% Modification Rod (2) Rating-- 51.7% Square, Stiffened / Unstiffened Base Plate, Any Rod Material - Rev. F/G Assumptions: 1) Rod groups at corners. Total # rods divisible by 4. Maximum total # of rods = 48 (12 per Comer). 2) Rod Spacing = Straight Center-to-Center distance between any (2) adjacent rods (same comer) 3) Clear space between bottom of leveling nut and top of concrete not exceeding (1)*(Rod Diameter) Site Data Base Reactions BU#: 806579 TIA Revision: G I Site Name: NYCutchogue Factored Moment Mu:I 1152 Iff-kips I App#:l16487Rev4 Factored Axial, Pu: 40 kips I Factored Shear, Vu: 41 k ps *Reactions have been modified due to modifications Anchor Rod Data Eta Factor, q 0~5 TIA G (Fig. 8 Diam: 2.25 in Rod Material: A615-J Yield, Fy: 75 ksi Strength, Fu: 100 ksi Bott Circle: 44 m Anchor Rod Results TIA G -> Max Rod (Cu+ Vu/q): Axial Design Strength, (~*Fu*Anet: Anchor Rod Stress Ratio: 172.3 Kips 260.0 Kips 66.3% Pass Plate Data W=Side:~in Thick:! 2,25 Jin Grade:~ksi Clip Distance:~in Stiffener Data ~/Veldin~ at both sides) Configuration: Unstiffened Weld Type: Fillet ** Groove Depth: 0375 <- Disregard Groove Angle: 45 <- Disregard Fillet H. Weld: 0.3~25 ~n FilletV. Weld: 0,3125 ~n Width: 5 In Height: 24 ~n Thick: 075 ~n Notch: ~n Grade: 50 ksi Weld str.: 70 ksi Clear Space between 6 ~n Stiffeners at J Pole Data Diam:J 36 Jin Thick:J 0~3125 Jin Grade: 65 ksi # of S demt 12 "0" IF Round Base Plate Results Flexural Check Base Plate Stress: 41.2 ksi PL Design Bending Strength, q)*Fy: 54.0 ksi Base Plate Stress Ratio: 76.2% Pass NIA - Unstiffened Stiffener Results Horizontal Weld: N/A Vertical Weld: N/A Plate Flex+Shear, tt)/Fb+(fv/Fv)^2: N/A Plate Tension+Shear, lt/Ft+(fv/Fv)^2: N/A Plate Comp. (AISC Bracket): N/A Pole Results Pole Punching Shear Check: N/A PL Ref. Data Yield Line (in): 23.40 Max PL Length: 23.40 Note: for complete joint penetration groove welds the groove depth must be exactly 1/2 the stiffener thickness for calculation purposes CCIplate 1.4 - Square Base F-G 1.1, Effective April 4, 2011 Analysis date: 4/29/2011 Anchor Rod Layout .~2.79[- 26.3850 ~0 520 South Main Street. Suite 2531. Akron, Ohio 44311 Phone 330-572-21 O0 Fax 330-572-2101 GPD ASSOCIATES En$1neers. Architects. Planners Sheet No. / Of I Checked Date: Reinforced Monopole Analysis NY Cutchogue BU: 806579 78.7% n/a Pass GPD Modified Monopole Analysis Vl.00 Stiffened or Unstiffened, Exterior Flange Plate - Any Bolt Material Site Name: NY Cutchogue App #: 116487 Rev 4 Reactions Site Data MuI 30.6 Irt-kips BU#: 806579 Axial, Pu:I 0~91 Ikips Shear, Vu: 2:85 kips Elevation: i00 feet 'Reaction have been modified TIA Rev G Bolt Threads: ~b*Fu) J (p=0.75, (p*Vn (kips): J 40.50 J Pole Manufacturer:J Other J Bolt Data Oty: 12 Adi Diameter (in.): Bolt Fu: 125 Bolt Material: ~el' Bolt Fy: 105 Strength (Fu): ;1;25 ksi Yield (Fy): 105 ksi Circle (in.): 25.7'5 Plate Data Diam: 285 n Thick, t: 1:75 n Grade (Fy): 50 <si Strength, Fu: 65 (si Single-Rod B-eft: 3.14 ~n Stiffener Data (Weldin~l at Both Sides) Config: 0 * Weld Type: Fillet Groove Depth: 0;25 <-- Disregard Groove Angle: 45 <- Disregard Fillet H. Weld: 05t25 ~n Fillet V. Weld: 0~3'12~ ~n Width: 3 In Height: 18 ~n Thick: 075 ~n Notch: 0;5 ~n Grade: 36 ksi Weld str.: 70 ksi JffNostiffenemi Cdte~a: J TIA G Flange Bolt Results Bolt Tension Capacity, (p'Tn,B1: sted q)*Tn (due to Vu=Vu/Qty), B: Max Bolt directly applied Tu: Min. PL "tc" for B cae. wlo Pry: Min PL "trea" for actual T wi Pr,/: Min PL "tl" for actual T w/o Pry: T allowable with Prying: Prying Force, q: Total Bolt Tension=Tu+q: Prying Bolt Stress Ratio=(Tu+q)/(B): J<-Only Applcable to Unstiffened Cases Non-Rigid 56.81 kips <p'Tn 56.81 kips (pTn[(1-(Vu/(pVn)~2]~.5 4.68 Kips 2.806 in 0.625 in 0.805 in 29.98 kips 0<o'<1 case 0.00 kips 4.68 kips 8.2% Pass Exterior Flange Plate Results Flexural Check Compression Side Plate Stress: 4.7 ksi I TIAG Allowable Plate Stress: 45.0 ksi J (p'Fy Compression Plate Stress Ratio: 10.4% P~$~ Comp. Y.L. Length: No Prying J 22.78 Tension Side Stress Ratio, (treq/ty'2: 12.7% n/...~a Stiffener Results Horizontal Weld: n/a Vertical Weld: n/a Plate Flex+Shear. fb/Fb+(fi//Fv)^2: n/a Plate Tension+Shear. ff/Ft+(fv/Fv)^2: n/a Plate Comp. (AISC Bracket): n/a Pole Results Pole Punching Shear Check: n/a Pole Data Diam: 12 ~n Thick: 0.375 Grade: 35 ksi # of Sides: 0 "0" IF Round Fu 60 Reinf. Fillet Weld 0 "0" if None * 0 = none, 1 = every bolt, 2 = every 2 bolts, 3 = 2 per bolt ** Note: for complete joint penetration groove w~lds the groove depth must be exactly 1/2 the stiffener thickness for calculation purposes CCIplate 1.4 - Ext Flange G 1.3, Effective April 4, 2011 Analysis Date: 4/29/2011 Stiffened or Unstiffened , Exterior Flang Site Data BU#: 806579 Site Name: NY Cutchogue App#: 116487Rev4 Pole Manufacturer:I Other',;;, Bolt Data Qty: 12 Adi Diameter (in.): I Bolt Fu: 125 Bolt Material: Other Bolt Fy: 105 Strength (Fu): 125 ksi Yield (Fy): 108 ksi Cimle (in.): 25.75 Plate Data Diam: 28:5 I in Thick, t: 1,5I in Grade (Fy): 50 i ksi Strength, Fu: 65 ksi Sin~lle-Rod B-eft: 3.89 ~n Stiffener Data IWeldin~ at Both SidesI Config: 0 Weld Type; Fillet Groove Depth: 0;25 <- Disregard Groove Angle: 45 <- Disregard Fillet H. Weld: 0.3125 m Fillet V. Weld: 0,3t25 m Width: 3 ~n Height: 18 in Thick: 0.75 m Notch: 0.5 ~n Grade: 36 ksi Weld str.: 70 ksi Plate - Any Bolt Material Reactions Mu 30;6 fi-kips Axial, Pu:I 0.92 Ikips Shear, Vu: 2.85 kips Elevation: 100 feet *Reaction have been modified Ill No stiffeners, Criteria: TIA Rev G Bolt Threads~ X-Excluded (pVn=(p(0.55*Ab*Fu) (p=0,75, (p*Vn (kips): 40.50 ] TIAG Flange Bolt Results Bolt Tension Capacity, (~*Tn,BI: usted (p'Tn (due to Vu=Vu/Qty), B: Max Bolt directlv applied Tu: Min. PL "tc" for B cae. wig Pry: Min PL "treq" for actual T wi Pry: Min PL "tl" for actual T wig Pry: T allowable with Prying: Prying Force, q: Total Bolt Tension=Tu+q: Prying Bolt Stress Ratio=(Tu+q)/(B): J<-Only Applcable to Unstiffened Cases Non-Rigid 56.81 kips (~*Tn 56.81 kips (pTn[(1-(Vu/~Vn)^2]~0.5 4.68 Kips 2.289 in 0.501 in 0.657 in 33.08 kips 0.~3'<1 case 0.00 kips 4.68 kips 8.2% Pass Pole Data Diam: 14.5 tn Thick: 0.1875 in Grade: 65 ksi # of Sides: 12 "0" IF Round Fu 80 ksi Reinf. Fillet Weld 0 "0" if None Exterior Flange Plate Results Flexural Check Non-Ri~lid Compression Side Plate Stress: 5.1 ksi TIAG Allowable Plate Stress: 45.0 ksi ~p*F;/ Compression Plate Stress Ratio: 11.4% P~35~ Comp. Y.L Length: No Prying 21.28 Tension Side Stress Ratio, (treq/t)^2: 11.1% F'~ss n/a n/._Aa Stiffener Results Horizontal Weld: n/a Vertical Weld: n/a Plate Flex+Shear, fb/Fb+(fv/Fv)^2: n/a Plate Tension+Shear, ft/Ft+(fv/Fv)^2: n/a Plate Comp. (AISC Bracket): n/a Pole Results Pole Punching Shear Check: · 0 = none, 1 = every bolt, 2 = every 2 bolts, 3 = 2 per bolt ** Note: for complete joint penetration groove welds the groove depth must be exactly 1/2 the stiffener thickness for calculation purposes CCIplate 1.4 - Ext Flange G 1.3, Effective April 4, 2011 Analysis Date: 4/29/2011 I Reactions - 100' I Moment 23.08 k-ft Axial 0.91 k Quantity of Bolts= 9 Flange at 100' - Bolt Forces Label Member Size D from Centroid (in) Quantity Lu (in) Area (in') p~* Tension (Kips) Compresion (Kips) P~ B~t 0.~ (Bearing and Stability Checks) Tool for TIA Rev F or G - Any application (MP, SST, GT) Site Data BU#: 806579 Site Name: NY Cutchogue 958280 App #: 116487 Rev 4 For P (DL) For P,V, and M (WL) Loads Already Factored J ,, 1,2 <--Disregard 1.35 <--Disregard Pad & Pier Data Base PL Dist, Above Pier: 3 In Pier Dist. Above Grade: 24 In Pad Bearing Depth, D: fi Pad Thickness, T: 4 fi Pad Width=Length, L: 20~5 fi Pier Cross Section Shape: <-Pull Down Enter Pier Diameter: 6 fi Concrete Density: 150i0 pcf Pier Cross Section Area: 28.27 fi^2 Pier Height: 8.00 ft Soil (above pad) Height: 6.00 fi Soil Parameters Effective Unit Weight, y: '113;3 pcf Ultimate Bearing Capacity, qn: t0~00 ksf Strength Reduct. factor, ~b: 0.75 Angle of Friction, e: 0i0 degrees Undrained Shear Strength, Cu: 250 ksf Allowable Bearing: ~*qn: 7.50 ksf Passive Pres. Coeff., Kp 1.00 Forces/Moments due to Wind and Lateral Soil Factored Pad Passive Force: 484.3 kips Pad Force Location Above D: 1.97 fi ~)(Passive Pressure Moment): 717.22 fi-kips Factored O.T. M(WL), "1.6W": 3601.0 fi-kips Factored OT(UW-Usoil), M1 2883.73 ~t-kips Resistance due to Foundation Gravity Soil Wedge Projection grade, a: 0.00 [t Sum of Soil Wedges Wt: 0.00 kips Soil Wedges ecc, KI: 0.00 It Ftg+Soil above Pad wt: 552.6 kips Unfactored (Total ft~-soil Wt/: 552.61 kips 1.2D. No Soil Wedgies. 703.14 kips 0.9D. With Soil Wedgies 527.35 kips Resistance due to Cohesion {VerticalI ~ ~*(1/2*Cu)(TotalVert. Planes) 275.79 Ikips 1 Cohes on Force Eccentricity, K2 6.10 ft Monopole Base Reaction Forces TIA Revision: G <--Pull Down Factored DL Axial, PDu: 40 kips Factored WL Axial, PWu: 0 kips Factored WL Shear, Vu: 41 kips Factored WL Moment, Mu: 3098.7 fi-kips Load Factor Shaft Factored Loads 1.00 1.2D+1.6W, Pu: 40 kips 0.90 0.gD+I.6W, Pu: 30 kips Vu: 41 kips 1.00 Mu: 3098.7 fi-kips *Moment increased to account for pier eccentricity 1.2D+I.6W Load Combination~ Bearin¢I Results: (No Soil WedRes) I Pl="l.2D+l.6W" [Reaction+Conc+Soil] I 703.14 (Kips) Factored "1.6W" Overtuming fi-k ps J Moment (MW-Msoi,). M1 I 2883'73 Ortho,qonal Direction: eccl: MI/P1 = 4.10 fi Orthogonal qu= 3.01 ksf qu/4)*qn Ratio= 40.16% Pass Dia,clona Direction: ecc2 = (0.707M1)/P1 = 2.90 fi Diagonal qu= 4.60 ksf qu/(~*qn Ratio= 61.35% Pass J; Run J <- Press Upon Completing All Input J Overturning Stability Check J 0.9D+I.6W Load Combinat on, Bear nR Results: (wi Soil Wedqes) 527.35 P2="0.9D+I.6W' [Reaction+Conc+Soil] (Kips) Factored "1.6W" Overturning Moment (MW-Msoil)- 0.9(M of 1369.68 fi-kips Wedge + M of Cohesion), M2 Orthogonal ecc3 = M2/P2 = 2.60 ft Ortho Non Bearing Length,NBL= 15.31 fi Orthogonal qu= 1.89 ksf Diagonal qu= 2.63 ksf Max Reaction Moment (fi-kips) so that qu=(p*qn = 100% Capacity Ratir J Actual M: 3098.70 J M OrthocJonal: 6076.11 5t.00% P~s~; M Diagona: 5627.54 55.06% ?a~s "Baring/Stability er Square Pad Tool, BSPSQP, Vets on 2.0 - Effecbve 05/03/2010 Analysis Date: 4/29/2011 GPD GROUP Monopole or Self Support Pad Foundation Reinforcing NYCutchogue BU: 806579 2011178.90 [Overall C~acit~/ 69.8% *Original foundation rebar only copsidered. 520 South Main Street. Suite 2531. Akron, Ohio 44311 ~GPD ASSOCIATES Engineers. Architects. Planners Job Sheet No. \ Of Phone 330-572-2100 Fax 330-572-2101 Pinnacle Telecom Group Professional and Technical Services Antenna Site FCC RF Compliance Assessment and Report MetroPCS Site NY7314 21855 County Road 48 Cutchogue, NY June 30, 2Oll 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 7 12 13 Appendix A. Background on the FCC MPE Limit Appendix B. Summary of Expert Qualifications Introduction and Summary At the request of MetroPCS, Pinnacle Telecom Group has performed an independent expert assessment of radiofrequency (RF) levels and related FCC compliance for a proposed wireless base station antenna operation to be added to an existing monopole at 21855 County Road 48 in Cutchogue, NY. MetroPCS refers to the site by the code "NY7314", and proposes panel antennas arranged for sectorized service coverage using the 2100 MHz frequency band. The FCC requires all wireless operators to perform an assessment of the RF fields emanating from all the transmitting antennas at a site whenever antenna operations are added or modified, and to ensure compliance with the Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limit in the FCC regulations. In this case, the compliance assessment needs to incorporate the RF effects of existing wireless antenna operations by AT&T, Nextel, T-Mobile, and Yerizon Wireless. 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 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". 3 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 2.0055 percent of the FCC MPE limit - well below the 100-percent reference for compliance. In other words, the worst-case calculated RF level is more than 49 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; [3 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 certi~ing FCC compliance for this site. AntEnna and Transmission Data The table below summarizes the relevant technical data for the proposed MetroPoS antenna operation. Frequency Band 2100 MHz Service Coverage Type Sectorized Antenna Model Kathrein 800-10504 Antenna Maximum Gain 17.8 dBi Antenna Centerline Height AGL 110 ft. 3 in. RF Channels per Sector 3 ~ 24 watts and 1 (~ 60 watts Antenna Line Loss ~Conservatively ignored (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. VVhere the antenna pattern reads 20 dB, for example, the relative RF energy emitted at the corresponding downward angle is 1/100th of the maximum that occurs in the main beam (at 0 degrees); at the 30 dB point, it is 1/1,000th of the maximum. Figure t. Kathrein 800-10504-Vertical-plane Emission Pattern Odeg hodzon 5dB/division As noted at the outset, there are other antenna operations to include in the compliance assessment. Each involves the use of directional panel antennas arranged for sectorized cellular coverage, and in the analysis for each of the carriers, we will conservatively assume maximum capacity (and thus maximum power) operation. 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. 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 maximum of 100 watts of effective radiated power (for which the equivalent antenna input power is less than six watts). 6 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. 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. In order to be as conservative as possible, the calculations for all the existing operators will be performed using the lowest of their respective antenna centerline heights, which is 70 feet 2 inches AGL. CoMpliANcE ANAlysis FCC Offioe of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65 ("OET Bulletin 65") provides guidelines for mathematical models to calculate the RF levels at various points around transmitting antennas. At street-level around an antenna site (in what is called the "far field" of the antennas), the RF levels are directly proportional to the total antenna input power and the relative antenna gain in the downward direction of interest - and the levels are otherwise inversely proportional to the square of the straight-line distance to the antenna, Conservative calculations also assume the potential RF exposure is enhanced by reflection of the RF energy from the ground. Our calculations will assume a 100% "perfect" reflection, the worst-case approach. The formula for street-level compliance assessment for any given wireless antenna operation is as follows: MPE% = (100 * TxPower * 10 (Gmax-Vdisc~o) . 4 ) / ( MPE * 4~ * R2 ) where MPE% = 100 = mxPower = 10 (Gmax-VdiscJ10) 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 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 2 on the following page. 8 height from antenna bottom to 6.5' above ground level antenna 0 · 500 Ground Distance D from the site Figure 2. MPE% Calculation Geometry It is popularly understood that the farther away one is from an antenna, the lower the RF level - which is generally but not universally correct. The results of MPE% calculations fairly close to the site will reflect the variations in the vertical- plane antenna pattern as well as the variation in straight-line distance to the antennas. Therefore, RF levels may actually increase slightly with increasing distance within the range of zero to 500 feet from the site. As the distance approaches 500 feet and beyond, though, the antenna pattern factor becomes less significant, the RF levels become primarily distance-controlled, and as a result the RF levels generally decrease with increasing distance, and are well understood to be in compliance. FCC compliance for a collocated antenna site is assessed in the following manner. At each distance point along the ground, an MPE% calculation is made for each antenna operation, and the sum of the individual MPE% contributions at each point is compared to 100 percent, the normalized reference for compliance with the MPE limit. We refer to the sum of the individual MPE% contributions as "total MPE%", and any calculated total MPE% result exceeding 100 percent is, by definition, higher than the FCC limit and represent non-compliance and a need to mitigate the potential exposure. If all results are consistently below 100 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. 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 operation, with the worst-case (maximum) result highlighted in bold in the last column. 10 Ground MetroPCS AT&T Nextel T-Mobile Verizon Total ~ist/fi/ MPE% MPE% MPE% MPE% MPE% MPE% 0 0.0105 0.0499 0.~031 0.0015 0.0313 0.0963 20 0.0021 0.1620 0.0034 0.0334 0.1047 0,3056 40 0.0562 0.1604 0.0211 0.0334 0,0961 0.3672 60 0.2372 0.1836 0.0099 0.0736 0,1160 0.6203 80 0,0443 0.6024 0.1280 0.1089 0.3401 1.2237 100 0.0520 1.0282 0.2166 0,1275 0.5812 2.0065 120 0.0635 0.3339 0.0596 0.0367 0.1934 0,6871 140 0.0364 0.1071 0.0202 0.0463 0.0616 0.2716 160 0.0359 0.4010 0.0807 0.0033 0.2283 0.7492 180 0.0315 0.8096 0.1467 0.1467 0.4678 1.6023 200 0.0214 0.7022 0.1299 0.1392 0.4046 1.3973 220 0.0406 0.3880 0.0790 0.0754 0.2206 0.8036 240 0.0517 0.2028 0.0433 0.0571 0.1144 0.4693 260 0.0397 0.0939 0.0170 0.0779 0.0544 0.2829 280 0.0155 0.0784 0.0068 0.1175 0.0484 0.2666 300 0.0143 0.1422 0.0149 0.1455 0.0868 0.4037 320 0.0225 0.2818 0.0435 0.1345 0.1660 0.6483 340 0.0334 0.2505 0.0387 0.1197 0.1476 0.5899 360 0.0398 0.4143 0.0776 0.0758 0.2383 0.8458 380 0.0381 0.3729 0.0699 0.0682 0.2145 0.7636 400 0.0346 0.5680 0.1177 0.0289 0.3219 1.0711 420 0.0276 0.5163 0.1070 0.0263 0.2926 0.9698 440 0.0192 0.7424 0.1584 0.0380 0.4188 1.3768 460 0.0177 0.6803 0.1451 0.0348 0.3839 1.2618 480 0.0122 0.6258 0.1335 0.0320 0.3530 1.1565 500 0.0112 0.5775 0.1232 0.0295 0.3257 1.0671 As indicated, the conservatively calculated, worst-case calculated result is 2.0055 percent of the FCC MPE limit - well below the 100-percent reference for compliance. A graph of the overall calculation results, shown on the next page, perhaps provides a clearer visual illustration of the relative insignificance of the calculated RF levels. As might be expected with such Iow calculated RF levels, the line representing the results barely rises above the graph's zero baseline, and shows an obviously clear and consistent margin to the FCC MPE limit. 11 120 100 ~. 80 60 ~ 40 0 .~ 20 COMPLIANCEASSESSMENT RESULTS Normalized FCC MPE Limit · Total MPE% Results 0 100 200 300 400 500 Distance (ft) Compliance Conclusion According to the FCC, the 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 safe. As described, the analysis in this case shows that the maximum calculated RF level from the combination of proposed and existing antenna operations at the site is 2.0055 percent of the FCC MPE limit. In other words, the worst-case calculated RF level from all the antennas at the site is more than 49 times below the limit established as safe for continuous human exposure to the RF emissions from antennas. 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. 12 CERTJJ~JCATJON It is the policy of Pinnacle Telecom Group that all FCC RF compliance assessments are reviewed, approved, and signed by the firm's Chief Technical Officer, who certifies as follows: 1. I have read and fully understand the FCC regulations concerning RF safety and the control of human exposure to RF fields (47 CFR 1.1301 et seq). 2. To the best of my knowledge, the statements and information disclosed in this report are true, complete and accurate. 3. The analysis of site RF compliance provided herein is consistent with the applicable FCC regulations, additional guidelines issued by the FCC, and industry practice. 4. The results of the analysis indicate that the antenna emissions at the subject site will be in compliance with the FCC regulations concerning RF exposure. 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 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In formulating its guidelines, the FCC also considered input from the public and technical community - notably the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The FCC's RF exposure guidelines are incorporated in Section 1.301 et seq of its Rules and Regulations (47 CFR 1.1301-1.1310). Those guidelines specify MPE limits for both occupational and general population exposure. The specified continuous exposure MPE limits are based on known variation of human body susceptibility in different frequency ranges, and a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of 4 watts per kilogram, which is universally considered to accurately represent human capacity to dissipate incident RF energy (in the form of heat). The occupational MPE guidelines incorporate a safety factor of 10 or greater with respect to RF levels known to represent a health hazard, and an additional safety factor of five is applied to the MPE limits for general population exposure. Thus, the general population MPE limit has a built-in safety factor of more than 50. The limits were constructed to appropriately protect humans of both sexes and all ages and sizes and under all conditions - and continuous exposure at levels equal to or below the applicable MPE limits is considered to result in no adverse health effects or even health risk. The reason for two tiers of MPE limits is based on an understanding and assumption that members of the general public are unlikely to have had appropriate RF safety training and may not be aware of the exposures they receive; occupational exposure in controlled environments, on the other hand, is assumed to involve individuals who have had such training, are aware of the exposures, and know how to maintain a safe personal work environment. The FCC's RF exposure limits are expressed in two equivalent forms, using alternative units of field strength (expressed in volts per meter, or V/m), and power density (expressed in milliwatts per square centimeter, or mW/cm2). The table on the next page lists the FCC limits for both occupational and general population exposures, using the mW/cm2 reference, for the different radio frequency ranges. 14 Frequency Range (F) Occupational Exposure General Public Exposure (MHz) (mWlcn~) ( 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) lO0 5.0 1.0 0.2 Occupational ......... General Public 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 I (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-I' 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 Conceming 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 AppFNdix B. SUMMARy Of I=XpFnT OuA[ificATiONS Daniel J. Collins, Chief Technical Officer, Pinnacle Telecom Group, CCC 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: · BE.E, City College of New York (Sch. Of Eng.), 1971 · M.B.A., 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 RFSafety/ · 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 · VVhile 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 industr~ magazines 17 Date: April 29, 201t Cheryl Schultz Crown Castle USA Inc. 3530 Toringdon Way; Suite 300 Charlotte, NC 28277 (704) 405-6632 Subject: Carrier Designation: Crown Castle Designation: Structural Analysis Report Metro PCS Co-Locate Carrier Site Number: Carrier Site Name: GPD GROUP GPD Group 520 South Main St.; Suite 2531 Akron, OH 44311 (330) 572-2137 icheronis~.q pdqroup.com NY 7314 NY 7314 Crown Castle BU Number: Crown Castle Site Name: Crown Castle JDE Job Number: 806579 NY Cutchogue 958280 149440 Engineering Firm Designation: GPD Associates Project Number: 2011178.90 Site Data: 21855 Country Rd., Cutchogue, NY 11935, Suffolk County Latitude 41° I'46.57", Longitude -72° 29' 50.29" 100 Foot - Monopole Tower wi 8.5' Extension Dear Ms. Cheryl Schultz, GPD Group is pleased to submit this "Structural Analysis Report" to determine the structural integrity of the above mentioned tower. This analysis has been performed in accordance with the Crown Castle Structural 'Statement of Work' and the terms of Crown Castle Purchase Order Number 413832, in accordance with application 116487, revision 4. The purpose of the analysis is to determine acceptability of the tower stress level. Based on our analysis we have determined the tower stress level for the structure and foundation, under the following load case, to be: LC1: Structure w/Existing + Reserved + Proposed Note: See Table I and Table II for the proposed and existing/reserved loading, respectively. Sufficient Capacity The analysis has been performed in accordance with the TIA-222-G standard and all local code requirements based upon a wind speed of 120 mph 3-second gust. We at GPD Group appreciate the opportunity of providing our continuing professional services to you and Crown Castle USA Inc. If you have any questions or need further assistance on this or any other projects give us a call. ~ ~sa~c~llysubmitte~l bY: ~~~ /// 520 South Main Street. Suite 2531 . Akron, Ohio 44311 . 330-572-2100. Fax 330-572-2101 . www. GPDGroup.com Glaus Pyle Schomer Burns and DeHaven, Inc Akron. Cleveland. Columbus. Marion. Youngstown. Indianapolis. Atlanta. Seattle. Phoenix Crown Castle USA, Inc. April 29, 2011 100 Ft Monopole w/8.5' Extension Tower Structura/ Ana/ysis CCI BU No 806579 Project Number 2011178.90, Application 116487, Revision 4 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) INTRODUCTION 2) ANALYSIS CRITERIA Table 1 - Proposed Antenna and Cable Information Table 2 - Existing and Reserved Antenna and Cable Information Table 3 - Design Antenna and Cable Information 3) ANALYSIS PROCEDURE Table 4 - Documents Provided 3.1 ) Analysis Method 3.2) Assumptions 4) ANALYSIS RESULTS Table 5 - Section Capacity (Summary) Table 6 - Tower Component Stresses vs. Capacity - LC1 4.1) Recommendations 5) DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES 6) APPENDIX A RISATower Output 7) APPENDIX B Base Level Drawing 8) APPENDIX C Additional Calculations RISATower Report - version 5.4.2.0 Crown Castle USA, Inc. April 29, 2011 100 Ft Monopo/e w/ 8.5' Extension Tower Structural Analysis CC/BU No 806579 Project Number 2011178. 90, Application 116487, Revision 4 Page 3 1) INTRODUCTION The existing monopole has 12 sides and is evenly tapered from 36" (fiat-fiat) at the base to 14.5" (fiat-fiat) at the top. It has three major sections, connected with slip joints. The tower is painted white and has no tower lighting. The tower was originally designed by EEl in August of 1991 for a wind speed of 80 mph per EIA-222-D. Modifications designed by PJF (Job #: 41704-152, dated 11/30/05) have been installed and were considered in the analysis. They consisted of installing modification plates to the pole shaft and adding anchor rods to the base plate. Modifications designed by GPD (Project #: 2010111.14 Rev. C, dated 8/18/10) have also been installed and were considered in this analysis. They consist of installing modification channels to the pole shaft, removing existing fiat plate reinforcement on the pole, installing additional anchor rods to the base plate, and installing a concrete collar to the tower base foundation. The proposed 12' tower extension called out in these drawings was not installed was therefore not considered. The modifications designed by GPD (Project #: 2011111.18, dated 3/30/11) which consist of adding an 8.5' extension to the top of the tower were considered in this analysis. 2) ANALYSIS CRITERIA The dgorous structural analysis was performed for this tower in accordance with the requirements of TIA-222-G Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures using a 3-second gust wind speed of 120 mph with no ice, 50 mph with 0.75 inch ice thickness and 60 mph under service loads. Table 1 - Proposed Antenna and Cable Information : , 01' , ..an~fa~u~ i ~zen a ooe! Leve! (ft) ElevatlonlA~n~nnas la I 110 ~ 6 ~ Kathrein ~ 800 10504 ~ GPS-TMG-26NMS 'l~' 1 I' Maxrad 'i 30 30 ~ 1 /' Pipe Mount [PM 601-1] 12 1 !~ze (in)[ , 1-5/8 1 3/8 1/2 1 Notes: 1) See Appendix B for the proposed coax layout. RISATower Report - version 5.4.2.0 Crown Castle USA,/nc. April 29~ 2011 100 Ft Monopole w/ 8.5' Extension Tower Structural Analysis CCI BU No 806579 Project Number 2011178.90, Application 116487, Revision 4 Page 4 M~ti"g ILe~i {ft) 100 Table 2 - Existing and Reserved Antenna and Cable Information Number Eiev~i0n Line Manufa~reY Lih~ Size(in) 6 Antel ADA-85408580CF 104 ~ I 3 'I Antel 1 ADA-63406380CF 9 7/8 100 I 1 I t Platform Mount [LP 602-1] 1 3/8 1 '{ Comsat RSl 1 A-18A24N-U I I ] T-Arm Mount [TA 602-3] Andrew i E15S08P80 TMA 90 90 I ..... ~ .... l ~r~h:~" ........ [ ..... ~:-'i'~ § ~)-~ P'9~,~" ;~",~ ~ ......... 24 7/8 ~ 6 '~ Andrew ~ TMB~-651~R2M ................................. ~"--~ ..... ~ ......~T~ ........ ~ AP13-850/065D/DT6 12 7/8 82 80 ~ ~ ~ ~i~i ~ ~~Y 12 7/8 2 80 r I ~ TPlaffo~ Mount [LP 305-1] 3 ~ Powe~ave T ~ 6 ~ Powe~ave ~ ~AW~000112-001 TMA 70 70 ~ 3 '~ Kathrein T 800 10121 12 7/8 3 Powe~ave ~ 7770.00 ~' 3 ~ Powe~ave T 7250.02 Notes: 1) S~ loading. 2) Both the existing and S~ loadings ~re considered. The e~sting loading ~s found to ~ntml the analysis. Table 3 - Design Antenna and Cable Information M~nti~9 100 8O Elevation iA~ten~a~l; aanufa~ureri (f~) I i~ ALP 9212 100 1 AM PS type platform 3 i DB560 80 2 "i 8' Standard Dishes RISATower Repod - version 5.4.2.0 Crown Castle USA, Inc. April 29, 2011 100 Ft Monopole w/ 8.5' Extension Tower Structural Analysis CCI BU No 806579 Project Number 2011178.90, Application 116487, Revision 4 Page 5 3) ANALYSIS PROCEDURE Table 4 - Documents Provided Original Tower Drawings I EEl Job #: CSONY257, dated 8/21/91 DOC ID # 642734 Crown DMZ 'F' Edwards & Kelcey, Inc. Dwg #: 92-8012, Foundation Drawings dated 7/31/91 DOC ID # 260900 Crown DMZ ~'l~7~0~'i~i'"~i~"~';i"';i-~"~-~ ....... 5'(~-~-i5~ ~i~' Crown DMZ 'J GPD Project #: 2010111.14 Rev. C, DOC ID #2619474 Crown DMZ Modification Drawings I dated 8/18/10 Post Modification Inspection Report i GPD Project #: 2010111.68, dated 8/26/10 DOC iD # 2710931 Crown DMZ Previous Analysis 1 GPD Project #: 2010111.18, dated 3/30/11 DOC ID # 2861709 Crown DMZ Modification Drawings 'i GPD Project #: 2011111.18, dated 3/30/11 DOC ID # 2861710 Crown DMZ ' 3.1) Analysis Method RISATower (version 5.4.2.0), a commercially available analysis software package, was used to create a three-dimensional model of the tower and calculate member stresses for vadous loading cases, Selected output from the analysis is included in Appendix A. 3.2) Assumptions 1) Tower and structures were built in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 2) The tower and structures have been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specification. 3) The configuration of antennas, transmission cables, mounts and other appurtenances are as specified in Tables 1 and 2 and the referenced drawings. 4) When applicable, transmission cables are considered as structural components for calculating wind loads as allowed by TIA-222-G. 5) Mount sizes, weights, and manufacturers are best estimates based on site photos provided and were determined without the benefit of a site visit by GPD. 6) The existing splice plates and end connections for the bent plate pole reinforcement were considered adequate and were not analyzed due to lack of information. Additionally the intermediate bolt connection spacings were assumed due to lack of information. 7) Transition stiffeners at the base of the tower were not considered in this analysis. However, the tower base section was found to be adequate based on the modified reactions due to the installed anchor rod modifications. 8) Additional moment due to tower eccentricity on the modified pad foundation was considered in this analysis. 9) All member connections and foundation steel reinforcing are assumed designed to meet or exceed the load carrying capacity of the connected member and surrounding soils respectively unless otherwise specified in this report. 10) The modification drawings designed by GPD (Project #: 2011111.18, dated 3/30/11) were considered in this analysis and shall be installed prior to the proposed loading. This analysis may be affected if any assumptions are not valid or have been made in error. GPD Associates should be notified to determine the effect on the structural integrity of the tower. RISATower Report - version 5.4.2.0 Crown Castle USA, Inc. April 29, 2011 100 Ft Monopole wi&5' Extension Tower Structure/Analysis CC/BU No 806579 Project Number 2011178.90, Application 116487, Revision 4 Page 6 4) ANALYSIS RESULTS Table 5 - Section Capacity (Summary) Pole TP12x12x0.375 1 ~ ~.91 ~ 431.40 17.6'-~ Pa~ L3 100- 82.083 Pole TP18.5521x14.5x0.1875 ~--~ '-' 785.50 ~'-~ ~ass L4 170.233882'083' Pole&Reinf. TP20.5386x18.5521x0.7618I ,~ -8.85 3326.73 I'48.8' ,~ Pass L5 170.2338- Pole & Reinf TP229987x184857x07477 I 5 ~ -14.77 3961.50 68.3* ! Pass 60.1667 .... L6 160.1667- Pole&Reinf. TP28.093x2.2.9987xO.9102 I~'--~'~-! 5583.5571.9' Pass 33.7477 .... I~ .... 33;~~-~ ........ F~i~e,~einf.~';~2-9~0~9-1-~.-5.-'~-~';~8 I 7 I~i~-- ~79.45 172.6* ~ Pass ............ -~'~ .................. ~ ............................................................. 6690.52 16.2083 - Pole & Reinf. TP33.083~2.2955~.9137 6901.39 80.6* Pass L9 I 12.9583 LI0 I 12.9583- 9 Pole & Reinf TP33.9~x33.083x1.~22 ]~~-- 7655.02 75.5* I Pass Lli ~ 9- 0 Pole & Reinf TP36x33.~3x0.8124 -~--- -39.52 6275.66 96.4* ] Pass ISumma~! *See Appendix C for Modified Monopole Capacities Table 6 - Tower Component Stresses vs. Capacity - LC1 1 ~ Base Plate i 1 "[~ Base Foundation 1 !' Flange Bolts 100' 1 Flange Plate ~ 100' Pass 66.3% [ Pass 76,2% 69.8% ! Pass 'I Pass 8.2% 12.7%. Pass Notes: 1) See additional documentation in 'Appendix C - Additional Calculations* for calculations supporting the Y. capacity consumed. 4.1) Recommendations The designs of the modified tower and its modified foundation are sufficient for the proposed loading and do not require further modification. RISATower Report - version 5.4.2.0 Crown Castle USA,/nc. Apd129, 2011 100 Ft Monopole w/ 8.5' Extension Tower Stroctura/ Analysis CCI BU No 806579 Project Number 2011178.90, Application 116487, Revision 4 Page 7 5) 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 Rigorous 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 matedal 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. Miscaltaneous 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. RISATower Report - version 5.4.2.0 Crown Castle USA, Inc. April 29, 2011 100 Ft Monopole w/ 8.5' Extension Tower Structural Ana/ysis CCI BU No 806579 Project Number 2011178.90, Application 116487, Revision 4 Page 8 APPENDIX A RISA TOWER OUTPUT RISATower Report - version 5.4.2.0 DESIGNED APPURTENANCE LOADING I TYPEI~I11ELEVATION TYPE I ELEVATION ~F w/~- '~ ~ ~o~'~'~~ ...... (3 ~f~l ~nt ~pe 1~ --- ~70.~ w~.~ MATERIAL STRENGTH TOWER DESIGN NOTES 1. Tower is located in Suffolk County, New York. 2. Tower designed for Exposure C to the TIA-222-G Standard. 3. Tower designed for a 120 mph basic wind in accordance with the TIA-222-G Standard. 4. Tower is also designed for a 50 mph basic wind with 0.75 in ice. Ice is considered to increase in thickness with height. 5. Deflections are based upon a 60 mph wind. 6. Tower Structure Class II. 7. Topographic Category 1 with Crest Height of 0.00 ft ALL REACTIONS ARE FACTORED (~ZP]D Group [~: NY Cutchogue, BU~: 806579 520 S. Main St. Suite 2531 I~: ao~7a.~ Akron, OH 44311 ICli~C Crown Castl~n~ cbudo~P'd: I Phone: (~0) 572-2100 ]~: TIA-222-G /~:~/29/11 /s~le: NTSI F~: (330) 572-2101 {~th: .~11~011178~1~65~ ~ ~gNo E_lr Rcund Flat Feedline Distribution Chart 0' - 108'6" Face A Face B 72.25 Face C GPD (Trouj~ r: NY Cutchogue, BUt): 806579 I 520 S. Main St. Suite 2531 r'°~: 2o11178.9o Akron, OH 44311 ]c,i~t Cro~ Castl~:cbudo~P'd: Phone: (330)572-2100 [~: TIA-222-G [~':~/29/11 /s~le: NTS F~: (330)572-2101 ]~ .................. ]~9NO E-7 RISA Tower Job Page NY Cutchogue, BU#: 806579 I of 9 (~PD (~rot~Ia Project Date $20 $. Main St. Suite 2531 2011178.90 15:52:17 04/29/11 Alcron. 0H44311 Client Designed by P~o.~.. (~30) ~72-2~00 Crown Castle F~. (330) ~72-2101 cbu~on Tower Input Data There is a pole section. This tower is designed using the TIA-222-G standard. The following design criteria apply: Tower is located in Suffolk County, New York. Basic wind speed of 120 mph. Structure Class II. Exposure Category C. Topographic Category 1. Crest Height 0.00 ft. Nominal ice thickness of 0.7500 in. Ice thickness is considered to increase with height. Ice density of 56 pcf. A wind speed ofS0 mph is used in combination with ice. Temperature drop of 50 °F. Deflections calculated using a wind speed of 60 mph. A non-linear (P-delta) analysis was used. Pressures are calculated at each section. Stress ratio used in pole design is 1. Local bending stresses due to climbing loads, feedline supports, and appurtenance mounts are not considered. Options Consider Moments - Legs Consider Moments - HorizontaLs Consider Moments - Diagonals Use Moment Magnification Use Code Stress Ratios Use Code Safety Factors - Guys Escalate Ice Always Use Max Kz Use Special Wind Profile Include Bolts In Member Capacity Leg Bolts Arc At Top Of Section Secondary Horizontal Braces Leg Use Diamond Inner Bracing (4 Sided) Add IBC .6D+W Combination Distribute Leg Loads As Uniform Assume Legs Pinned Assume Rigid Index Plate Use Clear Spans For Wind Area Use Clear Spans For KL/r Retension Guys To Initial Tension Bypass Mast Stability Checks Use Azimuth Dish Coefficients Project Wind Area of Appurt. Autocalc Torque Arm Areas SR Members Have Cut Ends Sort Capacity Reports By Component Tr/angnlate Diamond Inner Bracing Treat Feedline Bundles As Cylinder Use ASCE 10 X-Brace Ly Rules Calculate Redundant Bracing Forces Ignore Redundant Members in PEA SR Leg Bolts Resist Compression All Leg Panels Have Same Allowable Offset Girt At Foundation Consider Feedline Torque Include Angle Block Shear Check In~i~a~ §be~Torsioh ~i~tinn Always Use Sub-Critical Flow Use Top Mounted Sockets Tapered Pole Section Geometry Section Elevation Section Splice Length Length L2 100.50-100.00 0.50 0.00 L3 100.00-82.08 17.92 0.00 Number Top Bottom Wall Bend Pole Grade of Diameter Diameter Thickness Radius Sides in in in in Round 12.0000 12.0000 0.3750 A53-B-35 (35 ksi) Round 12.0000 14.5000 0.3750 A53-B-35 (35 ksi) 12 14.5000 18.5521 0.1875 0.7500 A572-65 RISA Tower Job Page NY Cutchoguo, BUg: 806579 2 of 9 GP~) Group Project Date 520 S. Main St. Suite 253] 2011178.90 15:52:17 ~/29/11 ~on, 0H44311 Client Designed by F~r- (330) 572-2101 cbu~on Section El~ation ~ection Splice Number Top Boaom ~all Bend Pole Grade Length Length of Diameter Diameter Thic~ess R~ius fl fi fi Sides in in in in (65 ksi) ~ 82.08-70,23 11.85 3.16 12 18.5521 20.5386 0.7269 2.9076 A572-65 (65 kb) L5 70.23-60.17 13.22 0.00 12 18.5555 22.9987 0.7502 3.0~8 A572-65 (65 ksi) ~ ~.17-33.75 26.42 4.13 12 22.9987 28.0930 0.89~ 3.5636 A572-65 (65 ksi) L7 33.75-30.50 738 0.00 12 25.5149 29.0291 0.9~2 3.6~8 A572-65 (65 ksi) ~ 30.50-16.21 14.29 0.00 12 29.0291 32.2955 0.8978 3.5912 ~72-65 (65 ksi) L9 16.21-12.96 3,25 0.00 12 32.2955 33.0830 0.9036 3.61~ ~72-65 LI0 12.96-9.00 3.96 0,00 12 33.0830 33.9430 0.97~ 3.9136 ~72~5 (65 ksi) LI 1 9.00~.00 9.00 12 33.9430 36.~0 0.7501 3,0~ ~72-65 (65 ksi) Feed Line/Linear Appurtenances -Entered As Round Or Flat Description Sector Component Placement Total Number Start/End Width or Perimeter Weight Type Number Per Row Position Diameter LDF7-50A (1-5/8 FOAM) C Surface Ar 108.00 - 8.00 I 1 0.000 1.9800 0.00 (CaAa) 0.000 LDF7-50A (1-5/8 FOAM) C Surface Ar 108.00 - 8.00 11 11 0.000 0.0000 0.00 (Ca~) 0.000 LDF2-50A (3/8 FOAM) C Surface Ar 108~00 - 8.00 I 1 0.000 0.0000 0.00 (CaAa) 0.000 LDF4-50A(1/2") C Surface Ar 30.00 - 8.00 I 1 0.000 0.0000 0.00 (CaAa) 0.000 MP3-08 Mod Charmel (Rev G) B Surface Af 15.50 - 8.00 1 1 0.000 7.9300 24.9100 0.00 (CaAa) 0.000 MP34)8 Mod Channel (Rev G) B Surface Af 30.50 - 15,50 1 1 0.000 7.9300 24,9100 0.00 (CaAa) 0.000 MP3-06 Mod Channel (Rev G) B Surface Af 66.25 - 30.50 1 1 0.000 6.8900 21.9900 0.00 (CaP, a) 0.000 MP3416 MOd Channel (Rev G) B Surface Af 75.50 - 72.25 1 I 0.000 6,8900 21.9900 0.00 (CaAa) 0.000 MP34)6 Mod Channel (Rev G) B Surface Af 85.50 - 75.50 I 1 0.000 6.8900 21.9900 0.00 (CaAa) 0.000 Bridge Stiffeners B Surface Af 72.25 - 66.25 I I 0.000 1.2500 32.0000 0.05 (CaAa) 0.000 Bridge Stiffeners B Surface Af 81,50-75.50 1 I 0.000 1.2500 32.0000 0.05 (CaAa) 0.000 Bridge Stiffeners C Surface Af 72.25 - 66.25 I I 0.000 1.2500 32.0000 0.05 (CaAa) 0.000 Bridge Stiffeners C Surface Af 81.50-75.50 1 I 0.000 1.2500 32.0000 0.05 (CaAat 0.000 NY Cutchogue, BU#: 80657g 3 o[ 0 GPD Group Project Date 520 S. Main St. Suite 2531 901 1 1 78.g0 1 §:§2:1 7 04/2911 1 Phone: (330) 572-2100 Crown Castle F~Y.. (330) 572-2101 cburton Feed Line/Linear Appurtenances - Entered As Area Description Face Allow Component or Shield Type Leg LDF5-50A (7/8 FOAM) A No Inside Pole LDF5-50A (7/8 FOAM) B No Inside Pole LDF2-50A (3/8 FOAM) B No Inside Pole LDF5-50A (7/8 FOAM) C No Inside Pole LDFS-50A (7/8 FOAM) C No Inside Pole Placement Total C~a Weight Number ~t f?¢ hg 70.00 - 8.00 12 No Ice 0.00 0.00 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.00 1" Ice 0.00 0.00 100.00 - 8.00 9 No Ice 0.00 0.00 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.00 1" Ice 0.00 0.00 100.00 - 8.00 I No Ice 0.00 0.00 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.00 1" Ice 0.00 0.00 90.00 - 8.00 24 No Ice 0.00 0.00 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.00 1" Ice 0.00 0.00 80.00 - 8.00 12 No lee 0.00 0.00 1/2" Ice 0.00 0.00 1" Ice 0.00 0.00 Discrete Tower Loads Description Face Offset Offsets: or Type Horz Leg Lateral Vert T-Arm Mount [TA 702-3] C None 800 10504 w/Mount Pipe A From Leg 3.46 2.00 2.00 800 10504 w/Mount Pipe A From Leg 3.46 2.00 2.00 (2) 800 10504 w~vlount Pipe B From Leg 3.94 0.69 2,00 (2) 800 10504 w/Mount Pipe C From Leg 3.94 0.69 2.00 Platform Mount [LP 602-1] C None 2" x 60" Mount Pipe A From 3.80 Centroid-Le -1.24 g 0.00 2" x 60" Mount Pipe B From 3.80 Centroid-Le -1.24 g 0.00 2" x 60" Monnt Pipe C From 3.80 Ccntroid-Le -1.24 g 0.00 (3) Ad)A-85408580CF w/ A From 3.80 Mount Pipe Centroid-Le -1.24 g 4.00 Azimuth Placement CaAa Adjustment Front Side Weight K 0.0000 108.00 No Ice 5.64 5.64 0.34 1/2" Ice 6.55 6.55 0.43 1" Ice 7.46 7.46 0.52 30.0000 108.00 No Ice 3.94 3.53 0.04 1/2" Ice 4.55 4.59 0.08 l"Ice 5.06 5.36 0.12 40.0000 108.00 No Ice 3.94 3.53 0.04 1/2" Ice 4.55 4.59 0.08 1" Ice 5.06 5.36 0.12 10,0000 108.00 No Ice 3.94 3.53 0.04 1/2" Ice 4.55 4.59 0.08 1" Ice 5.06 5.36 0.12 10.0000 108.00 No Ice 3.94 3.53 0.04 1/2" Ice 4.55 4.59 0.08 1" Ice 5.06 5.36 0.12 0.0000 100,00 No Ice 32.03 32.03 1.34 I/2" Ice 38,71 38.71 1.80 1' Ice 45,39 45.39 2.26 -18.0000 100.00 Nolce 1.00 1.00 0.03 1/2" Ice 1.39 1.39 0.04 1" Ice 1.70 1.70 0.05 -18.0000 100.00 Nolce 1.00 1.00 0,03 1/2" Ice 1,39 1.39 0.04 I" lce 1.70 1.70 0.05 -18.0000 100.00 No Ice 1.00 1.00 0.03 1/2" Ice 1,39 1.39 0.04 1" Ice 1.70 1.70 0.05 -18.0000 100.00 No Ice 5.41 3.44 0.03 1/2" Ice 5.86 4.04 0.07 1" Ice 6.32 4.66 0.12 RISA Tower Job NY Cutchogue, BU#: 806579 4 of 9 GPD Group Project Date 520 S. Main St. Suite 2531 201 1 1 78.90 15:52:1 7 04/29/11 ,41~ron. 0H44311 Client Designed by Phone: (330) 572-2100 Crown Castle FAY: (330) 572-2101 cburtoD Descr~otion Face Off~et Off~ets: ~i~th Placement C~ C~ ~eight or Type Ho~ Adjustment Front SMe ~g Lateral Vert (3) ~A-85~858~F w/ B From 3.80 -18.~0 100.~ Nolce 5.41 3.~ 0.03 Mo~t Pi~ C~tmid-~ -1.24 1/2" Ice 5.86 4.~ 0.07 g 4.00 1" Icc 6.32 4.66 0.12 (3) ~A-6340638~F w/ C From 3.80 -18.~00 1 ~.~ No Ice 8.62 4.07 0.06 Mo~t Pi~ C~tmid-~ -1.24 1/2" Ice 9.29 4.94 0.11 g 4.00 1" Icc 9,91 5.67 0.18 A-I 8~4N-U C From 4.00 0.0~ I~.~ No Ice 6.57 0.54 0.02 Centroid-Fa 0.00 1/2" Ice 6.91 0.70 0.04 cc 0.00 I" Ice 7.25 0.86 0.06 T-~ Mount [TA 602-3] C None 0.0~ 90.~ No Ice 11.59 11.59 0.77 1/2" lcc 15.~ 15.~ 0.99 I"lce 19.29 19.29 1.21 (2) T~-6516-~M w/ A From ~g 3.46 30.~ 90.~ No Ice 7.56 5.72 0.06 Mo~t Pipe 2.00 1/2" Ice 8.34 6.92 0.12 0.00 1" I~ 9.07 7.97 0.19 (2) ~-6516-~M w/ B From ~g 3.46 30.~ 90.~ Nolce 7.56 5.72 0.06 Mo~t Pipe 2.00 1/2" Ice 8.34 6.92 0.12 0.00 1" Ice 9.07 7.97 0.19 (2) ~-6516-~M w/ C From ~g 3.46 30.~ ~.~ Nolce 7.56 5.72 0.06 Mo~t Pipe 2.00 1/2" Ice 8.34 6.92 0.12 0.00 1" Ice 9.07 7.97 0.19 (2) ~65-19~2DP w/mo~t A From ~g 3.46 30.~0 90.00 No Ice 5.87 4.17 0.04 pipe 2.00 1/2" Ice 6.32 5.16 0.08 0.00 1" Ice 6,79 5.96 0.13 (2) ~65-19-02DP w/mo~t B From ~g 3.46 30.~0 90.00 Nolce 5.87 4.17 0.04 pipe 2.00 1/2" lce 6.32 5.16 0.08 0.00 1" I~ 6.79 5.96 0.13 (2) ~65-19~2DP w/mo~t C From ~g 3.46 30.~00 90.00 No Ice 5.87 4.17 0.04 pipe 2.00 1/2" Icc 6.32 5.16 0.08 0.00 1" Ice 6.79 5.96 0.13 E15S08P80 A From ~g 3.46 30.~00 90.~ Nolce 0.23 0.12 0.00 2.00 I/2" Ice 0.30 0.17 0.00 0.00 1" Ice 0.38 0.24 0.01 E15S08PS0 B From ~g 3.46 30.~ 90.~ Nolce 0.23 0.12 0.00 2.00 1/2" Ice 0.30 0.17 0.00 0.00 I" Ice 0.38 0.24 0.01 E15SO8PS0 C From ~g 3.46 30.~ 90.~ Nolce 0.23 0.12 0.00 2.00 1/2" lce 0.30 0.17 0.00 0.00 1" Ice 0.38 0.24 0.01 E15S09P94 A From ~g 3.46 30.~0 90.00 No Ice 0.66 0.37 0.01 2.00 1/2" Ice 0.78 0,46 0.02 0.00 1" Ice 0.90 0.56 0.03 E15S09P94 B From ~g 3.46 30.~0 90.00 No Ice 0.66 0.37 0.01 2.00 I/2" Ice 0.78 0.46 0.02 0.00 l" Ice 0.90 0.56 0.03 E15S09P94 C From ~g 3.46 30.~00 90.~ Nolce 0.66 0.37 0.01 2.00 I/2" Ice 0.78 0.46 0.02 0.00 1" Icc 0.90 0.56 0.03 Platfom Mount [LP 305-1] C None 0.0~0 80.00 Nolce 18.01 18.01 1.12 1/2" Ice 23.33 23.33 1.35 I" lee 28.65 28.65 1.58 (4) DB845N65Z~T A From 3.46 30,~ 80.00 No Ice 6.31 6.63 0.04 w~oum Pipe Centroid-Lc 2.00 1~2"Ice 6.97 7.80 0.10 g 2,00 1" Ice 7.57 8.69 0.17 (4) DB845N65Z~T B From 3.46 30.~0 80.00 No Ice 6.31 6.63 0.04 w~ount Pipe C~troid-Le 2.00 1/2" Ice 6.97 7.80 0.I 0 g 2.00 1" Ice 7.57 8.69 0.17 NY Cutchogue, BU#: 806579 5 of 9 GPD Group Project Date 52o s. Mai. St. Suite 253/ 2011178.90 15:52:17 04/29/11 Akron, OH 44311 Client Designed by Phone: (330) 572-2100 Crown Castle F,~Y: (330) 572-2101 cburton Description Face Offset Offsets: Azimuth Flacement C~4A C~z Weight or Type Horz Adjuxtment Front Side Leg Lateral Vert ft ft ft2 ft2 K ft ,/~ (4) DB845N65ZAXT C From 3.46 30.0000 80.00 No Ice 6.31 6.63 0.04 w/Mount Pipe Centroid-Le 2,00 1/2" Ice 6.97 7.80 0.10 g 2.00 1" Ice 7.57 8.69 0.17 T-Arm Mount [TA 602-3] C None 0.0000 70.00 No Ice 11.59 11.59 0.77 1/2" Ice 15.44 15.44 0.99 l"lce 19.29 19.29 1.21 800 10121 w/Mount Pipe A Prom Leg 3.76 20.0000 70.00 No Ice 5.69 4.60 0.07 1.37 1/2" Ice 6.18 5.34 0.11 0.00 1" Ice 6.67 6.04 0.17 7770.00 w/Mount Pipe A From Leg 3.76 20.0000 70.00 No Ice 6.58 4.~4 0.08 1.37 1/2" Ice 7.21 5.86 0.13 0.00 I" Ice 7.80 6.64 0.19 7250.02 w/Mount Pipe A From Leg 3.76 20.0000 70.00 No Ice 4.24 3.32 0.04 1.37 1/2" Ice 4.71 4.30 0.07 0.00 I"Ice 5.17 5.05 0.11 800 10121 w/Mount Pipe B From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 Nolce 5.69 4.60 0.07 0.00 1/2" Ice 6.18 5.34 0.11 0.00 1" Ice 6.67 6.04 0.17 7770,00 w/Mount Pipe B From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 No Ice 6.58 4.94 0.08 0.00 1/2" Ice 7.21 5.86 0.13 0.00 1" Ice 7.80 6.64 0.19 7250.02 w/Mount Pipe B From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 No Ice 4.24 3.32 0.04 0.00 1/2" Ice 4.71 4.30 0.07 0.00 l"Ice 5.17 5.05 0.11 800 10121 w/Mount Pipe C From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 No Ice 5.69 4.60 0.07 0.00 1/2" Ice 6.18 5.34 0.11 0.00 1" Ice 6.67 6.04 0.17 7770.00 w/Mount Pipe C From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 No Ice 6.58 4.94 0,08 0.00 1/2" Ice 7.21 5.86 0.13 0.00 1" Ice 7.80 6.64 0.19 7250.02 w/Mount Pipe C From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 No Ice 4.24 3.32 0.04 0.00 I/2" Ice 4.71 4.30 0.07 0.00 1" Ice 5.17 5.05 0.11 LGP 17205 A From Leg 3.76 20.0000 70.00 No Ice 1.95 0.50 0.03 1.37 1/2" lee 2.13 0.62 0.04 0.00 1" Ice 2.33 0.75 0.06 (2) TTAW-0000112-001 A From Leg 3.76 20.0000 70.00 No Ice 0.44 0.15 0.01 1.37 1/2" Ice 0.53 0.21 0.01 0.00 1" Ice 0.63 0.29 0.01 LGP 17205 B From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 No Ice 1.95 0.50 0.03 0,00 1/2" Ice 2.13 0.62 0.04 0.00 1" Ice 2.33 0.75 0.06 (2) TTAW-0000112-001 B From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 Nolte 0.44 0.15 0.01 0.00 1/2" Ice 0,53 0.21 0,01 0.00 I" Ice 0.63 0.29 0.01 LGP17205 C From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 No Ice 1.95 0.50 0.03 0.00 1/2" Ice 2.13 0.62 0.04 0.00 1" Ice 2.33 0.75 0.06 (2) TTAW-0000112-001 C From Leg 4.00 0.0000 70.00 Nolce 0.44 0.15 0.01 0.00 1/2" Ice 0.53 0.21 0.01 0.00 1" Ice 0.63 0.29 0.01 Pipe Mount [PM 601-1 ] A From Leg 0.50 0.01900 30.00 No Ice 3.00 0.90 0.07 0.00 1/2" Ice 3.74 1.12 0.08 0.00 I" Ice 4.48 1.34 0.09 GPS-TMG-26NMS A From Leg 1.00 0.0000 30.00 No Ice 0.16 0.16 0,00 0.00 1/2' Ice 0.21 0,21 0.00 0.00 1" Ice 0.28 0.28 0.01 RI$,4 Tower Job Page NY Cutchogue, BU#: 806579 6 of 9 GPD Group Project Date 520 S. Main St. Suite 2531 201 1 178.90 15:52:17 04/29/11 A~on, 0H44311 Client ~signed by Phone: (330) 572 2100 Crown Castle F~. (330) ~72-2101 cbu~on Maximum Tower Deflections - Service Wind Section Elevation Horz. Gov. Tilt Twist No. Deflection Load ,fi in Comb. LI 108.5 - 100.5 10.882 44 0.9640 0.0044 [2 100.5 - 100 9.284 44 0.9471 0.0034 L3 100 - 82.083 9.185 44 0.9460 0.0034 L4 82.083 - 70.2338 6.041 44 0.6923 0.0012 L3 73.3913 - 60.1667 4.834 44 0.6307 0.0010 L6 60.1667 - 33.7477 3.230 44 0.5146 0.0007 L7 37.8773 - 30.5 1.291 44 0.3130 0.0003 L8 30.5 - 16.2083 0.840 44 0.2620 0.0002 L9 16,2083 - 12.9583 0.243 44 0.1386 0.000I L10 12.9583 - 9 0.158 44 0.1120 0.0001 L11 9 - 0 0.077 44 0.0826 0.0001 Critical Deflections and Radius of Curvature - Service Wind Elevation Appurtenance Gov. Deflection Tilt Twist Radius of Load Curvature ~t Comb. in ,ft 108.00 T-Arm Mount [TA 702-3] 44 10.782 0.9629 0.0043 20746 100.00 Platform Mount [LP 602-1 ] 44 9.185 0.9460 0.0034 7998 90.00 T-Arm Mount [TA 602-3] 44 7.326 0.8183 0.0021 4232 80.00 Platform Mount [LP 305-1 ] 44 5.735 0.6720 0.0011 4268 70.00 T-Ama Mount [TA 602-3] 44 4.396 0.6066 0.0009 8542 30.00 Pipe Mount [PM 601-1] 44 0.813 0.2582 0.0002 6721 Maximum Tower Deflections - Design Wind No. Deflection Load ft in Comb. L9 16.2083 - 12.9583 1.736 12 0,9898 0.0012 L10 12.9583 - 9 1.127 12 0.8002 0.0009 LI 1 9 - 0 0.551 12 0.5898 0.0007 Critical Deflections and Radius of Curvature - Desi[In Wind R/ A Tower Jo. NY Cutchogue, BU#: 806579 7 of 9 GPD Group Project Date 52o s. Mai. st. ~#~ 2~ / 2011178.90 15:52:17 04/29/11 A~on. 0H44311 Client ~signed by P~ne: (330) 572 2100 Crown Castle F~. (330 572-2101 cbudon El~ation Appu~ance Gev. Deflection Tilt Twist R~ius of Load Cu~ature fi Comb. in I08.~ 12 76.582 6.8213 0.0322 3074 1~.~ 12 65.306 6.7035 0.0261 1192 90.~ 12 52.145 5.8142 0.0167 620 80.~ 12 40.858 4.7842 0.0110 613 70.~ 12 31.340 4.3201 0.0~7 1216 30.~ 12 5.8~ 1.8~0 0.0025 9~ T-Arm Mount [TA 702-3] Platform Mount [LP 602-1 ] T-Arm Mount [TA 602-3] Platform Mount [LP 305-1] T-Arm Mount [TA 602-3] Pi~ Mount IPM 601-1] Compression Checks Pole Design Data Section Elevation Size L L, KI/r d P~ ~P~ RaOo No. p. fl fl fl in2 K K ~?p. L1 108.5 - 100.5 TP12x12x0.375 8.00 0.00 0.0 13.6954 -0.91 431.40 0.002 (1) L2 100.5 - 100 (2) TP14.Sx12x0.375 0.50 0.00 0.0 13.6954 -0.91 431.40 0.002 L3 100- 82.083 TP18.5521 x14.5x0.1875 17.92 0.00 0.0 11.0876 4.85 785.50 0.006 (3) L4 82.083 - TP20.5386xlS.5521xO.7269 11.85 0.00 0.0 45.1326 -8.85 3326.73 0.003 70.2338 (4) L5 70.2338 - TP22.9987x 18.5555x0.7502 13.22 0.00 0.0 53.7445 -14.77 3961.50 0.004 60.1667 (5) [6 60.1667 - TP28.093x22.9987x0.8909 26.42 0.00 0.0 75.7503 -22.50 5583.55 0.004 33.7477 (6) L7 33.7477-30.5 TP29.0291 x25.5149x0.9002 7.38 0.00 0.0 77.0513 -25.30 5679.45 0.004 (7) L8 30.5- 16.2083 TP32.2955x29.0291x0.8978 14.29 0.00 0.0 90.7681 -32.65 6690.52 0.005 (8) L9 16.2083- TP33.083x32.2955x0.9036 3.25 0.00 0.0 93.6289 -34.11 6901.39 0.005 12.9583 (9) LIO 12.9583 -9 TP33.943x33.083x0.9784 3.96 0,00 0.0 103.853 -36.04 7655.02 0.005 (10) 0 Lll 9-0(11) TP36x33.943x0.7501 9.00 0.00 0.0 85.1399 -39.52 6275.66 0.006 [ Pole Bending Design Data ] Section Elevation Size M~, {M~ Ratio M~y ~M,~ Ratio No. iff,, M,y fi kip-fl kip-ft ~M~ kip-fi kip-ft ~M,~ L1 108.5 - 100.5 TP12x12x0.375 23.08 133.07 0.173 0.00 133.07 0.000 (1) L2 100.5 - 100 (2) TP14.Sx12x0.375 23.08 133.07 0.173 0.00 133.07 0.000 L3 100-82.083 TP18.5521 x14.Sx0.1875 254.60 293.22 0.868 0.00 293.22 0.000 (3) IA 82.083 - TP20.5386x 18.5521 x0.7269 451.38 1269.35 0.356 0.00 1269.35 0.000 70.2338 (4) L5 70.2338 - TP22.9987x 18.5555x0.7502 832.37 1750.78 0.475 0.00 1750.78 0.000 60.1667 (5) L6 60.1667 - TP28.093 x22.9987x0.8909 1577.43 2928.69 0.539 0.00 2928.69 0.000 RISA Tower Job Page NY Cutchogue, BU#: 806579 8 of 9 Project Date GPD Group 520 S. Main St. Suite 2531 2011178.90 15252217 04/29/11 Akron, 0H44311 Client Designed by Phone: (330) 572-2100 Crown Castle cburton FAX.. (380) 572-2101 Section Elevation Size M~ qbM~ Ratio My toM,~ Ratio No. M~ M~y fi kip-fi kip-ft ~M.~ 15p-ft kip-ft ~M.~ 33.7477 (6) L7 33.7477-30.5 TP29.0291 x25.5149x0.9002 1725.20 2998.49 0.575 0.00 2998.49 0.000 (7) L8 30.5- 16.2083 TP32.2955x29.0291x0.8978 2382.57 4193.62 0.568 0.00 4193.62 0.000 (8) L9 16.2083 - TP33.083x32.2955x0.9036 2509.39 4435.70 0.566 0.00 4435.70 0.000 12.9583 (9) LI0 12.9583-9 '[733.943 x33.083x0.9784 2665.81 5032.30 0.530 0.00 5032.30 0.000 (10) L11 9 - 0 (11) TP36x33.943xO.7501 3028.49 4447.82 0.681 0.00 4447.82 0.000 Pole Shear Design Data Section Elevation Size Actual ~V. Ra~io Actual {T. Ratio No. V. V. T. T. fi K r tfV. kip-ft kip-fi LI 108.5 - 100.5 TP12x12x0.375 2.82 215.70 0.013 0.24 202.31 0.001 (1) L2 100.5 - 100 (2) TP14.5x12x0.375 2.85 262.09 0.011 0.24 202.31 0.001 L3 100-82.083 TP18.5521 x14.5x0.1875 16.21 392.75 0.041 0.65 594.56 0.001 (3) IA 82.083 - TP20.5386x 18.5521 x0.7269 23.75 1663.36 0.014 0.65 2573.84 0.000 70.2338 (4) L5 70.2338 - TP22.9987xlS.5555xO.7502 31.79 1980.75 0.016 0.54 3550.05 0.000 60.1667 (5) L6 60.1667 - TP28.093 x22.9987x0.8909 35.38 2791.78 0.013 2.32 5938.47 0.000 33.7477 (6) L7 33.7477-30.5 TP29.0291 x25.5149x0.9002 36.35 2894.82 0.013 2.32 6080.00 0.000 (7) L8 30.5- 16.2083 TP32.2955x29.0291x0.8978 38.81 3345.26 0.012 2.32 8503.33 0.000 (8) L9 16.2083 - TP33.083x32.2955x0.9036 39.25 3450.69 0.011 2.31 8994.25 0.000 12.9583 (9) LI0 12.9583-9 TP33.943 x33.083 x0.9784 39.80 3827.51 0.010 2.31 10203.92 0.000 00) Lll 9-0(11) TP36x33.943x0.7501 40.85 3137.83 0.013 2.31 9018.83 0.000 Pole Interaction Desitin Data Section Elevation Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Comb. Allow. Criteria No. P~ M= M.y V~ T, Stress Stress ft {Pn ~M~ ~_M~e ~V. ~T~ Ratio Ratio L1 108.5 - 100.5 0.002 0.173 0.000 0.013 0.001 0.176 1.000 4.8.2 va (1) va L2 100.5- 100 (2) 0.002 0.173 0.000 0.011 0.001 0.176 1.000 4.8.2 b~ L3 100- 82.083 0.006 0.868 0.000 0.041 0.001 0.876 1.000 4.8.2 va (3> va RI$/t Tower Job Page NY Cutchogue, BU#: 806579 9 of 9 GPD Group Project Date 520 S. Main St. Suite 2531 201 11 78.90 15:52:17 04/29/11 Akron, 0H44311 Client Designed by Phone: (330) 572-2100 Crown Castle FA,E. (330) 572-2101 cburton Section Capacity Table Section Elevation Corr~oonent Size Critical P oPouo~ % Pass No. fi Type Element K K Capaciiy Fail LI 108.5 - 100.5 Pole L2 100.5 - 100 Pole L3 100 - 82.083 Pole IA 82.083 ~ 70.2338 Pole L5 70.2338 - Pole 60.1667 L6 60.1667 - Pole 33.7477 L7 33.7477 - 30.5 Pole L8 30.5 - 16.2083 Pole L9 16.2083 - Pole 12.9583 LI0 12.9583 -9 Pole L 11 9 - 0 Pole TP12x12x0.375 I -0.91 431.40 17.6 Pass TP14.Sx12x0.375 2 -0.91 431.40 17.6 Pass TP18.5521xI4.Sx0.1875 3 -4.85 785.50 87.6 Pass TP20.5386x18.5521x0.7269 4 -8,85 3326.73 * Pass TP22.9987x18.5555x0.7502 5 -14.77 3961.50 * Pass TP28.093x22.9987x0.8909 6 -22.50 5583.55 * Pass TP29.0291x25.5149x0.9002 7 -25.30 5679.45 * Pass TP32.2955x29.0291x0.8978 8 -32.65 6690.52 * Pass TP33.083x32.2955x0.9036 9 -34.11 6901.39 * Pass TP33.943x33.083x0.9784 10 -36.04 7655,02 * Pass TP36x33.943x0,7501 11 -39.52 6275.66 * Pass Summary Pole (L3) 87,6 Pass RATING = 87.6 Pass *See Appendix C for Modified Monopole Calculations. Program Version 5.4.2.0 - 6/17/2010 File:N:/2011/2011178/90/RISA/806579.efi Crown Castle USA, Inc. April 29, 2011 1 O0 Ft Monopole w/8.5' Extension Tower Structural Analysis CCI BU No 806579 Project Number 2011178.90, Application 116487, Revision 4 Page 9 APPENDIX B BASE LEVEL DRAWING RISATower Report - version 5.4.2.0 ST~LL~) 0 : SCALE : 2 3FT LEGEND: FEEDLINES BASE LEVEL DRAWING I I Crown Castle USA, Inc. April 29, 2011 100 Ft Monopole w/ 8.5' Exlension Tower Structural Analysis CCI BU No 806579 Project Number 2011178. 90, Application 116487, Revision 4 Page 10 APPENDIX C ADDITIONAL CALCULATIONS RISATower Report - version 5.4.2.0 Reinforced Monopole Analysis NY Cutchogue BU: 806579 G PD Modified Monopole Analysis - VZ.O0 GPD GROUP GPD GROUP Job 2011178.90 Sheet No--Of 1 Calculated By CB Checked By DJP __date 4/29/2011 date 4/29/201! ANCHOR ROD TRANSFORMATION IRev. Gt Moment from RISk (M) = Axial from RISk (A) = Shear from RISk (V) = Existing Bolt Diameter Existing Bolt Area (A~) -- Number Existing Bolts (nE) Distance from neutral axis (d) = in. (determined in CAD) Fy ksi Fu Modified Bolt (1) Diameter Modified Bolt Area (A, noa) = Number Modified Bolts (nM) Distance from neutral axis (d): i iiiiiii!iii~i n determined in CAD) Modified Bofi (2) Diameter Modified Bolt Area (A~) = Number Modified Bolts (nM) *Taken from DSI Spec Sheet f~= 169.95 kips (Mod 1 ) f..~ = 164.28 kips (Mod 2) f~ = 306,44 kips Axex-- 2,31 kips ( Mod 1 ) Axm~= 1.84 kips (Mod 2) Axmo~= 3.54 kips Total= 40.00 kips Distance from neutral axis (d) = in. (determined in CAO) Fu ksi (Combined MOl of existing and post installed rods determined in CAD, Existing & Modified (2) Anchor Rod Capacity Controlling( (Combined MOl of existing and post installed rods determined in CAD, Modified (3.) Anchor Rod Capacity Controlling) Maximum compressive force in existing rods = Maximum compressive force in modification (1) rods = Maximum compressive force in modification (2) rods = 172.26 kips (f~x+Ax~x) 166.12 kips (fr, o~+AXr~o~) 309.98 kips (f~+AXr,o~) Ultimate Axial Strength: Existing Rods (f~)= kips Ultimate Axial Strength: Modiflcatlon I Rods{fired-- ~ kips · . . U t mate AX a Strength: Modification (2) Rods (f~,d)= kips (based on pull test load of 502 kips referenced in PMI by GPD dated 8/26/10) Modification Rod (1) Rating-- 53.1% Modification Rod (2} Rating= 51.7% Square, Stiffened / Unstiffened Base Plate, Any Rod Material - Rev. FIG Assumptions: 1) Rod groups at comers. Total # rods divisible by 4. Maximum total # of rods = 48 (12 per Corner). 2) Rod Spacing = Straight Center-to-Center distance between any (2) adjacent rods (same comer) 3) Clear space between bottom of leveling nut and top of concrete not exceeding (1)*(Rod Diameter) Site Data BU#: 806579 Site Name: NY Cutchogue App #: 116487 Rev 4 Anchor Rod Data Eta Factor, ri 0~5 TIA G (Fig. 4-4) Ob/: 8 Diam: 2~25 ,n Rod Material: Yield, Fy: ksi Strength, Fu: 100 ksi Bolt Circle: 44 ~n Base Reactions TIA Revision: G Factored Moment, Mu:I 1152 ft-kips Factored Axial, Pu: 40 kips Factored Shear, Vu: 41 k ps *Reactions have been modified due to modifications Anchor Rod Results TIA G -> Max Rod (Cu+ Vu/q): Axial Design Strength, q)*Fu*Anet: Anchor Rod Stress Ratio: 172.3 Kips 260.0 Kips 66.3% Pass Plate Data W=Side:~ lin Thick:~ lin Grade:~ ~ksi Clip Distance:l 6 ~in Stiffener Data (Weldin~l at both sidesI Configuration: Unsti~ed Weld Type: Fillet ** Groove Depth: 0.375 <- Disregard Groove Angle: 45 <- Disregard Fillet H. Weld: 0~3'125 tn FilletV. Weld: 0.3125 ~n Width: 5 ~n Height: 24 in Thick: 0.75 ~n Notch: 0.5 ~n Grade: 50 ksi Weld str.: 70 ksi Clear Space between 6 rn Stiffeners at B.C. Pole Data I ksi Diam: 36 in Thick: 0.3125 in Grade: 65 # of Sides: 12 "0 F Round Base Plate Results Flexural Check Base Plate Stress: 41.2 ksi PL Design Bending Strength, (:b'Fy: 54.0 ksi Base Plate Stress Ratio; 76.2% Pass N/A - Unstiffened Stiffener Results Hodzontar Weld: N/A Vertical Weld: N/A Plate Flex+Shear, ro/Fb+(fv/Fv)^2: N/A Plate Tension+Shear, ~Ft+(fv/Fv)^2: N/A Plate Comp. (AISC Bracket): N/A Pole Results Pole Punching Shear Check: N/A PL Ref. Data Yield Line (in): 23.40 Max PL Length: 23.40 ** Note: for complete joint penetration groove welds the groove depth must be exactly 1/2 the stiffener thickness for calculation purposes CCIplate 1.4 - Square Base F-G 1.1, Effective April 4, 2011 Analysis date: 4/29/2011 2.25 Anchor Rod Layout 22.0000 520 South Main Steer. Suite 2531. Akron, Ohio 44311 Phone 330-572-2100 Fax 330-572-2101 ~GPD ASSOCIATES Engineers. Architec'~. Planners ~ob 9~//7~7- c~cu~B~. ~' Sh~t ~Om / ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ Date:. Reinforced Monopole Analysis NY Cutchogue BU: 806579 Code = AISF= 78.7% n/a Pass GPD Modified Monopole Analysis - VI,00 Stiffened or Unstiffened, Exterior Flang~ Site Data BU#: 806579 Site Name: NY Cutchogue App#: 116487Rev4 Pole Uanufacturer:~ Other Bolt Data Qty: 12 Adil Diameter (in.): 1 Bolt Fu: 125 Bolt Material: Other Bolt Fy: 105 Strength (Fu): 125 ksi Yield (Fy): 105 ksi Circle (in.): 25:75 Plate Data Diam: ' 28.5 ~n Thick, t: 1:75 !in Grade (Fy): 50 (si Strength, Fu: 65 (si Sin~lle-Rod B-eft: 3.14 n Plate - Any Bolt Material Stiffener Data Weldin~l at Both SidesI Config: 0 Weld Type: ,Fillet Groove Depth: 0;25 <- Disregard Groove Angle: 45 <- Disregard Fillet H. Weld: 0.3125 n Fillet V. Weld: 0.3'125 =n Width: 3 in Height: 18 ,n Thick: 0.75 ~n Notch: 0;5 in Grade: 36 ~si Weld str.: 70 ksi Pole Data Diam: 12 In Thick: 0.375 In Grade: 35 ksi # of Sides: 0 '0" IF Round Fu 60 ksi Reinf. Fillet Wel¢ 0 "0" if None Reactions MuI 30.6 I -kJps Axial, Pu:g 0.9! lkips Shear, Vu:t ~ Ikips Elevation;~ 100 1 feet *Reaction have been modified TIA Rev G Bolt Threads: X-Excluded (pVn=~)(0.55*Ab*Fu) ~0=0.75, (p*Vn (kips): 40.50 Jif No Sti~em, Cflt~da: J TIA G J<-Only Applcable to Unstiffened Cases Flange Bolt Results J Non-Ri~lid J Bolt Tension Capacity, (p'Tn,B1: 56,81 kips (p'Tn I L~sted q)*Tn (due to Vu=Vu/Qty), B: 56.81 k ps ~Tn[(1-(Vu/q~Vn)~2]~0.5 Max Bolt directly applied Tu: 4.68 Kips Min. PL "tc" for B CaD. wlo Pr,/: 2,806 in Min PL "trea" for actual T w/Pry: 0.625 in Min PL "tl" for actual T wlo Pry: 0.805 in T allowable with Prying: 29.98 kips 0.~a'<l case Prying Force, q: 0.00 kips Total Bolt Tension=Tu+q: 4.68 kips Prying Bolt Stress Ratio=(Tu+q)/(B): 8.2% Pass Exterior Flange Plate Results Flexural Check Compression Side Plate Stress: 4.7 ksi I TIAG Allowable Plate Stress: 45.0 ksi Compression Plate Stress Ratio: 10.4% Pa$~ Comp. Y.L Length: NO Prying ! 22.78 Tension Side Stress Ratio, (treq/t)^2: 12.7% Pass n/._Aa Stiffener Results Horizontal Weld: n/a Vertical Weld: n/a Plate Flex+Shear, fb/Fb+(fv/Fv)^2: n/a Plate Tension+Shear, ~Ft+(fv/Fv)^2: n/a Plate Comp. (AISC Bracket): n/a Pole Results Pole Punching Shear Check: n/a * 0 = none, 1 = evepJ bolt, 2 = every 2 bolts, 3 = 2 per bolt ** Note: for complete joint penetration groove w~lds the groove depth must be e~actly 1/2 the stiffener thickness for calculation purposes CClplate 1.4 - Ext Flange G 1.3, Effective April 4, 2011 Analysis Date: 4/2912011 Stiffened or Unstiffened, Exterior Flange Site Data BU#: 806579 Site Name: NY Cutchogue App#: 116487Rev4 Poke Manufacturer:l Othe~ I Bolt Data Qty: 12 Adil Diameter(in.): 1 Bolt Fu: 125 Bolt Material: Bolt Fy: 105 Strength (Fu): ; 125 ksi Yield (Fy): ksi Circle (in.):25~5 Plate Data Diam: 285 ~n Thick, t: 15 ~n Grade (Fy): 50 ksi Strength, Fu: ksi Single-Rod B-eft: 3.89 ~n Plate - Any Bolt Material TIA Rev G Stiffener Data (Weldin~l at Both Sides/ Config: Weld Type: Fillet; Groove Depth: 0~25 ; <- Disregard Groove Angle: <- Disregard Fillet H. Weld: 0~3125 =n FilletV. Weld: 03~5 in Width: 3; in Height; in Thick: 0;75 in Notch: 05 in Grade: 36 ~si Weld str.: 70 ksi Pole Data Diam: '145 In Thick: 0:1875 In Grade: 65 ksi # of Sides: '0" IF Round FL 80 ksi Reinf. Fillet Wel(0 "0" if None Reactions Bolt Threads: Mu 30~6 ft-kips X~Excluded Axial, Pu: 0;92 Ikips Shear, Vu: 2i85 kips Elevation: ;100 feet *Reaction have been modified li~Nostiffe~e~:c~aiI TIAG I<.:)nlyApplcabletoUnstiffenedCases kips Non-Ri~id~p. Tn I k ps (pTn[(1-(VuApVn)^2]~0.5 Flange Bolt Results Bolt Tension Capacity, q)*Tn,B1: asted q)*Tn (due to Vu=Vu/Qty), B: Max Bolt directly applied Tu: Min. PL "tc" for B cap. w/o Pry: Min PL "traa" for actual T wi Pry: Min PL "tl" for actual T wlo Pry: ~)Vn=(c(0.55*Ab*Fu) ~o=0.75, ~*Vn (kips): 40.50 T allowable with Prying: Prying Fome, q: Total Bolt Tension=Tu+q: Prying Bolt Stress Ratio=(Tu+q)/(B): 56.81 56.81 4.68 Kips 2.289 in 0.501 in 0.657 in 33.08 kips 0<a'<1 case 0.00 kips 4.68 kips 8.2% Pass Exterior Flange Plate Results Flexural Check I Non-Ri~lid Compression Side Plate Stress: 5.1 ksi I TIAG Allowable Plate Stress: 45.0 ksi ! (~*F}' Compression Plate Stress Ratio: 11.4% Pas~ Comp. Y.L. Length: No Prying ! 21.28 Tension Side Stress Ratio, (treq/t)^2: 11.1% Pass n/a Stiffener Results Horizontal Weld: n/a Vertical Weld: n/a Plate Flex+Shear, fblFb+(fv/Fv)^2: n/a Plate Tension+Shear, ffJFt+(fv/Fv)^2: n/a Plate Comp. (AISC Bracket): n/a Pole Results Pole Punching Shear Check: n/a * 0 = none, I = every bolt, 2 = every 2 bolts, 3 = 2 per bolt ** Note: for complete joint penetration groove welds the groove depth must be exactly 1/2 the stiffener thickness for calculation purposes CCIplate 1.4 - Ext Flange G 1.3, Effective April 4, 2011 Analysis Date: 4/29/2011 I Reactions - 100' Moment 23.08 k-ft Axial 0.91 k Quantity of Bolts= 9 Flange at 100' - Bolt Forces Label Member Size D from Centroid (in) Quantity Lu (in) Area (in') pz* Tension (Kips) Compresion (Kips) (Bearing and Stability Checks) Tool for TIA Rev F or G - Any application (MP, SST, GT) Site Data BU#: 806579 Site Name: NY Cutchogue 958280 App #: 116487 Rev 4 For P IDL) Loads Already Factored !.2 <--Disregard For P,V, and M 1.35 <--Disregard (WL) Pad & Pier Data Base PL Oist. Above Pier: ~n Pier Dist. Above Grade: ;24 in Pad Bearing Depth, D: 10 ft Pad Thickness, T: ~t Pad Width=Length, L: 20i5 ; ~t Pier Cross Section Shape: R~rld <-Pull Down Enter Pier Diameter: rt concrete Density: !50;0 ~cf Pier Cross Section Area: 28.27 fi^2 Pier Height: 8.00 It Soil (above pad) Hei~lht: 6.00 rt Soil Parameters Effective Unit Weight, y: pcf Ultimate Beadng Capacity, qn: 10i00 ksf Strength Reduct. factor, 4~: 0~75 Angle of Friction, ~: 0b degrees Undrained Shear Strength, Cu: 2~ ksf Allowable Bearing: 4)*qn: 7,50 ksf Passive Pres. Coeff,, Kp 1.00 Forces/Moments due to Wind and Lateral Soil Factored Pad Passive Force: 484.3 kips Pad Fome Location Above D: 1.97 fi ~b(Passive Pressure Moment); 717.22 fi-kips Factored O.T. M(WL),"I.6W": 3601.0 fi-kips Factored OT (MW-Msoil), M1 2883.73 fi-kips Resistance due to Foundation Gravity Soil Wedge Projection grade, a: 0.00 ft Sum of Soil Wedges Wt: 0.00 <ips Soil Wedges ecc, KI: 0.00 ~t Ftg+Soil above Pad wt: 552.6 kips Unfactored ITotal fig-soil Wt): 552.61 kips 1.2D. No Soil Wed~les. 703.14 kips 0.9D. With SoilWedges 527.35 kips I Resistance due to Cohesion ~VerticalI 4)*(l/2*Cu)(TotalVert. Planes) 275.79 kips Cohesion Force Eccentricity, K2 6.10 It Monopole Base Reaction Forces TIA Revision: G <--Pull Down Factored DL Axial, PDu: 40 kips Factored WL Axial, PWu: zips Factored WL Shear, Vu: 41 ~ips Factored WL Moment, Mu: 3098~7 ~t-kips Load Factor Shaft Factored Loads 1.00 1.2D*I.6W, Pu: 40 kips 0.90 0.9D+1.6W, Pu: 30 kips Vu: 41 kips 1.00 Mu: 3098.7 It-kips *Moment increased to account for pier eccentricity 1.2D+1.6W Load Combination Bearinn Results: P1="1.2D+l.6W" (No Soil Wedoes} 703.14 (Kips) IReaction+Conc+Soil] Factored "1.6W" Overtuming ft-k ps Moment (MW-Msoil), M1 2883.73 Orthoqonal Direction: eccl = MI/P1 = 4.10 ft Orthogonal qu= 3.01 ksf qu/~*qn Ratio= 40.16% Pass Diaqonal Direction: ecc2 = (0.707M1)/P1 = 2.90 fi Diagonal qu= 4.60 ksf qu/(~*qn Ratio= 61.35% Pass ~ <- Press Upon Completing All Input Overturning Stability Check 0.9D+t.6W Load Combination. Bearino Results: (wi Soil Wedqes) 527.35 P2:"0.9o+1.6w" rReaction+Conc+Soil] (Kips) Factored "1.6W" Overturning Moment (MW-Msoil) - 0.9(M of 1369.68 fi-kips Wedge + M of Cohesion), M2 Orthogonal ecc3 = M2/P2 = 2.60 ft Ortho Non Beadng Length,NBL= 15.31 ft Orthogonal qu= 1.89 ksf Diagonal qu= 2.63 ksf Max Reaction Moment (fi-kips) so that qu=q)*qn = 100% Capacity Rating Actual M: 3098.70 M Ortho~]onal: 6076.11 51.00% Pass M Diagonal: 5627.54 55.06% "Baring/Stability Pier Square Pad" Tool, BSPSQP, Version 2.0 - Effective 05/03/2010 Analysis Date: 4/29/2011 GPD GROUP *Originalfoundationrebaronlyconsidered. Monopole or Self Support Pad Foundation Reinforcing NYCutchogue BU: 806579 2011178.90 520 Sou~ Main Street . SuJ~e 2531. Akron , Ohio 44311 Phone330-572.2100 Fax 330-572-2101 ~G PD ASSOCIATES Engineers. Architects. Planners Job Sheet No. \ Of Town Site ID NY7314A -75 dBm In building Col~lmercial Town Boundaries ~t~¢1~ ~, of 21855 County Road 48 {~ Subject Site MAP 1 $Ou~;ho~d Cutchogue, New York ~ -85 dBm In Buildil~g Residential Town Site ID NY7314A ~ -75 dsm ~n building Commercial TOWn Boundaries ~'~ ' * of (I. tho21855 CountYNewROadyork48 ~ .ss dsm in Building Residenti. I O Subject Site I~/IAP 2 $outhold _u_c..o~ue, e Proposed Sites Coverage from On Air Si[es · ~nd Subject Site of 21855 County Road 48 ~ o Subject Site MAP 3 Southoid Cutchogue, New York ~ ~85 dBm ~n Building Residential ® Proposed Sites Coverage from On Air Sites ~ · and Subject Site J June 17, 2011 Nico Balza]3o Town ~-~, O~ Site ID NY73~4A Town Bo~nd~des ~AP ~ Southold 2t855 County Road 48 -85 dBm 0] Buitdi~g Residential O Subject Site Existing Coverage Cutchogue, New York e Proposed Sites Map Scsle: 1" = 0.6580 mi ~ O~ Air Sites Prepared Dy June 17, 2011 N~CO Bslzano Town of Southo~d June 17 201t Site ID NY7314A 21855 County Road 48 Cutchogue, New York Map Scale: ~" = 0.6580 mi MAP 2 © S[~bject Site Coverage from Town ~:l~O~- ;,~ of Site ID NY7314A .~,~ TOWn Boundaries ~"~"~' Southold 21855 County Road 48 -~5 dBm h~ Building Residentist O Subject Site MAP 3 Cutchogue, New York ~ Proposed Sites and O~ Air Si~s June 17, 201~ On Air Sites Prepared by Town of Southold June 17, 2011 Site ID NY7314A 21855 County Road 48 Cutchogue New York Subject Site MAP 4 Town of Site ID NY73i4A Towr~ Boundaries Southo~d 21855 county Road 48 -as abm ~n Building Res~dentia~ ~ Subject Site MAP 5 C New York Town ~t~J"¢~ . of Site ID NY7314A Town Boundaries ~'"~' Southold 21855 county Road 48 -ss ~Bm In Building Residential © Subject Site MAP 6 June 17, 20~ 1 On Air Sites Nico Balz~no Town of Site ID NY7314A Town Boundaries $0uthold 21855 County Road 48 s5 dBi~ in Building Res,dent,a Subject Site MAP 7 June 17, 2011 On Air Sites Town of Site iD NY7314A .v.--- TOWn Boundaries $outhoid 21855 County Road 48 ~s5 darn ~n Building Residential (,~ Subject Site I~AP 8 Cutchogue, New York ~ Proposed Sites Coverage from Bubjec[ Site at 60' Jm]e 17, 2011 On Air Sites NiCO Ba~zano m,;tr, ~ DESIGN~ I ~ ........ ~ o~ G-- I~ C} LT p.z ~/~ Wireless for All ~~o~o , ~. ffi ~~~ ~:752.847.4~5 ~; ~Od~OT INfOrmATION: ~ D~ ~. ? ¢¢ (~;( ,~ Wirele~ for ~1. P~OJEOT ~I~ECT~Y: S S~LINE DRI~ A-~ ~L~VATJON, ~ABL~ ~UTIN~ D~TAJL$ * I~~v~ ~~~j.~(~ ~o~ CONT~CV: ~ ~ - ~2 ~UT~HO~U~, N~ 11~5 · I~ ~ ~ O0-LO~ATION /~ TITLE SHEET ~ ~F ENelNE Nl~ ~ TGONGt~ETE SPECIFICATIONS (IF I~EGUIP. EO) DESIGNu GROUP5 ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 3 HAZLET, NEVCJERSEY 07730 TEL: 732.888.6210 FAX: 732.847.4335 NJ -/~ A113345 Wireless for All. 5 SKYLINE DRIVE HAWTHORNE, NY 10532 CO-LOCATION I'4T~ 05/22/0~ SHEET TITLE 5tE NIEI~.AL NOTE~ ~'"'~ i · / .== / ~.~ ~.~*;.~,,,.,.,~-,*~ D E S I G N~ MtN. F~ YA~ ~K I~ ~. ~.4 ~. 210.q ~. ~~ N/O/F TO~ OF S~mOD ~ ~}~ ~ / ~ ~ E N G I N E E R I N G HIN. SIDE Y~ ~AGK J ONE 20 Fr. 152 m. ~o2 ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j a g/ / P.O. ~X 3 v~ ~. ~s~. ,~.~. ~~ ~ ~ /188 157 ~='=~" ~,~j~us~omo ~I".m~yA~S~K ~O~. Ill. ~. ~ ~.U~/ 'X ~~- / *~-/, ,, . · ~ 732.888.6210 ~, ~1~1~ ~1~ / STUD 35 ~, / 2 1~.41 ~T, - ~'-I~' - t~ ~ ~ ~ mu~ ma~ Ro~W. Tom P.E ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~5 ~ - ~ GE 36209 ~~ ~~~, ~-~o289924 ~ PA- ~ ~14~ , ~ Wireless for ~1. 5 ~ i ~ ~750 ~-LOGATION ~c. c~ou~ S 25 52 30 W tu~,-oo~ MIDDLE (120' WIDE) RO~ (C.R.-4a) (NOR~ ROAD) ~ I T~ PLAN D E S I G N_ ~, ~J~ 0~o ~ 732.888.6210 ~ . ~ 028992.1 ~ - ~ 0753~ ~ - ~ ~75 PA- ~ ~14~ Wireless [or ~1. HA~HO~E, NY 10532 co-~OCA,,o~ E~UI PMENT PLAb AJ~b~- 2q, '20If ~¢ 'Tf~ ~M:'D 6ROLF ~h' P-~. DAVID S. ~ L~ iIC~I.~rM). 1t~ ~ II I ~ I ~ ~I~A~ ' ~ ~~ ~ G R 0 U P~ ~~ ENGINEERING ~7 F ..... P.O. BOX3 '~ U H ~ _ C~R ~ ~IDTIN~ ~ ~ ~ / M .........." ' ~ ' ~ 028992-1 ~'~75~' ~ 0753~ iI ///~///~~ ~TO~ ~ J ~T ~N ~ i ~ ~]~N HA~HORNE, NY 10~2 I ~H~T ELEVATION ~ JOULE ~ID~E DETAIL AT ,.~~,~o~,~,~,~,~ D E S I · ~ ~o o---~ GROUP~ ARCHITECTURE ~ ~m~ ~ MI~ ~- ~ 13345 ~- ~ GE 36209 I ~ UTILI~ MOUNT ~ETAIL B ~ ~PO~E~ ~ LIGHT ~CIPICATION~ Wireless for ~1. -~ ~ II I b~,-~'~ ~ ¢ 5(~~~ BILL OF MATERIALS W~~e~v. ~ ~P~ MOUNTIN~ ~ETAIL t -'-* ¢ GROUP: , , ENGINEERING ~;. ~ i : P.O. Box 3 - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 732.888.6210 'N j ,/ r ~ - ~ ~ B345 ~ -. ~g GE0753~36209 ~. ~L ~'~ o: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "~ ~ ~'~ ~; Wirele~ for ~1. ~ ~ ~ETAIL Ilxl~ ~=4 [I/2"=I'~"~ETAIL [ D~TAIL 5 8~LI~E DRl~ HA~HO~E~ NY ~0532 Ilxl~ ~: 5/4,,=1,-o,, 1=4x~ 5~:5/~"=1'-O" 124x5~ ~: p=l'-O" I ~O-EOCATION ~ ~ SHEET TITLE ~. '; - ': ': :." , .'... ' ."".. v.--.... '. '"...'.... . ' .''.' '. · : , /' . " ;- _~ ...... ~ ...... ~_~ ~l~ EXlSTIN6 ~' ~ ~~f E~UIPMENTP~NDATION BLEVATION~PETAIL5 A~ D£SIGN~ GROUPz HAzIEr, NEVv'JERSEY 07730 ¢~)~ ~R'~ . NJ - # A113345 NJ- ~ GE 36209 :; Wireless for ~1, ~ S S~LINE omve HR~HO~E, NY // ~ ~l~ ~ 4) ~l ~-LOGATION stero ~ le' ~~' -., ~/~ x 'XN ' ANTENNA MOUNT ~ETAIL5 D E S I G No GROUPz ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING F~:732.847.4335 Wireless for ~1. SlTE INFORMATION MTe JP¢ ~/22/0q k ~ DESIGN~ (~ ' ~ ~ ~ '-- ARCHITECTURE C ~ --~ ENGINEERING ~ I m~CS, ~A~ ~A~ (~ D~L I/A~) E~UIPMENT 5~GIFIGATION5 ~ vIEIIJ 51DE VlEB CAELE 2 CABt. E ~ ~ (T'mJ (~ESIGN~° ROUP2 ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING P. O. BOX 3 HAZLET, NEW JERSEY O773O TE~: 732.888.6210 FAX: 732.847.4335 Lou Mogl~o, A~A Robert W. Ton~ NJ- i~ AI H345 NY- ~ 028992-1 Wireless for All. 5 SKYLINE DRIVE HAWTHORNE, NY 10532 ~ ~o~., OaIMpSTSOI4 ~O-LOGATION IMT5 05/22../0~ SHEET TITLE Rt:= I Nt=ORh, IATI ON SHEET NUNIBE~ R~¥. I ANTENNA C_.At3LIE ~C.,HEMATIC. DESIGN CRITERIA ABBREVIATIONS AND LABELS PA - g~ 06141~ WIRING METHODS LEOEND Wireless for ~1, S $~LINE D~VE HA~HORNE~ NY ~ ~ ~T~I4 SPECIAL EMPHASIS, CONCERNS, AND LIMITATIONS SYMBOLS =l~ COUN~ ~OA~ 4~ ~I~ATI~N I~l~ O~ ~ ~ ~ ~10~ ~ ~ ~T ~ ~IL ~ ~l~. ,. ~.,~T,,~ ¢~ ~,*,~T. D E S I G N~ ~ ' GROUP2 t I ~N ¢. U.~E EXI~TIN~ Mk-Tt~ ~O~t~T E N -~z_. ~, ~JE~ 0~0 ~l~ (2) 200A, 2~V ~. ~uM~o,~ Ro~W. To~ ~ - ~ 2~75 e. ~ TO ~}STNN~ TOUR ~. A ' ~ir~l~ ~t ~1, : HA~HO~E, NY 10532 - OqM~T~OI4 [ _ _ ... ~: ¢~glT ~IN¢ ON P~ I¢ . ....; ~o~, A¢~ ~1~ TO ~ BA~ SiTE INPORMATION ~1~ A~ GO~UIT LECE~ 218~ COUN~ ~OAD 48 OUTOHO~U~, N~ I1~ PLAN DE$ORI~ION ~1~ CO~UIT ~ ~ I~ A~ ~ ~¢2 ~ I~e OO-LOOATION BAN~ ~ ~ABIN~T OABI~T OABINET 'A~ ~) SHEET NU~BE~ IANTENNA ~.OIflNDIN~ DETAIL IT~T PiELL DETAIL il#,~ ~ le~..OUNPINe ONE LINE OlA~t~.Ai',4 4 I~OUNO ROD DETAIL ~tENE~,~,L NOTE5 F-..tE'F NO"FE¢ (..~jmbol5 (~), (~), ~ESIGN~o ROUP2 ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING P. O. BOX 3 HAZLET, NEW~JEI~SEY 07730 TFlx 732.858.6210 FAX: 732.847.4335 metroPCS Wireless for All. 5 SKYLINE DRIVE HAWTHORNE, NY 10532 ~l~ .~,, N¥-~14 SITE 2l&.5.~ COUNT'F ~.OAI2 4~ ~,UTGHO~UE, NY CO-LOCATION MTg, 05/22/0~ SHEET TITLE ~Z::::'T--- I /'~.11 ~ SHEET NUMBE~. I~V. ~ t DESIGN0 r GROUP~ y*~EAT~,i:~ I NO I~ J T / AR. CHITECTURE ~ ~ ~lT 15 q lO ~-~028992-1 ~-~0753~ , i~ AN~NNA OROUNDINO DETAIL 2 JCONNECTION OF CADLE 6ROUND KIT 3 I~TO PANEL SCHEDULE "~'= ~, "~- I =~ ~, ~- ,,~,, ~, ~. I=~ ~. ~. ,,~,= ~, ~.=~- I=~ ~, KEY NO~S (~m~l~ ,. metroPCS ~ ~= ~, ,~ ~., ,=~ ~ K~. ~o. ~ ~ Wireless for ~1. ~), A~ ~OI2-1 ~/~"-II X ~L~). ~'~ ~: N~I4 ~IC~ ~ 2 ~ C~I~T , ~IN ~1~ ~ ~T~ - > ~, ~H~ I B~ ~2BE CO-LOCATION ~A~ (~. D. 5/~" STAI~ES5 5~EL SHEET NU~DE~ REV. (~PI~. AP~ASItOTED W, reless for All FAX 732 847 4~,35 ~ ~I ~ AI I3~45 ~] - ~ GE 36209 765-1802 8 ~ TO 4 ~ FOR ~E ~ A 1. FOUNDATION - ~ REQUIRED ~ ~ ~ - ' ~' ~OJ~GT INFORMATION. ~irel~ ~or ~l. 5 S~LINE DffiVE ~¢~ ¢~ ~T~I4 A-~ ECEVAT ~, ~LEAOUT N~ETAL5 P O : --' OUTOHO~UE, NWI I~ bou Marina, AIA RoberL IV Trims, P E ,T~. '~"~' ~×'~""~ ~'~ '.. ,.~ ", ~' ,~ '~,~.~ ~,~,O~~'" G R O U P5 MIN. L~A~ ~.~. ~F. ~OHA~ ', ~ ii ', t~ , ',,1~~ I~'x~'~(~ .IN.~IPZYA~ T~ ~. I~. I~.'~. ~ ~' .I _~ N ',, ~ 'i,, /"188.15~ /~ TEL 712 817.9090 I / %~ ~m~~ J~ L ~ 1 STY PA-~061412 ~: ~ ~ I~Y~ ' ~i (REC~)-EXIBIT ~ ~ ~ ---- ~~~,~. ~ I~lll ~~ ~L EDGE DF ASPHAL~ ~ ~ASPHALT PARKING -~TA~I~. ~ -- ~21855 . Il [ ~ ~ , i FRAME S /,/,,, (,u,o s,op) '~1: '~,~~ ~ - ~ ¢ Wireless*rAil. ~ o /I/liT ROOf O~r ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m ~ ~ Illin [ <z I m ~ ~ [ ~= TAX LOT ~20.1 S i ~ 8 t J/Ill ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ o N/Off CHRISTOPHER MOHR j HT~ ~' OqMP~T~OI4 ULCO ~///// ~ , ,~=.w ~1 ,=~ um~r.o= =/ II// ! ~ ix ~ um~oE ~2o < '~ ~2~ CON~E~ CURB GO-LOGATION ELEC. C~DUtJ S25°52'30'' W 168.17' ~T~ (.~,~-oun MIDDLE 0~o' wIOO ROAD 5~=~T ~Ir:= (~ORm ROA0) ~7, 7~'t~ l o~,O 14't)U'' J/I ~REOORD-EX~IT ~' ~05786)~ Y Cu -- 93'SW III II "~- ~ I "," v 00723) III II ~ ' IIl ll A.EA: } 1.0465 Acres I ROOF O~R Il -GRASS ~ I II II ARCttITECTU RE ........................... TEL: 7~2 S17 9090 x i I O NJ - ~ Al 13345 ~} - ~ GE 36209 { I ~ ' ~' ~ 028992 I CT ~ ~ 22375 ~ PA - ~ 061412 I I ' ~ ; c,,s~,~ UT,~ ~.~ ': (~ ~L,, ~) Wireless for All. I ~ Ih U ~ ~ ' ] ~T(~ ~ ~~f~/~) '. I ~ ..... ~ U ' X /% · GUTOHO~UE, N~ II h ......... ~L ___ ~ ~ . _1 './i . ~~, co-~oc~rlo, ~OUI~MENT ~LAN PARTIAL ~1~ PLAN J 5~ ~Y~ ~ ~ ~AI~. } { J ~ (~ ~AIL 3/A~) : P O. BOX 3 ~T ~ ..... HAZLET, NE~V]ERSEY0~0 ~ (~ ~L ~) ~- -~ / ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~IT ~ , T~~ .... ~to~.~ m~¢m m~¢m ~ir.l.ss for ~1. ,/ ~.~4)~ I D~O~T ELEVATION I , / / ~ e~ ~ 4 J D~O~T PLAN D ~,~ ~', NY%BI4 NODIFIEDACC~INeLYTOAG~MO~ATE EXISTINO ANP / / / ~(~A-2~) 51TE tNPO~ATION ~(~~To~m/~ ~I / // / / c~o~*~) ~i% / ~4~ ~~ ~¢~. ~51ON TYPE: _ ~LI~¢T~~ / // EL~ATION, GABLE ROUTINe : / q ~~A~=~ · ~ x: ~_~ i ~'~'~lm'~m~o~ . I TEl_: 732.817 9090 I ,, ,t' ~ / / ~ ~ TO ~ ~ ~ ~1.. ~' ~ NJ- ~ Al 13345 NJ - ~ GE 36209 ! I ] ~ILI~ HOUNT ~ETAIL ~ I ~OP~SE~ ~ LI~T ~IPI~ATION~ Wireless for All. ~~ ~A~ ~~~TO~. IT~ ~ ~ POST 21~55 COUN~ ~OAD 48 ~O~T~ffi~~TITIS~H2~~~15~H2~ / ~UT~HO~U~, N~ ~4'~--- ~ ~ ,. , ' 2 ~ ~ ~)- li GO-LOCATION 4 OUNTIN DETAIL ' ~ i I ~ I ~q. ] ! I I A R C H I T E C T U R E '' [ ' ;5 I ; , :~ o ' ' Lou Moglmo, AIA 'Robert ,V loms, P E [ - - -I, ....... , - ~ ~)4'~' / _ 5 - , ......... ~_ ~NJ ~ A1028992.113345 re'NJ'- ~ GE07538436209 I I EOUI~NT ~ORT ~HE ~LAN 2 I MOUNTIN~ HOLE LO~ATION qLAN D I DETAIL 4 I DETAIL 5 I DETAIL HA~HORNE, ~ ~0532 ~ ~ ' ~ ~OU~ATION ~ETAIL~ AND ~ I EOUI~NT ELEVATION (~NT~VI~; ~ I EOUIPMENT ~EVATION (¢1~ Vt~ DESIGN~ GROUP-- ..C,~,iF~-.~ FjT ~ Nj ~ ,~ Al 13345 NJ - # GE 36209 I I AN~NNA T-A~M MOUNT P~TAILD ~ - ~ Wireless for All. 5 S~LINE DroVE III ~'"~ --5 ~ // ~1] 4' ~ ~ ~ TO ~, x, %~x , ; /N k LI S AN~NNA MOUNT ~TAIL5 GROUP~ ARCHITECTURE ~A113345 PA - ~ 061412 Wireless for All. HA~HORNE, 10532 ~ jp~ ~/~ ~ I HAZI ET, NEXVjERSEY 077~0 ~ l,~. jo- ~rm ~r r~j~.~.~ ~/~' ~ ~ _ ~ L ~ ARCHITECI STRUCTURALENGINEER ^.~ ~ WIRING METHODS LEGEND ~reless for All. SPECIAL EMPHASIS, CONCERNS, AND LIMITATIONS SYMBOLS OUTOHO~UE, NY 11~5 ~ ELECTriCAL ANO INFORMATION , x I ARCHITEC~ URE '%I ENGINEERING ~ I IAZLE], NEXV.JERSEY 07730 TEl: 732.888 6210 ~ n i / I ~VI~ (2) 200A, 2~ ~BO. Lou Moghno, Ai,~I Robcrt XV Toms, P.E I lmm m Wireless for Ami. ) I, '/, L ~ ~A~ To ~ E-I 2" ELEOTRIGAL PLAN BAN~ 'q GABINET GABINET 0 G~INET e ~l~ 2'2 TIN~ NO~ E LINE ~m~ ¢CHEMATIG DESIGN ~ LF-~N-I~, E3Oiq~ ALL PO~T~ "/IA #'2 ~1~ TIN~ O R O U P ~ I ~ MINI~M O~ I/0 ~ ~ A~ ~1~ ~ ~1~. ~ON I~T ~A~ ~ CT - h 22375 ~ ~ ~. ~1~ ~ ~A~ ~ ~ k~A~ PA ~ 061412 ~ ~~ ~T ~[ 1 ~ 2 ~AN~NNA ~OUN~IN~ ~ETAIL ~¢IFI¢ATIO~. i Wireless for All. ~ ~ i -- 5 S~LINE DRIVE I ~ ~ ~ -- 2'~" ~m ~, O~T~I4 I t ~ f~ ~ITE INFOrmATION ¢1 ~~ ~ i~T ~LL DETAIL ~. A~N~ ~1~ c~. GUTGHO~UE, N~ I1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~GTION PA~IT GAT~ ~ ¢TAP GO-LOGATION / *'~' I0. ~2 ~llD TIN~ ~ ~IN~ ~/2~ -- [ ~' ~ ~GTION PA~IT GAT~O~ ~ CTAP ~~TLI~ 2~. ~ I T.~. I ~ IixI~ ~: ~.,I 2~x~ ~: ~. Iixl~ ~: N~. I ,~, ~ ~:' ~ ~ROUP5 / ,I~N~ AN~NNA O~OUN~IN~ PETAIL 2 IOONNEOTION OF GABLE ~OUND ~IT 3 I~To PANEL I ~ ~. ~o~ ~ ~A~ Wireless for ~1. c~ ~1~ ~1~ ~ I/4'9, ~1~ (I~T~), ~1~ ~/~" 5 S~LINE DRI~ I L~), IA~ (~ ~1~ HA~HORNE~ ~ 10532 4 IEaUIPHENT CABINET 5INGLE LINE ~OUND PlA¢~H 5 I~Asm~ ¢~OUNP ~A~ TErmINATION DETAIL ~NT ~FT.