text:
.T. °Mobile IN RE: APPLICATION AND FOR OMNIPOINT A CERTIFICATE AND OF OPTASITE TOWERS LLC INC. ° DOCKET NO. COMMUNICATIONS, OF ENVIRONMENTAL NEED PUBLIC COMPATIBILITY THE FOR AND CONSTRUCTION, OF AT MAINTENANCE OPERATION FACILITY A TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUGH 52 STADLEY ROAD, Date: JUNE DANBURY, CONNECTICUT 30, 2008 APPLICATION ENVIRONMENTAL FOR CERTIFICATE AND OF PUBLIC NEED COMPATIBILITY TABLE OF CONTENTS P• I, introduction A. B. C. D. E. .......................................................................................................... 1 ................................................................................... Purpose Executive The and Authority 1 2 3 4 Summary ....................................................................................... Applicants Application Fee Compliance with and Notice ............................................................................................... .............................................................................................. COS Section 16-501(c) CGS Section ...................................................... 4 II. Service Required by and Benefits 16-501(b) ..................................... 4 III. Statements A. B. C. Statement Statement of Need ......................................................................... 5 5 6 7 of Need .......................................................................................... of Benefits ..................................................................................... Technological Selection Site Tower and Alternatives ............................................................................ IV. Site A. B. Tower Sharing ........................................................................ 8 8 9 Selection ................................................................................................. Sharing ................................................................................................ V, Facility Design Environmental A. B. C. D. Visual ..................................................................................................... 9 VI. Compatibility Assessment of State ............................................................................... 10 11 ......................................................................................... Solicitation Power Other Agency Factors Comments ........................................................ 12 13 13 Density Analysis Environmental ................................................................................. ......................................................................... VII. Consistency with the City of Danbury's Land Use Regulations A. Danbury's Plan of Conservation and Development B. Danbury's Zoning Regulations and Zoning Classification C. Planned and Existing Land Uses D. Danbury's Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations ....................................... .................................................................... ......................... 14 14 14 16 ............................ .......................... 16 VIII. Consultation A. B. C. Local with Local, with with State and Federal Officials .......................................... 17 17 Consultations ....................................................................................... Consultations Consultations State Federal Officials ................................................................. 18 18 Agencies ............................................................................... ............................................................. IX. Estimated A. B. Overall Overall Cost and Schedule Cost 19 19 19 Estimated .................................................................................. Scheduling ......................................................................................... X. Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 20 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Pre-Filed Testimony of Need of Charles Plots Regulbuto 2. Statement with 3. Site Selection Summary and 4. Description Visual Design of Proposed Facility 5. Evaluation Report to 6. Letter of Intent Share Use of the Facility, Verizon Wireless; Copy of Sprint-Nextel Tower Lease Agreement with State 7, Correspondence Correspondence included in the Agencies City of 8. with the Danbury (A copy of the Technical Report is Bulk Filing) on 9. Certification of Service Governmental Officials including List of Officials Served 10. Legal Notice Notice in The News-Times 11. to Abutting Landowners; Certification of Service; List of Abutting Landowners 12. Connecticut Siting Council Application Guide STATE CONNECTICUT IN RE: OF CONNECTICUT SITING COUNCIL APPLICATION AND FOR OMNIPOINT OF OPTASITE TOWERS LLC INC. DOCKET NO. COMMUNICATIONS, OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC NEED A CERTIFICATE COMPATIBILITY THE FOR AND CONSTRUCTION, OF AT MAINTENANCE OPERATION FACILITY A TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROUGH 52 STADLEY ROAD, Date: JUNE DANBURY, CONNECTICUT 30, 2008 APPLICATION ENVIRONMENTAL FOR CERTIFICATE AND OF PUBLIC NEED COMPATIBILITY 1. Introduction A. Purpose to and Authority Sections Pursuant Chapter 277a, and Sections 16-50g et et seq. of the of the Connecticut General Statutes ("CGS"), as amended, as 16-50j-1 Optasite seq. Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies ("RCSA'), Communications, amended, a Towers LLC ("Optasite') Inc. and Omnipoint the Inc., subsidiary an of T-Mobile USA, ("T-Mobile") (collectively, (collectively, Need "Applicants") hereby "Application") construction, the for a submit application and supporting documentation Compatibility and Public the Certificate of Environmental for the maintenance and operation of a wireless communications component in the facility (the "Facility") in the network in City of Danbury. The proposed Facility wireless is a necessary plan ofT- Mobile to provide personal County. The communications services State of Connecticut and Fairfield the proposed Facility north will provide 1-84 wireless service with Route in the northeast portion between of City of Danbury, particularly Lake, the Town of the junction and 7 in an area Cmldlewood of Brookfield border Padanaram Road. C&F 92•S42 • B. Executive Summary The proposed Facility will consist of a 140 foot, self-supporting monopole site with flush mounted antennas, associated equipment identified and other improvements integral owned to a wireless communications located at facility. Optasite Stadley Rough The Road the Premises by Christ the Shepherd Church, of its 52 (the "Premises") consists of for the construction 5.0 acres, Premises and operation proposed Facility. as a Premises approximately graded. The has been developed classified for use religious facility Single Family Optasite will and is mostly cleared and is locally in the RA-40 Residential Zoning by District. lease a 100 foot 100 foot parcel in the southwestern corner of the Premises. A copy 140 foot of Optasite's ground lease with flush mounted is included in the bulk filing. Optasite area proposes base to install a monopole by 90-foot antennas and an equipment at the thereof within a 55-foot fenced and landscaped equipment compound Stadley Rough Road over an (the "Site"). Vehicular access to the facility would extend from existing paved driveway of to the rear of the Premises, utility then along a proposed gravel driveway would extend from a distance approximately Stadley Rough 175 feet. Underground Site. connections existing service on Road to the The Dx•posed Facility and will be designed to accommodate use by if all of the wireless carriers has active in Connecticut Danbury public safety communications, the Site and will serve as requested. T-Mobile committed to locating Verizon at the anchor tenant. Sprint-Nextel Corporation Facility by week an ("Sprint") interest in and Wireless have also expressed The their need for the proposed will be enclosed and co-locating All at the Site, if approved. compound 24 hours a 8-foot a high security fence. location. equipment would be monitored day, 7 days a from remote 2 C&F92$5425 Included in this Application detailing the and the attachments attached hereto, and are survey-based plans environmental and other information Facility proposed at the Site potential impacts associated therewith. The Applicants respectfully in this submit that the reports site and other supporting required by "Council"). Facilities documentation included Application Connecticut contain relevant specific information as Statute and the regulations of the Siting Council (the "Siting and Council" or A copy of the Council's Community page references Antenna Television Telecommunication Application Guide with from this Application is included in Attachment 12. C. The Applicants is a The applicant, Optasite, Suite Delaware limited liability company with offices at One Research Drive, the 200C, Westborough, The Massachusetts 01581. Optasite Delaware will construct and maintain proposed Facility. office at 35 Griffin co-applicant, T-Mobile, South, Bloomfield, Federal Communications in is a corporation T-Mobile with a Connecticut Road Connecticut, Commission 06002. mid its affiliated entities are licensed by the ("FCC") as a to operate a personal within the services wireless services system Connecticut, T-Mobile as interpreted does not "cellular system" business meaning of CGS Section 16-50i(a)(6). the conduct any FCC other in the State of Connecticut other than provision the of cellular service under rules and regulations. T-Mobile is committed to use proposed Facility regarding this as the anchor tenant. Correspondence the attorneys for the and/or communications Application shall be addressed to Applicant: Cuddy 445 White & Feder LLP Hamilton Avenue, New York 14 th Floor Plains, 10601 B. Attention: Christopher Lucia Fisher, Esq. Chiocchio, Esq. 3 c&F9285425 D. Application to Fee Pursuant RCSA Section 16-50v-1 a(b), a check made payable total to the Siting Council in the amount of $1,000.00 As accompanies the this Application. The estimated construction cost is $216,000.00. Section such, applicable application fee is $1,000.00 in accordmlce with RCSA 16-50v-1 a(b). Compliance Optasite nor E. with CGS Section 16-501(c) in Neither T-Mobile engages generating subject to electric power Section in the State of Connecticut. As such, been the proposed Facility in any annual is not CGS 16-50r. The proposed is Facility not has not identified forecast reports. As such, the proposed Facility subject to CGS Section 16-501(c). Required Section II. Service and Notice by CGS Section 16-501(b) Application and Federal have been sent Pursuant to CGS 16-501(b), copies to of this by certified mail, return receipt requested, with a municipal, regional, State, served with a officials. A certificate of service, along Attaclmaent 9. list of the parties copy of the Application intent to is included in Pursuant to CGS 16-501(b), occasions notice of the Applicant's submit this application notices are was published on two in The News-Times. Copies of service of the published legal be forwarded upon of included in Attachment 10. The publisher's affidavit 16-501(b), notices the Site. were will receipt. Further, record as owner in compliance a with CGS sent to each person appearing notice of Premises which abuts Certification of such notice, are a sample included letter, and the list of 11. abutting property owners to whom the notice was mailed in Attachment 4 c&F92s5425 IlL Statements of Need and Benefits A. Statement of Need As the Council is aware, Act of the United States Congress, through adoption important public States. The need for of the Telecommunications 1996, recognized the high quality telecommunication services throughout the United purpose for of the Telecommunication Act's overhaul of the Communications Act of 1934 was to "provide a competitive, sector deregulatory of advanced national policy framework designed information to accelerate rapidly private to deployment H.R. Con£ telecommunications U• and technologies With all Americans." Rep. No. 104-458, 206, 104 Cong., Act Sess. 1 (1996). respect to wireless communications services, the Telecommunications of 1996 expressly preserved requirements and State and/or local land use authority of such over wireless facilities, placed State several legal limitations on the exercise authority set and preempted or local regulatory oversight Congress wireless in the area of emissions as more fully areas forth in 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). In essence, struck a balance between legitimate interest of State and/or local regulatory to meet control over infrastructure and the public's in its timely deployment The the public in this need for wireless services. Facility proposed area Application is an integral component a ofT-Mobile's wireless network in this of the State of Connecticut. Currently, 1-84 west gap in coverage exists in T-Mobile's network in the Danbury and area, specifically along of Candlewood Lake. of the junction with Route 7, and in the with area north of 1-84 south The proposed Facility, towns in conjunction by T-Mobile other existing and future facilities to in Danbury and surrounding is needed to provide Moreover, on its wireless services people living Sprint and in and traveling through Wireless have this area of the State. as noted herein, to both Verizon indicated their need to co-locate the proposed Facility provide service. 5 C&F 9vg5475 T-Mobile's specific 2. need for the proposed Facility 2 also includes is detailed in the propagation plots included in Attachment Attachment propagation plots prepared by Sprintto Nextel demonstrating plots were its need for the proposed Facility with fill gaps in its network. The Sprintto Nextel prepared to in conjunction use the technical report as and while not expected intervene, has agreed share of the proposed Facility 6. evidenced by its agreement includes Verizon with Optasite, Wireless's a copy letter of which is included in Attachment Attachment 6 also of intent indicating of the its need for the proposed Facility. and the lack of coverage reach in this area, Based on the location proposed in time Facility at which Optasite capacity. cannot readily predict a point the Facility might maximum B. Statement is of Benefits T-Mobile a leading provider is of advanced wireless voice and data services throughout the United States. T-Mobile actively involved in the deployment demand of next generation wireless cellular services. In recent years, mobile T-Mobile has seen the public's to a for traditional telephone services in a highly with environment migrate and receive demand for anytime-anywhere and video. Wireless wireless connectivity have become the ability to to send voice, needs text, of the image devices integral a the telecommunications public wireless and their benefits can no longer their be considered form luxury. People today for both are using personal and other their devices more and more as primary to of communication the intemet and business needs. Modern devices allow of for calls be made, to be reached services to be provided irrespective whether a user is mobile or stationm'y the benefits and provided of wireless network service is available. In an effort to ensure technologies Safety Act to all Americans, "911 Congress The enacted the Wireless Communications was and Public of 1999 (the Act"). of a purpose of this legislation to promote public safety through the deployment seamless, 6 C&F •2g•425 nationwide emergency In communications infrastructure that includes wireless communications services. efficient enacting the 911 Act, Congress services found that networks that would provide for the rapid, with deployment of fatalities and emergency of would enable faster delivery passage wireless of emergency of the 911 care reduced severity injuries. With each year of since Act, additional anecdotal evidence supports the public safety such as value improved hikers and communications in aiding lost, As ill or injured individuals motorists, boaters. an outgrowth 911 of the 911 Act, the FCC mandated wireless carriers, such as T-Mobile, These to provide services enhanced services ("E911") as part of their communications to networks. ultimately within allow 911 public safety dispatchers feet. FCC's T-Mobile has identify and a wireless caller's geographical network location several hundred deployed continues to deploy technologies The to implement the E911 mandates. proposed Facility area in Danbury These will become an integral component to of T-Mobile's E911 network in this of the state. factors will apply equally their needed other wireless in the carriers such as Sprint-Nextel through and Verizon Wireless as they expand service Danbury area co-location on the proposed Facility. Alternatives C. Technological FCC licenses The granted services to T-Mobile and other wireless carriers authorize them to provide wireless cellular and PCS in this area of the State through deployment component of a network of transmitting and Verizon sites. The proposed Facility is wireless networks. a necessary ofT-Mobile's, will also allow Sprintother Nextel's Wireless's The proposed Facility wireless carriers to provide microcell services in this area. Repeaters, transmitters, are distributed or antenna systems means and other types service of transmitting teclmologies sizeable coverage gap not a practicable Significant feasible to providing tree cover within the in this area. terrain variations and in Danbury and the 7 C&F:9295425 surrounding such, they are area, as well as other practical to considerations limit the use of such technologies. that there are As not an alternative the proposed Facility. to The Applicants a new submit no equally reliable effective technological alternatives in this construction of tower Facility for providing personal wireless Site Selection and services Tower area of Connecticut. IV. Sharin• A. Site Selection Optasite an area conducted the site search for this Facility exists in this area of Danbury. network A search area is where a coverage and/or capacity problem to within a carrier's and where a new wireless facility is needed provide any service to the public. or In general, wireless carriers and tower developers attempt search area to identify existing towers other structures of adequate height height and structural in a site and the surrounding environs which might T-Mobile accommodate the requirements four miles for a wireless facility. Optasite and determined and analyzed sites are the existing towers within of the search ring area that no existing available for collocation to provide collocate service in the targeted for service. Indeed, to T-Mobile is using or proposing area to on several of these existing towers provide service outside of the targeted for service by The the proposed Facility. located within four miles of the search area are towers identified in the table titled "Existing Tower Listing" was included in Attachment 3. Once it determined that a new tower facility and was required, Optasite's goal service to was to find properties same upon which a tower could be constructed provide to the public while at the time minimizing Selection any potential and map environmental impact the extent practicable as and feasible. The Site narrative of rejected sites, and attached hereto Attachment 3, provides in a complete explanation and of Optasite's methodology reviewed actual search for potential sites sites Danbury the depicts the locations during Optasite's search, including identified during 8 c&F•2$5425 municipal Site. consultation and the reasons for elimination from consideration of all but the proposed B. Tower Sharing the To promote sharing of wireless facilities in the Danbury wireless area, Optasite has proposed a Facility that marketplace Attachment can accommodate the facilities for up to four functions. carriers in the Connecticut and the Danbury public safety has committed to Details of the design are included in 4. T-Mobile use the Facility, if approved. Sprint-Nextel and its intentions and Verizon Wireless have also indicated its need for the of proposed Facility space on to co- locate. Optasite has committed to provide, free charge, the proposed monopole for the Danbury public safety V. communications antennas. Facility Design has leased a Optasite approximately foot 100-foot by 100-foot area in the south west corner of the 5.0 acre Premises. The proposed Facility T-Mobile would would require up to six the construction of a 140- high self-supporting monopole. at install panel cabinets antennas flush- mounted 137 feet AGL and install associated unmanned equipment within the 55 foot by not 90 foot equipment compound. 140 feet AGL. The The top of the would proposed monopole be enclosed with appurtenances would exceed compound by to a security fence, eight (8) the facilities if feet in height. wireless The monopole active and equipment compound are designed and accommodate of all carriers in the Connecticut marketplace Danbury emergency services, requested. Vehicular access to the Facility would extend from Stadley Rough a Road over an existing a paved driveway of to the rear of the Premises and then along in the proposed gravel driveway of eleven distance approximately or 175 feet. Construction will result removal (11 ) extend trees of 6" in diameter greater at breast height. Underground utility connections would from existing 9 C•F9285425 service on Stadley Rough at the Road to the compound. a Attachment 4 contains the specifications for access the proposed Facility and other relevant Site including Included site plan, a compound plan, 5 is a tower elevation, map information. in Attachment Visual Resources Evaluation Report with a computer-based, predictive included in these viewshed model and photosimulations. that: Some of the relevant information exhibits for the Site reveals The Premises is classified in the RA-40 Residential Zoning District; 6 feet from the Pockets of wetland soils were delineated approximately proposed Site, but will not be disturbed; is The Premises fully developed; of the Minimal grading area proposed be access drive and minimal grading of the proposed compound The would required have no for the construction of the proposed Facility; or proposed Facility to will effect on cultural, Officer; historic architectural resources according According the State Historic Preservation to the Department or of Environmental Protection, Threatened or there are no known extant populations site; The and of Federal State Endangered, Special Concern Species at the proposed Facility not will have no impact on water flow, water quality, or air quality and will emit any noise. Vl. Environmental Compatibility CGS Section Pursuant to 16-50p, the Council is required to find and to determine as part of the Application process any probable environmental impact of the facility historic on the natural environment, forest and ecological balance, public air and water health and safety, scenic, wildlife. and recreational values, parks, purity and fish and As demonstrated in this Application 10 C&F 028•42 and the accompanying Attachments and documentation, the proposed Facility will have no significant adverse A. Visual environmental impacts. Assessment The visual impact upon of the proposed Facility such as would vary from different locations around the towers depending of structures factors vegetation, Attachment topography, 5 contains distance from the towers, and the location around the towers. a computer-based, from predictive surrounding viewshed model which depicts as a the potential impact Resource of the proposed Facility views for the Site as well Visual Evaluation. Optasite Evaluation. retained Vanasse Hangen field Brnstlin ("VHB") conducted to prepare the Visual Resource In addition to prior 2008 work, to VHB a balloon test at 140 feet AGL at the proposed Facility mile Site on May 28, for in order evaluate the potential visual impact of the proposed within a and account local, Site state and federal historic, hiking and recreational sites two- radius of the proposed Resources ("Study Area"). demonstrates that the The Visual Evaluation Facility will be visible above the tree canopy The within only less than one-half of one percent of the Study Area. existing vegetation species with an in the area of the proposed height of of the Site is mature, Based mixed deciduous hardwood average tree canopy 65 feet. on the viewshed analysis canopy residences contained in Attachment 5, year and round visibility proposed Facility Site. above the tree will occur on the Premises immediate vicinity Facility. (10) are of the Overall, are fourteen (14) will have partial and year Great round views of the These properties residences located along Stadley partial, seasonal Rough views Road Plain Road. Ten additional will have of the Facility, Lane. and these properties located along portions of Stadley Rough Road and Indima Spring 11 G&F 928542 S The compound and area will have a de minimis visual impact the as it will be screened by a the proposed fencing buffer around the extensive landscaping. the tower and In addition, mounted Premises itself provides will vegetative be Site. Finally, the trees flush antenna installations painted Site. brown to blend in with in the vicinity located to further reduce the overall visibility of the Approximately closest residence 53 residences are within 1,000 feet of the proposed tower. The is located approximately Evaluation 142' to the northwest at 14 Indian Spring of the Lane. The Visual Resources Report confirms that the location proposed Facility sites, at the proposed highways Weather Site will not have a significant visual impact on any hiking or recreational scenic or historic sites. permitting, Optasite Site on will raise a balloon with a diameter of at least three (3) or feet at the proposed the day of the Council's first hearing session on this Application, at a time otherwise specified by B. the Council. SoLicitation submitted of State Agency for review Comments Optasite Connecticut a request Preservation and comment for the proposed Site to the State Historic Officer ("SHPO") and the Connecticut Department Diversity Data of Environmental Protection ("DEP") review. representatives request, responsible Optasite that for the Natural Base and endangered species study resources At SHPO's conducted an archaeological or reconnaissance of the Site and the study within indicated no prehistoric historical archaeological that the were identified the project area. Accordingly, SHPO determined proposed Facility such as will have no effect upon Connecticut's archaeological heritage. as an area No other resources historic structures were identified no by extant SHPO of concern. According Endangered, determinations to the DEP, there are known populations Site. of Federal or State Threatened or Special Concern Species 7. at the Copies of the SHPO's and DEP's are included in Attachment | 2 C&F: •5425 C. Power Density Analysis a The FCC adopted standard for exposure those to Radio Frequency ("RF") emissions To ensure from telecommunications facilities like proposed in this Application. power at the compliance for the with applicable standards, T-Mobile has performed antennas maximum density base calculations proposed Facility assuming chalmels were that the were pointed of the tower and all operating simultaneously. site would be The resulting of the power density for T-Mobile's operation at the proposed approximately and Memorandum 3.182% applicable MPE standards. Copies of the Power Density D. Calculations are included in Attachment 4. Other Environmental Factors be The proposed Facility will last would unmamled, hour. requiring monthly equipment location. The maintenance visits by be each carrier that approximately a one T-Mobile's at the Facility will monitored 24 hours day, 7 days a week from a remote proposed Facility storage or at the Site would not require will a water supply or wastewater utilities. No outdoor solid waste receptacles dust or be needed. Further, noise, the proposed Facility or will not create or emit any smoke, gas, other air contaminants, will have no odors vibrations. The construction and operation at the of the proposed Facility Optasite National significant impact the Site in accordance on the air, water, or noise quality site. has evaluated with the FCC's regulations implementing not the Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"). Forests, Gamelands The Site was identified as a Federal Wilderness Area. No National Parks, Rivers National National Parkways located or Scenic Rivers, of the State Forest, The Site State Designated located in Scenic or State are in the vicinity Site. is not or adjacent survey within to any areas identified as a Federal Wildlife Preserve. Further, according watercourses are to the site and NEPA analysis, no federally regulated proposed of the Site. wetlands or located at or close proximity Rate to the Federal Emergency indicate that the Management Agency ("FEMA') Flood Insurance Maps proposed site l3 CgzF 9v•54Z5 site is not located within a 100-year floodplain. As such, is and based on the information from any and contained in other reports included in this Application, review the Site categorically in accordance excluded requirement is for further environmental by the FCC with NEPA no permit required by and that agency prior to construction of the proposed Facility. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1306(b) VII. 1.1307(a). with the Consistency Pursuant Danbury Land Use Regulations included in this section is a to the Council's Application Guide, project and with the narrative summary of the consistency plan the of the local municipality's zoning A and wetland regulations of the Site and of conservation development. uses description site of the zoning are classification and planned and existing of the proposed locations also detailed in this section. A. Danbury Plan of Conservation 2002 Plan and Development & The City of Danbury's of Conservation Development (the "Plan"), wireless a copy of which is included in the bulk filing, does not specifically public utilities address communications will need to facilities. The Plan does acknowledge to meet that and facilities of the be modified and expanded where necessary and the evolving service needs public. See Bulk Filing, submit Plan of Conservation Development which will at IV.41. Accordingly, wireless the Applicants respectfully service within that the proposed Facility, with the provide to needed commtmications the City, is consistent City's Plan, the extent it addresses public utility facilities. B. Danbury Zoning Regulations to and Zoning Classification According 40 Residential the City's zoning Wireless map and municipal tax records, facilities the Site is classified in RA- Zoning to District. telecommunications are permitted See in all zoning districts subject special exception use approval 3.E.6, by page the Planning Commission. Applicant's Bulk Filing, Zoning Regulations, Section 3-6. 14 C&F 9285425 Section 3.E.6 of the City's Zoning Regulations for sets forth the general standards, See Bulk including Filing, is dimensional requirements Sec. proposed wireless Consistency The first two communications facilities. with Zoning Regulations, illustrated in the table 3.E.6. of the proposed Facility of the table these stmldards below. columns provide standards the requirements to set forth in the zoning regulations Standards and and the remaining columns apply these the proposed Facility Dimensional Requirements of Regulation Section Section Requirement Minimum Regulation necessary to Proposed Facility 140' to 3.E.6(d)(l) Height 3.E.6(d)(2) height technical Proposed Height accommodate satisfy Maximum requirements. minimum height Underlying zoning district setbacks or height of tower whichever for all carriers Section + 25'; Approximate Distance Front yard: 480' Side Rear Yard: Yard: Setbacks height 165' is greater: + 25' of tower 78'; 42' 340' * (tower to be engineering accordingly) Section Minimum 3.E.6(d)(3) Lot Area RA-40 sq. ft. Zoning District: 40,000 5.0 acres (0.92 acres) i Section Tower Residential Districts 3.E.6(d)(4) Design in Monopole Monopole Design mounted antennas with flush Zoning Section Fence 3.E.6(d)(5) Security Required Fence Required height 6' 8' tall enclose security fence to facility 3.E.6(d)(6) Landscaping Section - minimum 3.E.6(d)(7) Accessory Section Maximum maximum sq. ft. floor height 12' 360 area; Landscaping of facility proposed with 6' tall plantings Approximately 200 square feet in area and 12' in Buildings/Structures Setbacks approximately height Regulation Section Section Requirement No illumination of Regulation Proposed Facility No 3.E.6(d)(9) lighting proposed Lighting l5 C&F 92•5425 Regulation Section Section Requirement No of Regulation Proposed Facility No 3.E.6(d)(10) advertising signs advertising signs Signs Section Collocation proposed 3.E.6(d)(ll) Accommodate users a lninimum of 3 and Designed and local facilities for up to 4 carriers emergency and local fire, police mnbulance facilities C. Planned and Existing Land Uses The proposed The Premises Site will be located in the southwestern portion of an approximately primarily cleared 5.0 acre Premises. is developed than for use as a religious facility is and is and graded. to No development to the other the proposed Facility to planned. and A church is located adjacent the Site south; a City school is located the southeast, dense residential development observations is found in the surrounding any known areas. Consultation with municipal officials and did not indicate or planned changes and Watercourses in surrounding Regulations land uses. D. The Danbury Danbury Inland Wetlands Inland Wetlands mid Watercourses Regulations ("Local or Wetlands Regulations") regulate One such certain activities conducted within in adjacent use to "wetlands" as defined therein. regulated activity or is "any operation or or of a wetland or watercourse involving of removal deposition or of materials, or any obstruction, within or construction, use alteration or pollution, disturb such wetland watercourse, character any of operation a of any See land which may the natural and indigenous wetland or watercourse." Bulk Filing, defined Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, § 2. the Wetlands Upland or Review Areas are as being mean within 100 feet from boundary watercourse. of any See wetland Bulk watercourse, and within 100 feet of the high water line of any Filing, Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations, § 2. l6 C&F •2S542 5 According isolated wetland to the site survey and field investigations site. The conducted at the Site, to two small pockets will were delineated on compound and the has been sited avoid these areas. No activities take place within the wetlands proposed Facility Soil Erosion is located down- gradient of the wetland area. In accordance with the Connecticut Water Control Guidelines, measures as established by the Council of Soil and Conservation, and soil erosion control and other best management practices to will be established maintained throughout As the construction of the proposed Facility, submits that the protect as the integrity of nearby other wetlands. such, in Optasite respectfully Section activity, would compared no with activities outlined Bulk 4 of the Wetlands Regulations, have significant impact. See Filing, Section VIII. 4, pgs. 9-11. Consultations with Local• State and Federal Officials A. Local Section Consultations CGS 16-501(e) requires may be located an applicant and with to consult with the local municipality a in which a proposed facility feet from the any the adjoining municipality having proposed and a boundary facility. of of 2,500 proposed facility concerning I, 2006, Optasite to the and alternate sites of the On January 3 submitted a letter technical report to the City City is Danbury Danbury filed, site with respect attached proposed Facility as at the Site. Copies of the letter to the of are hereto Attachment 8. The technical report, the a copy of which being bulk- included specifics process and about the proposed Site mad addressed public need for the facility, the selection the environmental effects of the proposed Facility. with the On March 21, 2006, representatives to of Optasite met Mayor, Corporation the Counsel and Associate information Planner discuss the proposed Facility. Planning At that meeting, The City suggested that an session be held before the Commission. public information session 17 C&F: 9255425 was held on May 3, May 23, the 2006 and the City provided of the letter written comments on the proposed Facility 8. in a letter dated 2006. A copy from the and City is included in Attachment After carriers who public information session, Optasite in this area T-Mobile worked with other wireless expressed a need for service to of the City, the facility design herein and team and the new owners of the Premises address the City's comments. As detailed in Attachment the 3, Optasite investigated several alternative sites, including its the alternatives suggested by to City. Optasite Since the also redesigned information and relocated proposed Facility Sprint-Nextel of these carriers and in response Verizon the City's have comments. public of the session, both Wireless committed to share use proposed Facility as each have a need to provide service in this area of the City. a In letter to the Mayor dated June 10, 2008, Optasite provided letter is also included a summary of its efforts to address the City's comments. A copy of this in Attachment 8. B. Consultations with State Officials As noted in Section VI.B of this Application, Optasite and the DEP. consulted with and requested and DEP's review of the proposed Site Facility included from the SHPO Copies of the SHPO's determinations are in Attachment 7. C. Consultation with Federal Agencies from the Federal Aviation Optasite for the has received a determination Administration indicates that ("FAA") the Site, which is included in Attachment 4. The FAA determination proposed Facility navigation tower would not require As FAA registration, no let alone FAA review as a potential required air obstruction or hazard. such, FAA lighting or marking would be for the proposed T-Mobile's in this Application. license FCC permits it to modify from its network by building that a wireless facilities within its licensed area without prior approval the FCC provided proposed facility does 18 C&• 929542 S not fall within one of the "listed" in 47 CFR categories requiring §1.1307, axe review under NEPA. The "listed" categories, preserves, included activities critical that may affect wilderness areas, wilderness endangered structures or threatened or species, habitats, National Register and historic districts, As sites, buildings, noted in Section objects, Indian religious sites, Application, Optasite any does of the NEPA conducted flood plains review federal Site wetlands. VhD of this a for the and determined that the Site does not fall under "listed" categories by the FCC of 47 CFR § 1.1307. to Therefore, IX. the proposed Facility Cost and not require review pursuant NEPA. Estimated Schedule A. Overall Estimated Cost The total estimated cost of construction for the proposed Site facility is $216,000.00. This estimate includes: (1) Tower and foundation costs (including installation) of approximately $112,000.00; (2) (3) B. Overall Site development installation costs of approximately $66,000.00; approximately $38,000.00. and Utility costs of Scheduling and Site preparation engineering and would commence immediately following Plan and Council approval of Optasite's Development within three Management ("D&M") Installation is expected and to be completed equipment schedule is (3) to to four (4) weeks. ofmonopole, The antennas associated is expected take an additional four (4) weeks. weeks. duration of the total construction approxinlately eight (8) require ma to ten (10) Facility integration is and system testing is expected to additional two (2) weeks after the construction completed. 19 C&F 92•5425 X. Conclusion This Application need exists and the accompanying area materials and documentation clearly The demonstrate that a public in the Danbury also for improved the wireless services. foregoing have any information and attachments demonstrate that proposed Facility will not substantial adverse environmental effects. The Applicants respectfully environmental effects submit that the public the need for the proposed Facility outweighs of the any potential Site. resulting from construction proposed Facility a at the As such, the Applicants respectfully request and Public Need to that the Council grant wireless Certificate of Environmeutal Compatibility at 52 Optasite Colmecticut. for a proposed telecommunication facility Stadley Rough Road, Danbury, Respectfully Submitted, Attorneys for the Applicant LLP 14 th Cuddy 445 White & Feder Hamilton Avenue, New York Floor Plains, 10601 20 C&F 9255425 PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF CHARLES REGULBUTO 1.Q. A. Mr. Regulbmo, the Director please summarize your professional background at in telecommunications. I am of Northeast Development Optasite where I head a development team in our growing Northeast Region telecommunications include site selection development aald and site acquisition and activities. My responsibilities associated with design, municipal to community sites in relations Optaslte's and and T-Mobile's efforts develop and new tower Connecticut, construction coordination support 1 have during the approval process supervision of project more once approved. been been part of the telecommunications of the industry for than ten years and have involved in all aspects Northstar Site development LLC of telecommunications where I I have facilities. I joined Optasite from Development, activities was a partner. in successfully completed Connecticut and all aspects of development for more than 150 sites Massachusetts. 2.Q. A. What is the purpose of your testimony? information about My testimony provides background for a Optasite's public and T-Mobile's application certificate of environmental compatibility Optasite's activities and need for the proposed of the Danbury facility. My testimony site will address efforts in its search and selection proposed How in this application conduct and Optasite's a prior to the filing of this application. 3.Q. A. does Optasite site search? As a tower developer, Optasite for a new conforms to State policy an and sensible business practice meet and does not search tower site in an area where existing where no structure can the needs of the various carriers for providing selwice. In areas existing where structures are available, Optaslte works in conjunction with carriers to review the area service is needed C&FgMSI73 to find potential tower sites. When searching land for locations, and Optasite will survey the search area to determine zoning designations; existing suitable sites. use; the existence of large parcels of land for potential 4.Q. A. Please describe Optasite's corner search for the proposed carriers Danbury have a facility. for In the northeast of Danbury, tall where need providing service, As shown makes in there are no existing 2 and towers or other structures available for co-location. Attachments 3 to the Application, in the Other T-Mobile's existing area system design to use of eleven existing City also. and proposed of the towers surrounding carriers are to provide or service other portions on of the outside search area. located propose to co-locate these sites Once it was determined that no existing tower sites were located in the area where service is required, a water tank located approximately water 0.7 miles east of the proposed Danbury facility to was investigated for use. This tank was ultimately rejected area due the fact that a facility on the water tank would not provide out coverage to to the where service is needed. Optasite located also reached other churches within the search area, including interested the church adjacent for a to the proposed site location. None of these churches were in leasing space located tower facility. Optasite the search area contacted the City for use of the two elementary that the schools within and outside of the search area and learned City was not interested in providing space for tower sites at these locations. As part of its search for sites, Optasite and these contacted the owners of large residentially lease space for a zoned parcels as within in the search area owners were not willing to tower site they have plans to develop a their properties. Also, of Public Works at the suggestion located of the City, Optasite intersection of and T-Mobile investigated Department garage at the C&F934517• Stadley Rough this area, a Road and Rockwell Road. Due to this suggested to site's locaiion and the terrain in facility of at this site would not provide service the area targeted in this for service. Details Optasite's 3. search for the Danbury facility proposed investigations available suitable in application with the are provided Optasite this area in Attachment Based on its extensive conjunction site for carriers, in concluded that the proposed site is only providing service of the City. Has 5.Q. A. Optasite consulted with municipal officials in Danbury about the proposed facility? Yes. In accordance with Section 16-501(e), Optasite provided on or technical information about its proposal to the Mayor in March of Danbury of 2006 to about Janum'y 31, proposal held on 2006. A meeting information was held with the Mayor's office before the discuss the and a public 2006. session Planning and Zoning on Commission was May 3, letter to The City provided comments Optasite's proposal in a the Siting Council dated May 23, 2006. A copy of Optasite's included technical report is included in the bulk filing and copies of the City's correspondence As a are in Attachment 8. result of the consultation with the City, Optasite investigated to other suggested sites and worked with the church and wireless carriers re-design its facility. consultation and its 6.Q. Please response describe to Optasite's City's activities since the 2006 municipal the comments. A. Since the municipal a consultation activities from 2006, Optasite area worked with wireless carriers who indicated need for providing and service in of the City, the owner of the church property, which ownership changed, that addressed the its technical team to address the City's comments while designing a facility carriers needs. C&F 9•4SI7 3 In this time, Optasite mad Verizon learned that other carriers needed a facility in this area. And, to SprintfNextel gaps in their Wireless have committed to use of the facility, the if approved, of the fill networks. Through by collaboration with all of the carriers, height proposed for Facility was increased 10' to accommodate the minimum height required by all carriers providing needed service. As noted in detail in this application, Optasite suggested by the also spent considerable as time investigating and alternative sites, including of Public Works sites City, such the water tank site Department site. Also, Optasite response antennas to worked closely The with the church to relocate and redesign to the facility in the City's comments. proposed the tower was redesigned to include flush-mounted and was relocated further from adjacent property that this the west. Optasite investigated too a bell tower design, however, held another the church determined design in was visually of 2007 to obtrusive. Optasite City on meeting with the Mayor's On June office September a update the the its investigations and facility redesign. to 10, 2008, letter was sent to City detailing the efforts by Optasite of the June address the City's comments prior to the filing of the application. A copy 10, 2008 correspondence is included in Attachment 8. C&F934517• Statement of Need & Coverage Plots The proposed Danbury Facility areas would be used to provide 7 and wireless Interstate telecommunications 84 service areas in north Lake and of and the west of the intersection of Brookfield and of Route border for other and Candlewood in the Town Padanaram Road (1-84), between and surrounding services with other to City Danbury for T-Mobile carriers T-Mobile public. The proposed Danbury Facility in the area. existing and proposed facilities the Included herein are is needed by providing wireless in conjunction for the proposed propagation plots prepared by T-Mobile from surrounding sites; coverage from the proposed site plots depict existing coverage at an antenna centerline from the proposed site and existing height of 137' AGL and coverage sites. Also included is a chart identifying the existing surrounding sites shown on the enclosed propagation plots. coverage site. The Also enclosed are propagation Facility, These plots were 2006. Sprint-Nextel also with Optasite. agreement These the effectiveness prepared evidenced at the plots demonstrating Sprint-Nextel's need for the proposed time of the technical report filing with the City in its need for the proposed Facility through its tower site lease propagation of the maps confirm site in the need for the a site in the north needs east part of the area. City and proposed meeting coverage for the C&F9•70512 / IlJ m O• 0 ._• 0 0 I I-- LU .-J \ \ F• @ •O Gr• Tm T- I-- U "0 2 0. .o 0 | t- 0 o 0. o3 > 0 O3 ..Q 0 •E l-c X LU c• ! Surrounding Sites Existing Coverage Town Border In Building Level Level Level Coverage, -82 .72 dBm dBm or or Greater Existing Sites Proposed Site 0 In Car Street Coverage, Coverage, Greater -$7 dBm or Greater Proposed Site Coverage at 130 ft Town Border Sites In Building Level Level Coverage, -82 -87 .72 dBm dBm dBm or or Greater Existing Proposed 0 In Car Coverage, Greater Greater Site Street Level Coverage, or Existing Surrounding Sites and Proposed Site Coverage at 130 ft Town Border Sites In Building Level Level Coverage, -72 dBm or or Greater Existing O In Car Coverage, Coverage, -82 dBm .87 dBm Greater Greater Proposed Site Street Level or ._¢ LL •'• • 0) Z c9 Z •3 a C3 09 ED "On• "• Qd • ._c "O nZi.OE ,•_(i) (DE-t• • = O K. E L_ (D "c5 Q. v) {'4 (.2 CO LL • ::E C'J CO CO Site Search Summary within 4 miles to the Analysis none of the communications towers towers located of the m•a search area indicated that the provide adequate coverage proposed Danbury Facility. There are no existing structures the coverage meet requirements of the proposed Facility. of these would targeted the for service area within search by adequate to where the construction Optasite and T-Mobile investigated several locations be feasible. The description of the individual sites investigated are set might for eliminating the property also included. applicable, the reasons Following is a map indicating the location of all sites investigated. 1. Address: Owner: 52 of a new tower forth these below. Where descriptions Stadley Roueh the 019 Road Christ K07 Sheppard Church Map/Lot: Deed: 1948/939 District: RA-40 5.2 Acres Zoning Lot Size: Approximately This property 40 K05 is the candidate site. The previous owners were the Candlewood Baptist Church. 2. Address: Stadley Rough 105 Road Map/Lot: Deed: Owner: 654/122 Colonial District: Baptist RA-40 Church Zoning Lot Size: Approximately of this 10.5 Acres The ceased owner property to responding initially showed Optasite's requests. interest The owners in leasing may site, but then space for a tower have other development plans for this location. 3. Address: 85 Great J07 72 Plains Road Map/Lot: Deed: Owner: St 429/395 Gregory the Great RC Church Corp. Zoning Lot Size: District: RA-20 14.3 Acres Approximately of this location The owner initially showed and their interest in the concept, counsel. however, the proposal was ultimately rejected by 4. Address: Great J07 72 Plains the diocese legal Road Map/Lot: Deed: Owner: 819/968 Albert of District: Salame Owner: dba Address Property Scope Realty Acres 131 West St., Danbury CT 06810 Zoning Lot Size: RA-20 15.37 Approximately C&F937127• The owner of this space property a leasing for tower plans facility. has space for to develop this property and as such, is not interested in Optasite's proposal group as to lease a tower facility was rejected for all parcels owned by this listed below (numbers 5, Road 6 & 7): 5. Address: Great J05 101 Plains Map/Lot: Deed: Owner: Address 664-615 Albert of Salame Owner: dba Property Scope Realty Acres 131 West St., Danbury CT 06810 Zoning Lot Size: District: RA-80 28.62 Approximately Great J06 081 Meadows 6. Address: Road Map/Lot: Deed: Owner: Address 819/968 Albert of Salmne Owner: dba Property Scope Realty Acres 131 West St., Danbury CT 06810 Zoning Lot District: RA-20 37.06 Size: Approximately 7. Address: Stadle¥ Rough J05 102 Road Map/Lot: Deed: Owner: Address 664/614 Albert of Salame Owner: dba Property Scope Realty 131 West St., Danbury CT 06810 Zoning Lot Size: District: RA-40 7.0 Acres Approximately 73-79 K07 28 8. Address: Stadley Rough Road (aka 25 Karen Road) Map/Lot: Deed: 463/271 Owner: of Property Address City RA-40 of Danbury 155 Deer Hill Property Owner: Road, Danbury, CT 06810 Zoning Lot Size: District: Approximately 15.93 Acres This location is the site were of the not Optasite properties. 9. Address: that they interested Stadley Rough Elementary in leasing space for School. tower The Mayor's on office informed school facilities any City 14 Indian K07 20 Sprin• Road Map/Lot: Deed: 1813/1177 Owner: 14 Indian Jose & Christina Carvalheiro CT Property Address: (Formerly 06810 De Gross) Spring Road, Danbury C&F9371271 Zoning Lot Size: District: RA-40 3.52 Acres Approximately was This property home recently on subdivided during the initial research period. There is now one single family present 10 this parcel. Road 10. Address: Stadle,/Rough 18 Map/Lot: Deed: K09 355/489 Owner: of Property Address City of Danbury Property Owner: 155 Deer RA-20 8.8 Acres of the Great for tower Hill Rood, Danbury, CT 06810 Zoning Lot Size: District: Approximately is the site space This interest locations in Plain Elementary on School. As noted above, the City has no leasing Woods facilities school properties. 11. SterlinR Condominium Complex Map/Lot: Deed: Property Owner: District: Sterling RMFI0 Woods Condominium Complex Zoning Lot Size: The This would City Danbury Water Department leases space site was analyzed and ultimately rejected by not to the coverage miles to the east area on this property Radio This site. for its 80'AGL water as tank. it T-Mobile Frequency water engineers provide approximately 0.7 12. intended for service. tank is located of the proposed Facility Department of Public Works Garage Map/Lot: Deed: Property Address Owner: of City of Danbury Property Owner: 155 Deer Hill Road, Danbury, CT 06810 Zoning Lot Size: District: This property to far south which to would analyzed by T-Mobile's to the target provide coverage cause shadowing of the radio was area. Radio area. Frequency This site engineer and determined at the to be too is also located base of a plateau, frequency propagation, thereby preventing coverage the target C&F9371271 DtL _ Rh Topo USA® 6.0 Data use subject DeLorme. to license. © 2006 Topo USA® 6.0, 4OO 60• 1200 Iooo 2OOO www.delorme.corn MN (13.7° W) Data Zoom 14-1 EXISTING There the 15 communications site. Not TOWER LISTING are towers located is below listed area proposed Danbury appearing on this list. area. Each one location of the towers target Mobile No. Indeed, some of the outside to provide service of the approximately four miles of the site search area for also shown the following map, numbered on in the order towers would to the existing provide adequate coverage below are currently being used or proposed for use by Ttargeted for service by the proposed Danbury Facility. HEIGHT within OWNER/OPERATOR TOWER LOCATION SOURCE CSC Database COORDINATES Lat 41-24-56 73-24-05 1. CL&P 7 Stony HillRoad 140.00 Long Lat 2. AT&T 2 Huckleberry Hill 60.00 CSC Database 41-27-10 73-24-20 Road 3. Charter Long Lat Communication 33 Carmen Hill Rd. 80.00 CSC Database 41-29-35 73-25-37 Long Lat 4. Aurora of Danbury 39 Carmen Hill Rd. 500' CSC Database 41-29-14.78 73-25-44.93 Long Lat 5. CL&P Park Ridge Road 115.00 CSC Database 41-25-47 73-24-10 Long Lat 6. T-Mobile 181 Clapboard 85.00 CSC Database 41-26-01 73-29-33 Long Lat 7. SNET 39 West Street 70.00 CSC Database 41-23-34 73-27-16 Long Lat 8. T-Mobile 41PadanaramRd. 80.00 CSC Database 41-25-08.1 73-27-43 Long Lat 9. Fifty Newtown Rd. 48 Newtown Road 100.00 CSC Database 41-24-12 73-25-29.5 Long Lat 10. Fifty Newtown Rd. 50 Newtown Road 100.00 CSC Database 41-23-58 73-25-51 Long Lat 11. WCSU Boxwood Lane Ext 100.00 CSC Database 41-23-41.93 73-29-12.2 Long 12. Robert Kaufman 7 West View Drive 133.00 CSC Database Lat 41-23-45.3 73-25-31.4 Long C&F93709•1 No. OWNER/OPERATOR TOWER LOCATION HEIGHT SOURCE COORDINATES 13. Town of New Fairfield 302 Ball Pond Road 175.00 CSC Database Lat 41-27-53.2 73-29-49 Long 14. Crown Media Dick Finn Road 60.00 CSC Database Lat 41-29-11 73-28-10 Long Lat 15. SpectraSite 6 Fairfield Drive 163.00 CSC Database 41-25-31.1 73-22-26.8 Long C&F:937098A Topo USA® 6.0 J I , PROPOSED SITE 52 Stadley Danbury, Rough Road Connecticut Land Christ the of Church Shepherd Assessor's Map K07, 5.0 Acres Lot 19 GENERAL FACILITY DESCRIPTION 100' leased a 100' x area located in the southwestern proposed Danbury Facility includes of an approximately 5 acre located at 52 Stadley Rough Road, Danbury. The parcel Facility would consist of a 140-foot self-supporting monopole tower with flush mounted antennas and a 55' x 90' site compound designed to accommodate the related equipment either in single-story equipment buildings or on concrete pads. The tower as designed would accommodate four sets of flush mounted antennas. and related Initially, antennas equipment for T-Mobile's would be installed. The tower and equipment buildings would use be enclosed by an 8-foot fence with gate, which will be screened with landscaping. Vehicle access to high security the Site would extend from Stadley Rough Road along an existing paved drive a distance of of approximately 175' 460', then westerly along a new a distance approximately gravel driveway to the equipment compound. would extend from Stadley Rough Underground utility connections Road along the access drive. The corner z .< •--'•1 sc^u:: USGS TOPO M.•P: ,= DANBURY 4t073-D4 •ooo' SCALE ?• FEET SITE ID; Ct-V Op o• ((('))) taslte TO• LtC CT-999-0041 SFTE NAME: SHEET TITLE: USGS TOPO MAP DANBURY DATE: SiTE ADDRESS: 52 STADLEY ROUGH COUNTY ROAD C9127107 REVISION: DANBURY, FAIRFIELD CT 06811 0 SITE EVALUATION REPORT I. LOCATION COORDINATES: 41°25'-59.17 545' ''N, AMSL 73 %25'-54.90"W GROUND ELEVATION: USGS MAP: Danbury, 52 CT SITE ADDRESS: Stadley Rough Road, Danbury, OF SITE: Land and within CT ZONING WITHIN •A MILE •A mile of the proposed site is zoned primarily RA-40, Single -Family II. DESCRIPTION RMF-10, Multi-Family Residential. A. SITE SIZE: 100' x 100' LESSOR'S PARCEL: 5.0+ acres B. TOWER TYPE/HEIGHT: Monopole/140' AND SURFACE: AGL C, SITE treed TOPOGRAPHY area. The site located is within a fairly level D. SURROUNDING lessor's An area TERRAIN, is VEGETATION, the church the north to WETLANDS, and east OR WATER: The area. parcel developed is located with building and associated parking site. of wetlands of the proposed are E. LAND USE east WITHIN and west. •A MILE Colonial east. OF Hills SITE: Residential Church properties is located to found to the A north, school Baptist the south. is located to the 1. FACILITIES A, POWER COMPANY: Connecticut Light Power and Power B. POWER PROXIMITY TO SITE: is available from Stadley Rough Road. C. TELEPHONE COMPANY: SBC D. PHONE SERVICE PROXIMITY: Same as power e. VEHICLE ACCESS TO SITE: Vehicular access to the site would utilize an of approximately 460 existing paved drive from Stadley Rough Road a distance feet, running west then north, then proceed to the west along a new gravel access drive to the site a distance of approximately 175 feet. F. OBSTRUCTION: None G• grading drive and the site compound. development of the access Detailed plans would be provided to the Connecticut Siting Council in a Development and Management Plan after Council approval of the proposed facility. would be CLEARING AND FILL REQUIRED: Moderate clearing and minimal required for 2, LEGAL A. PURCHASE [ ] the LEASE [X ] Church OWNER: Christ Shepherd ADDRESS: 52 Stadley Rough Road, Danbury, AT: CT 06811 DEED ON FILE City Vol. of Danbury page 346 510, SITE ID: SHEET TITLe: CHA-- OP 1 R•RCH ((•o)) tasmte 52 • S•E 2• CT-999-0041 SITE NAME: COMPOUND PLAN DANBURY DATE: STADLEY ROUGH ROAD 04/07/08 REVISION: DANBURY, FAIRFIELD CT 06811 COUNTY 1 FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT TOWER & SPECIFICATION (NEW EQUIPMENT) I. TOWER SPECIFICATIONS: A. MANUFACTURER: TBD B. TYPE: Monopole 140' C. HEIGHT: D. DIMENSIONS: Approx. Approx. 5' diameter 1 Y2' diameter at base at top II. TOWER LOADING: A. T-Mobile 1. 2. 3. up to 9 panel antennas MODEL: Panel antennas, DIMENSIONS: POSITION ON TOWER: model APXVI8-209014-C 5' in Approximately Antenna length of 137' AGL on centerline low profile platform 4. TRANSMISSION LINES: up to 18 internal to the monopole B. Future carriers - TBD III. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND CERTIFICATION: In accordmace Industries Towers with the 2005 Connecticut State Building Code mid the Electronic for to and pressures mile) wind foundation "Structural Standards EIA/TIA-222-G, Structures", the tower would be designed Support equivalent to a 90 MPH (fastest mile) wind velocity and a 50 Antenna Association Standard Steel withstand Antenna wind MPH (fastest The velocity design would concurrent with on three-quarter soil conditions inch at solid ice accumulation. be based the site. f NOTE: AN ENG/• TO MA/NT•N FR•f•y pA• B•E,41• S•sUC•IRE • PO•VT GN ZH•" •T FA•UR£. NOTE,. NOT b,G•T/N•TOF•R DOES REOUIRE FRA I , I'• TO?E•R ELEVATION •ALE; i • . ¸ 2O IO 2O IN FEEl SCA'E SITE IE): SHEET TITLE: Op ((('))) taslte 52 lOWERS U• LLC •5BI DT-999-0041 SITE NAME: TOWER ELEVATION DANBURY DATE: STADLEY ROUGH ROAD 04/07/08 REVISION: OPTA•rI[ DANBURY, FAIRFIELD CT 06811 COUNTY •51BOROUGH. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STATEMENT PHYSICALIMPACT A. WATER FLOW AND QUALITY water No water quality changes are anticipated as a result of the construction A small isolated wetland is located or operation of the facility. area to the east and north of the proposed site, with the nearest point of the wetlands approximately 6 feet from the compound. The equipment used will discharge no to area areas or Best pollutants to wetland and watercourse groundwater. will be used during construction to control storm water and management practices flow and/or erosion. B. AIR OUALITY be used limited at this ordinary operating conditions, the equipment that would proposed facility would emit no air pollutants of any kind. For will utilize a back-up generator during power outages, T-Mobile Under C. periods LAND Moderate access clearing drive and and site minimal grading the compound. remain unchanged by the construction required for development The remaining land of the lessor would and operation of the cell site. would be of the D. NOISE The emit equipment no to be in than operation the be at the proposed air site after construction and would heating, conditioning employed during power outages. Some noise is anticipated during facility construction, which is expected to take approximately noise other installed ventilation systems. four to A generator would six weeks. E. POWER DENSITY The at the worst-case calculation would be facility density for operation of T-Mobile's approximately 3.182% of the applicable FCC/ANSI of power antennas standards. F. VISIBILITY The potential visibility approximate two-mile (attached). As shown, within an proposed monopole was assessed radius using a computer-based, predictive viewshed model the areas of visibility above the tree canopy are limited to of the the than site one and half immediate of one vicinity. percent Views of the proposed Facility area. will occur in less of the viewshed SCENIC, NATURAL, The HISTORIC & RECREATIONAL VALUES parcel on which the site is located that would recreational characteristics to exhibit appears be affected by the no scenic, natural site. or proposed has The Connecticut location. Department Based on of Enviromnental its review Protection reviewed the "there or proposed are of the Natural or no known Concern extant Special populations of Species at the site Federal in State Diversity Data Base, Endangered, Threatened question." of At SHPO's the site and request, the were Optasite study indicated conducted that resources idemified reconnaissance upon within archaeological have such no as effect historic Connecticut's were structures an archaeological reconnaissance study prehistoric or historic archaeological the project area. Upon review of the that the facility will study, SHPO has determined No other resources archaeological heritage. identified by SHPO as an area of concern. no T-Mobile 100 USA Ine 1853 Filley St, Bloomfield, Phone: Fax: CT 06002 (860) 692 71O0 (860)692-7159 Technical To; From: co: Memo Christine Scott Jason Power Farrell - He ffernan Subject: Date: Radio Frequency Engineer Overbey Density Report for CT I 1796G 2007 September 24, l.lntroduetion: This report is the at 52 worst Monopole combined 2. Discussion: The Field result of an Electromagnetic Intensities Power PCS antenna installation (EMF Densities) study for the T-Mobile on a consideration for determining the practical Stadley Rough Road, Danbury, CT. This study incorporates the most conservative case from locations density levels that would be theoretically encountered power surrounding the transmitting location - following assumptions were used in the calculations: in the 3 1935-1945 per Mttz sector 1 ) The emissions from T-Mobile transmitters of three sectors, 2) The antemla array consists are frequency band with antennas 3) The model 4) The antenna number center for each line antenna is APXV 18.209014.C height power is 127 fl from any sector 5) The maximum 6) All the antennas 7) Power levels environment transmit are is 2123 and 39 Watts Effective 24 hours of 256 a Radiated Power (EiRP) assuming in-phase 8 channels per sector simultaneously from the is transmitting are receiving, by a day to account emitting This antennas else, increased so, factor for possible to reflections from the surrounding rarely the and if area is never continuous 8) The average ground OET level of the studied does not change significantly with respect used with the above information tile transmitting location Equations given 3. Coneluslan: in "FCC Bulletin 65, Edition 97 01" were then to perform the CaIculations Based on the above worst ease assumptions, mW/em•2 in the forth the power This value density represents C95 calculation 3 182% 1-1991 from the %Mobile POS antenna installation on a Monopole at 52 Stadley per interfere Rough square with Road, Danbury, centimeter CT, is 003182 set of the Maximum permissible Exposure (MPE) antenna standard T-Mobile or of I milliwatt will any not (mW/cm'•2) FCC/ANSI]IEEE AM or Furthermore, TV, Police the proposed Ioeatlon Radio for existing public safety communications, area FM radio broadcasts, Communications, HAM communications otIler signals in the #REF! %MoUile USA corporaUon Proprietary New Worst England Case Power Market Density Site: Site Address: Town: Tower Tower 52 CTII796G Stadley 130 Rough ft. Road Danbury Height: Style: TX output Model Monopole 25 W 8 APXV16-209014-C i Base Station Number of channels Antenna Cable Cable Antenna Ground Size[ S]8 Length Height 150 127.0 1,6 1945.0 a.50 16.5 ft. ft. Reflection Frequency Jumper & Connector Antenna Cable Total Total Total EIRP Loss per MHz dB dBi loss Gain foot Loss 0.0116 1.7400 6.2400 54.24 266.42 63.27 2123.39 dB dB dB dBm W dBm W Cable Attenuation per Channel (In Watts) Total EIRP per Sector (In Watts) nsg Power T-Mobile uallon Used 10.2600 0.031818 = Density Case (S) = mW/cm^2 Worst % MPE i=vl.i 3.1818% A' lO (lO00tigrDZ(Powerl, _ - • 4 :•T Office of (R) and Engineering Technology (OET• Bulletin 65 =dffion 97 01 August 1997 T-Mobile USA Corporation Confidential - 9/24/2007 • Issued Christian Date: Federal Air Aviation Administration ASW-520 Aeronautical Study No. 1202-OE No. Traffic Airspace Branch, B yd. 76137-0520 TX 2008-ANE-457-OE Prior 2601 Fort Meacham Study Worth, 2005-ANE- 04/24/2008 Carmody Towers LLC Optasite One Research Dr. Suite MA 01581 200 C Westborough, ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation and if Administration has conducted 14 of the Code an aeronautical Section 44718 Structure: Location: Latitude: applicable Tower Title of Federal study under the provisions of Regulations, part 77, concerning: 49 U.S.C., Danbury Danbury, CT 41-25-59.17N 73-25-54.90W 150 697 1 NAD 83 level level Longitude: Heights: feet above feet ground mean sea above (AGL) (AMSL) not This hazard aeronautical to air study revealed navigation provided that the the stnlcture does exceed obstruction standards met: and would not be a following condition(s), if any, is(are) condifion(s) or information. Based on this evaluation, for marking and lighting are not necessary and/or lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend with FAA K Change 2. accordance Advisory circular 70/7460-1 See attachment for additional aviation safety. However, and if marking in it be installed maintained This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, or use heights, will the or frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies void this determination. or alteration, including increase Any future construction addition of other transmitters, notice to the FAA. requires separate This of greater power, power to heights, determination does include temporary of the structure. a construction used during actual construction equipment such However, this equipment than as cranes, derricks, exceed etc., which may be as shall not the overall heights to indicated FAA. above. Equipment which has height greater the studied structure requires separate notice the This detertuination aircraft and does of any concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of to by regulation A copy not relieve Federal, the sponsor of compliance l•sponsibilities State, or local government body. will be relating navigable airspace any law, ordinance, or of this determination to forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission if the structure is subject their licensing authority. Page 1 of 3 If we can be of further this assistance, please to contact our office at (781 ) 238-7522. On any furore correspondence concerning matter, please refer Aeronautical Study Number 2008-ANE-457-OE. Signature Suzaune Control No: 571128-102026760 (DNE) Dempsey Technician Attachment(s) Additional Information Page 2 of 3 2004•AERb•. PHOT0 SCA,• •1 FEEy • NCR• SITE ED: SHEET TITLE: CHA Op ] 1((.))1 tas;te 52 TC•S D•. LLC SL,•E CT-999-0041 SITE NAME: AERIAL PHOTO DANBURY DATE: SITE ADDRESS: STADLEY ROUGH ROAD 09/27/07 REVISION: O•TASI•E RESE•CH DANBURY, FAIRFIELD CT 06811 COUNTY 0 Visual Resource Evaluation Report Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facility 52 Stadley Rough Danbury, Connecticut Road Prep•ued for Optasite 1 Research Towers LLC Suite 01581 200C Drive, MA Westborough, Prepared by VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brusflin, 54 Tuttle Place CT 06457 Inc. Middletown, June 2008 VHB VOI] fisse H•n•SE Bfustlin, II1c Visual Resource Evaluation Towers LLC seeks the Comlecticut Siting Council for a Certificate a wireless telecornmunications Compatibility and Public Need to construct facility ("Facility") on property located at 52 StadIey Rough Road ("host property") in the This "Visual Resource Evaluation" conducted was to City of Danbury, Connecticut, approximate the visibility of the proposed Facility within a two mile radius of the Site ("Study Area"). Optasite Envir approval from of omnental Project Introduction The to proposed up Facility to includes sets the construction of antenna a 140-foot tall, brown with associated tower, of the support four of flush-mounted panels at monopole designed ground Based on equipment information to be located within the a fenced enclosure the base Hzabor project engineer, Clough sea project area is located at approximately 545 feet above mean project area would be provided via a proposed gravel driveway from an existing bitunxthous southwesterly direction driveway provided by Associates, level LLP, the proposed Access in a (AMSL). would on to the that located extend the host property. Site Description and Setting in the Map K07/Lot 19, the host co*•sists of land and is currenUy occupied by Christ acres The property the be situated in a wooded, on Slieppaed Church. undeveloped area southwest of the host property. A photograph of the proposed project area corner is included in Attachment A. Attachment A also contains that depicts the location of the a map proposed Facility and the limits of the Study Area, Land use within the general vicinity of residential the host property is mainly comprised of medium-density parcels. Segments of Interstate 84 and Route 7 traverse the southern of tire Study Area. In total, the Study portion Area contains rougilly 127 linear miles of roadways. as IdentifiPd City of Danbury Tax of approximately 5 The Facility would Assessors records The topography in the Study Area is generally charactprized by roiling hills with select the west shore of Lake Candlewood, that topographic peaks, particularly along range in from approximately 270 feet AMSL to roughly 875 feet AMSL, The tree ground elevation cover within the Study Area consists hardwood mainly of mixed deciduous species. The of the 8,042-acre study area 3,674 acres canopy occupies approximately (46%). During the field activities associated with this analysis, an infrared laser range finder was used to the average flee accurately determine height throughout the Study Area, Numerous canopy trees were tree in- selected for the to measurement and features the average a tree canopy established, 733 acres in this case 65 feet. In addition, Study portions Area total of approximaMy of surface water; attributed matiTly of Lake Candlewood, J •40999 03•po•anbury ,•sr2l• doc• 1 VHB Vanasse Hangsn Br ustlin• [no METHODOLOGY To estimate with the proposed Facility, VHB incorporates a two-fold visibility associated approach utilizing both a predictive computer model and in-field analysis. The predictive model is employed to assess potential visibility throughout the entire Study Area, including otherwise inaccessible for field verification. areas A balloon float private property and/or also conducted and Study Area drive-through reconnaissance are locationaI and to obtain height representations, back check the initial computer model results and provide from publicly accessible areas. Results of beth activities are photographic documentation and incorporated into the final vipwshed A description of tbe methodologies analyzed map. used in the analysis is provided below. the VisibilityAnalysis from where the Using ESRI's ArcView• Spatial Analyst, a computer modeling tool, th• areas is expected to be visibl• are calculated. This is based information on proposed Facility entered into the computer model, including Faalllty height, its ground elpvallon, the surrounding topography, existing vegetation and any significant air uctures/obiects that may act to obstruct Data incorporateil in the model includes 7.5 minute pot@ntial views. digital elevation models and a digital forest layer for thi• Study Area. The DEMs were (DEMs) produced by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in 1982 at a 30 meter resolution. The forest layer was derived GIS from 2006 through on-screen digitizing in ArcView® with a I-foot resolution. orthophotos pixel to applied to the computer model achieve of where the Facility will be visible, an estimate hlitially, only topography was used as a visual th• tree is omitted all areas of potential visibility constraint; to evaluate canopy this is an overly conservative without any vegetative screening. Although prediction, the initial on-dssinn of these the tree canopy reference for comparison once is layers provides a established and also assists of potential seasonal in the evaluation visibility of the proposed tree canopy a prelllnlnary Facility. A conservative hpight of 50 feet is then used to prepare viewshed for use the Study Area reconnaissance. The average during map height of the tree is determined in the field using a hand-held infra-red laser range hinder. The average canopy tree 65 feet was height is incorporated into the final viewshed canopy map; in this case, identified the average as tree canopy The forested within il•e Study Area were areas height. then overlaid the DEM with the measured on tree height of 65 feet added and the visibility Once the are data entered, a series of col•straints are calculated for the final with the viewshed map. that a The forested areas are then the extracted trees from not on the areas of visibility, view standing among assumption person of approximately 500 feet. Facility beyond a distance the vegetation in these areas, it is assumed that some locations visibility of at least portions of the Facility based on where one the will be able the to Depending within is this range density of will provide standing. J •4•99 03•r t•anbu=y•,•r ep0r t •/ 2 VHB Vanasso Hangon Brusllin, Inc Also included on the map is Environmental Protection recreational a data layer, (CTDEP), which obtained from various the Connecticut land as State water Department such This of as depicts open and resources parks layer located aI•d forests, is useful in areas, dedicated visual space w•ll as other categories. within Connecticut determined identifying potential impacts to any sensitive receptors that may be of available data published by fl•e Study Area. Lastly, based on a review of Transportation and discusalozls with officials in Danbury, it was Department that there are no state or within the locally designated scenic roadways contained the Study A Area. preliminary that no viewshed map is confirm in this analysis float. were significant land produced generated for use use changes have and to during occurred results of the in-field verify the balloon final Information obtained during the reconnaissance activity hi order to the aerial since photographs used the model in comparison to the is then hicorporat•d into the visibility map. Balloon Float and OI1 Study Area Reconnaissance Vanasse May 28, Facility site float 2008 Hangen the Brus fiin Inc., (VHB) conducted within the a "balloon Area. float" The at the Study diametpr, helium-filled raising and maintaining an approximate four-foot weather balloon at the proposed site location to a height of 140 feet. Once the balloon was a drive-by recomlaissance within the secured, VHB staff conducted along the roads located Area with an emphasis on nearby residential areas and other potential sensitive Study the results of the pre]tinthary viewshed to evaluate receptors in order map and to verify where the balloon and was above and/or through the tree canopy. not, visible was, During the balloon 75 degrees Fahrenheit was with calm wind float, the t•mperature approximately consisted of conditions and sunny skies. to further evaluate potential viewshed balloon Photographic Documentation During the balloon float, VHB personnel drove the public road system in the Study Area where the balloon visible. The balloon was was inventory those areas photographed from the actual number of different to document view towards the proposed vantage points wbere the balloon was not visible are also Facility. Several photographs from locations included. The locations of the photos are described below: 1. View to a from from from from from from from from from 2. 3. View View Stadley Rough Stadefy Rough Stadeiy Rough Great Great Road Road Road at host at house at property. #71. host property. #122. 4. 5. 6. 7, View View View View Plain Plain Road Road at house at Hawley Roa& Indian Corntassle Silcam Motaarch Spring Road. Road. Lane. Road. 8. 9. View View J •40999 O3•rel•rls•d•bt•yvLsrep•l 4o• 3 VHB Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc Photographs digital camera lens human was of the balloon from the 18 that to view 135 most points mm zoom listed lens. above were taken with a Nikon D-80 the body to and Nikon lens For the purposes the view mm camera of this report, which set 50rim,. as "Thp eye a is known mm the normal the normal closely approximates focal-length lens. For the 35 focal of the unaided format, gives The 24x36 image, length are is about 50 inmY' locations and of the are receiver photographic points subsequently plotted on recorded maps in the field using a hand held to GPS this the contained in the attachments document. Photographic Simulation Photographic Simulations these in the The generated for views one through five. depiction of the proposed flush-mounted represent locations. The height of the Facility is determined based on the photographs and a proportional monopole image is simulated Simulations were a The scaled Pllotogr aphic monopole from of the balloon the location into photographs. simulations are contained in Attachment A. CONCLUSIONS Based where the proposed 140-foot tall monopoIe would be comprise approximately 25 acres, or loss than one half of one A sigt•ificant portion of the anticipated percent of the 8,042 acre Study Area. year-round the viewshed the host on visibility depicted on B) occurs map (contained in Attachment and immediate of property vicinity thereof (Views 1 3). The map also depicts several areas or select portions of Great Plain Road located intermittent, passing, visibility along roughly 0.50 mile to the southwest of the project area viows (Views 4 and 5). Distant may also be achieved from portions of the Danbury Federal Prison which is located nearly two miles to the west/northwest of the proposed Facility, VHB estimates that approximataly 14 residences within the Study Area will have at least partial year-rouald views of the proposed monopoIe from select portions of thoir respective properties, These properties are primarily located along Stadley Rough Road within the irnmediate vicinity of the host property and Great Plain Road to the southwest, Overall, potential year round visibility is limited by the topography and existing vegetation contained within the Study Area. on tids analysis, areas from visible above the tree canopy - The areas where seasonal depicts several additio•aI (i.e. during "leaf the trees These areas are conditions) through anticipated. comprise approximately additional and are generally located within acres a 0.20-milv radius surrounding the residences proposed Facility. In total, VHB anticipates that approximately 10 additional viewshed map also off" 19 views + Warren, Bruce Phologlaphy, West Publishing Company, Eagan, MN, c 1993, (page 701 J •o999 03•epor•s•danbu fyvi•repo• doc• 4 VHB Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc would achieve seasonal views are of the properties. Spring Lane. Facility) may These More be residences distant located seasonal from proposed Facility from select portions of their respective along portions of Stadley Rough Road and Indian views (approximately 0.50-mile from the proposed areas achieved discrete of Great Plain Road to the southwest. k•0999 03•,•p•r•*llbur, vlsr e•on doc• 5 V//B Vanasse Hangen Bru•t[Jl L II1¢ Attachment A Photograph, Photolog Documentation Map, Balloon Float Photographs, and Photographic Simulations Site Area J •09•9 03•t•po•smbvry•sr •po• d• 6 h= • • ,-,o C C 0 0 c• © © .c= Photolog Documentation Town of Danbury Connecticut Study Area 3 N OptB:•[•2 •E c• q oo '• z o T• •_Q u I.- LU Z I.a• o c• W .• _J © •o a• E .•=.• Z _j •o 0 •,mw e• o co o c• © © •0 • c 0 0 © © ,.c: © LJJ LU Z •o oO Z Z 0 0 m • d • 0 0 -• z 0 0 0 0 LU Z 1 • 0 •w 0 © 0 # © 5 0 VHB Vanasse Ilangen Brustlln, Inc Attachment B Viewshed Map J •99 •r•r•d•nbury visr epo• •4 E• k l [•et*mck •m 11fe = wireless •n Network I• WI• IDe;•ri• RNer ne• Ea• Ddve • Fk Ft•t Harlfc•d, CT 13610• May 8, 2008 Mr. I•vin Oallagh•c Towers LLC Optasite One Research Drive, Suite MA. 01581 tow 200C Westborough, Re: Dear Danbury Mr. 52 Stadley Roug Rd.., Danbury, t CT. Gallagher: has a need for a in•nt to collocato Please be advised that Verizon Wireless fulm• and this le•.•r •ould as our serve facility at a at this location in the future time whon this project is included Please conta• me in our budget. rmy if you have questions. Verj traly yours, S•y Cm• Regulatory Manager Ver•zon Wireless h SITE LEASE This Master Site Site Lease is made this to %•3•day as of "•*"r,•-•.•--•;: - _f , 2005 as pursuant of to and in accordance with the OptaSite, a Inc., Delaware of the MSA (referred "Agreement") and Nextel as Lessor, corporation ("OptaSite"), Lessee. The parties here to this Site as corporation ("Nextel"), are incorporated herein by this reference. or a Agreement herein "MSA" dated •, of the Delaware Communications Lease agree 2005, MAd-Atlantic, terms between that all of the and [no,, conditions (a) OptaSite Site No./Name: (b) Nextel Site No./Name: 2. Site Address 999-004 I/Danbury, CT Road CT-2926/Danbur and 0 Federal (street and address legal description - attached if necessary): 52 Stadley Rough Road 3. 4 Site Latitude Longitude: Date N41-25-58/W73-25-55 5 of the Commencement the Nextel (see paragraph er Facilities six (6) months MSA): following the the date of full l't day of the month following the whichever first execution, stad occurs. of construction of 5. 6. Rent Escalation (see paragraph 6 of the Date MSA): The Rent of each individual of the Site Lease shall Rent. be increased on the anniversary Term lenewal of its Commencement by an previous year's (5) additional (see paragraph terms. 5 of the MSA): Five (5) year initial term, with five automatic five (5) year 8. Site If OptaSite (owned): Term [] or OptaSite (leased): Lease: Tower hereto owned and [] by Optasitu Land leased, of Prime Underlying Lease (a copy 9, of the is altached N/A incorporatedherein place by reference). Lease in for a total term of 30 years Special Access Requirements: 10. and II. 12. Nexters Emergency Emergency Reraittance Contact (name (name number): Property Manager/(914) number): Inc, 448-4470 Optasite's Optusite's NextePs Nextel's Contact Address: One and Operations Manager/508-79%2460 673322, White Ext. 312 13. Id. 15. Optasite, North PO Box Detroit, Plains, M| NY 48267-3322 ] 0601 Billing A/P for Address: Broadway, 1 l•h FI, Contact (name and number): Property Manager/(91 d) to be 448-4470 16. Electricity operation metered; herelo of of of the Nextel Facilities (check one): [] Separately tT. Exhibits Exhibit Exhibit I 2 attached or [] Submetered and incorporated herein by reference: (Description (Description Land); Premises); I 12/20/2005 8;55 AM k I Exhibit Exhibit 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (Form of Memorandum (Prime Lease); of Agreemenl); and Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit (Description of Nextel's Facilities Specifications); (As-Built Drawings); (Owner's Consent); (Form of Commencement (Installation Procedures). Notice); 18. Additional provisions (if any): Not Applicable [SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] [REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY] 2 12/20/2005 8:55 AM IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date of the last signature below OptaSite: Optasite inc., a Nextel: Nextel a Communications aware of the , Mid-Atlantic, / Inc., Delaware corporation De corporation / / : Name: James H. Ross II1 qame: Fitle: Eug• Director ,/ °el, egton llI of Site Development, Title: President Officer and Chief Operating Northeast Date: •3 LD.: "c•' • .0 •" Tax 06-1449090 3 12/2072005 8:55 AM ' f tP CONNECTICUT FORM OF NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT COMMONWEALTH COUNTY OF MASSACHUSETTS OF WORCESTER On•.-• James whose H, name --• ,beforeme,•-•:•,¢ known within on • .•x me on %•-•,•-•,• the to Ross 111, personally to to me (or proved and the to basis me of tbat Notary Public, personally satisfactory evidence) to be he execuled upon behalf the of same appeared the is subscribed and that the instrument the acknowledged person, or person in his authorized person capacity, executed by his signature instrument, the entity which the acted, the instrument. W1TNES• WITNESS my hand and ofllcial seal .... . (SEAL) Notary Public My commission expires: -.X•\,•. \ C9, •2•C-cA I'Lt2072005g:55AM L COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX On•0•/_ Eugene whose M, name bfoel that ,beforeme, Ili, personally known to /,7 •)%•;1•'• to me ! '/ , ,Notary basis me is subscribed and the within on capacity, executed by his signature (or proved to me on insErument and acknowledged the instrument, the person, or the to of that Public, personally appeared satisfactory evidence) to be the person he executed the same in his the authorized the entity upon behalf of which person acted, the instrument, WITNE WITN S: , f•odPt•O e],3T,•s•o (SEAL) Notary My Public commission expires: ?,OZ • •i k•*• S. MERCUP-I M•sachu'•ll's •Cemn c:i• •7 • july 30, 2010 5 t 2/20/2005 8:55 AM STATE DEPARTMENT OF OF CONNECTICUT PROTECTION ENVIRONMENTAL ® January26,2006 Bureau of Natural Resources a' Division of Wildlife 6 Floor 79 Elm Natural Street, Hartford, CT 06106 Data Base Diversity Ms. EBI Four Nicnle Piretti Cottsulting A Street IvlA 01803 Burlington re: Wireless at Telecommunication 52 Facility Road in Proposed Danbury, Dear Ms. Piretd: Stadley Rough Connecticut I have reviewed for the Natural provided Connecticut Diversity proposed wireless to our Data Base maps there and files telecommunication are no on regarding the area delineated facility at 52 Stadley Rough Road the map you State in Danbury, or According Threatened information, Concern known in extant populations of Federal Endangered, Natural D vers Special Species includes This •d at the site question ty Data Ba•e Center's and the information all a•?ailabIe conservation to us at the tLrne of the request. information Natural the Natural Resources groups or Geological scientific regarding critical bioltgical resources the years by of data collected over compilation and cooperating units ofDEP, History Survey pd rate information is a site-spealfie field for on-site assessments. required for environmental surveys continue to identify additional populations of species mad is incorporated into exisdng data. Suchnew information comprehensive Please Data review tim contact me community. This investigations. Consultutions information Current research of habitats Base as is not necessarily should and as the result of with the Data Base not new be subsl•tutes contributors as, projects of concern, it becomes locations the Date well enhance available. i fyou have further that this questions is a at 424 3592. review Thank anti not you for a consulting the Natural A more Diversity detailed to DEP Base. may Also be advised as preliminary final determination. be conducted site. part of any subsequent envimnmeot•] permit applications submitted for proposed Sincerely, M. McKay awn Bmloglst/Envlronmental ( AnNyst (Printed 79 Elm Street An on Recycled Hartford, CT Paper ) 06106-5127 Equal Opp•Jrtun•Iy Employer Connecticut Commission on Culture & Tourism April 1 I, 2006 R. Mr. David George LLC Heritage g77 Main HL•toric & Museum Preservation Division Consultfints Street CT 06111 Newington, Subject: Telecoganmaieatinns Stadley Rough Danbttry, CT 52 Facilities Road 59 South Prospect Street Hartford, Connecticut 06105 OPT006,EBI #6105-3482 Dear The the Mr. State •}8fi0566.3005 (f)860.5665078 George: Historic Preservation Consultants Office LLC has reviewed the reconnaissance the above-named and LLC are survey concerning prepared by Heritage Office, the araltival opinion of the State Historic Preservation archaeulogieal methodoingies employed by Heritage Consultants with our Envh'onmental Review Primer consistent for Connecticut's Resow'ces preservation Office office with appear that the project. In Archaeological The that State no Historic concurs Heritage warranted Consultants with LLC to the archaeological proposed undertaking. This have no ftttther investigations believes respect effect upon Cotmecticut's that proposed tmdertzldng heritage. archaeological LLC consult with will Tiffs office State recommends at the Archaeolog7 Heritage Consultants University of Connecticut the Office the materials of (Storrs) concerning and artifactual of all field notes, photographs, professional transferal generated by the archaeological investigations. This comment updates and further supersedes information all proposed project. For Staff Archaeologist. previous correspondence regarding Dr. David A. Poirier, please contact the / J. Paul Division State Loether Director and Deputy Officer Historic Dr. Nicholas Ms. Nicole Preservation cc: Bellantoni/OSA Piretti/EBI An AffWnatlve ANon Equal 0ppoclunlty Employer CUDDY 90 WHITE & FEDER MAPLE NEW AVENUE YORK LLP PLAINS, 10601-5196 WILLIAM V. CUDD¥ 1971-=0e0 NElL J ALEXANDER R THOMAS STEP•ANIE dOSEPH LUCIA [also CT) (al•O DCI BORTNYi< (al•o N J) BEIRNE (9•4) FACSIMILE 76121 300 761-5372/6405 com EON $ NICHOLS S NULL N B RADOW {also (914) www.cuddyfeder, CT) WJLLEAM ELISABETH PAMELA P CARLUCCI CHIOCCHIO (•Isa CT) KFJqNETH J DUBROFF FEDER ROgERT CHRISTOPHER B FISHER (also GT) C•NOY M FOX (aL• NJ & DC) ANTIMONY B• GIOPgRE IlL (aqso CT) JOSHUA KENNETH MICF,AEL JOSHUA DANIEL BARRY J GRAUER E JURIST L E KAIZ RICHARDSON (also NJI 500 FIFTH AVENUE NElL RUTH "• RIMSKY E ROTN P SCH RIEV•R NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10110 (212) 944-2841 FACSIMILE (212) 944-2843 BUSINESS NEW YORK CENTER SUITE 380 ANDREW JENNIFER CHAUNCEy lalso MA) (aim CA) L VAN TOYL L. WALKER m KIMERLING E LEARY E• LONG lalSO NJ) (alSO CT) lasso CTI WESTAGE 300 WESTAGE FISHKILL, BUSINESS CENTER, 12524 ANDREW KAREN ROBERT MARYANN ROBERT G A QLICKSON la•o CT) GI•ANIK L O•AR (alSO T×) M pALERMO FACSIMILE (845) 896-2229 (845} 896-3672 C SCHNEIDER NORWALK, CONNECTICUT January 31, VIA 2006 OVERNIGHT MAlL Mayor Mark D, Boughton City of Danbury City Hall I55 Deer Hill Avenue 06810 Danbury, Re: Connecticut Proposed Wireless Telecommunications 52 Stadley Rough Road Danbury, Connecticut Tower Facility Dear Mayor Boughton: We are writing to you on behalf of our a client, Optasite, Inc. ("Optasite"), with respect tower to the above referenced matter at 52 which involves proposed site wireless telecommunications facility to be located City of Danbury. As State of Colmecticut Stadley Rough Road, you may know, jurisdiction over Siting Council pursuant to Section of the such Candlewood facilities and x Baptist Church, in rests exclusively with of the Connecticut the the 16-50i General Statutes. Section application being give the municipality in which a facility purpose it may to provide the applicant with any recommendations has been proposed an opportunity have prior to the applicant's filing of an application. As set forth in the statute, any such be issued must recommendations by the municipality within sixty days of its receipt of technical information concerning the proposed facility from the applicant. Optasite consult The to 16-501(e) of the Connecticut with a municipality prior of such local General such an Statutes does nevertheless filed with require that the Siting Council. consultation is to C&F57OS0tl CUDDY & FEDER LLP January31,2006 Page 2 The purpose cormnence of this the letter Danbury filing of review been and any application with and consideration which folanally notify you sixty day consultation period the Siting Council. Enclosed is to includes of the that is a is information about the proposed Facility in the City required prior to Optasite's "Technical Report" for your need for the proposed tower effects to of of the site selection and the facility, a smnmary process in the City. We trust that this information proposed the City in formulating any recommendations Danbury We would this environmental will may of a tower that others has in prove helpful have about the you and proposal. Technical appreciate letter with the a opportunity call to to meet with you a to review to and will at your follow schedule the convenience. the about earliest you Additionally, should proposal during the consultation so convenience that for your consideration may have of this letter and we meeting City elect to conduct a period, we would ask that you let to discuss representatives available its enclosures. We such discuss Report proposed facility public meeting or hearing the us the know the at your look forward to project. Thank meeting with you. Very truly yours, Lucia Chiocchio Enclosure cc: Jermifer Keith Chuck Tom Gaudet, Optasite Coppins, Optasite Regulbuto, Optasite Flyml, Nextel c'g,ll 57•)•01 I CITY OFFICE OF THE 155 OF DEER DANBURY COUNSEL g(1810 I•LEASE I•EPLY lO CORPORATION HILl AVENUE CONNEC•ICU'1 DANBURY, t2{13} 797•,51N (263) 796•8043 FAX May23,2006 Attorney Cuddy & 90 Maple White Lucia Feder Avenue Chiocchio LLP NY Inc Telecommunications Road/Candlewood Tower 10601 Plains, 5196 Re: Optasite, Proposed Wireless 52 Stad•ey Rough Danbury, Dear Connecticut Chiocchio: Facility Baptisi Church Attorney Pursuant 16-50[ to Section General I herewith enclose of the a copy (e) of the Connecticut Statues, L Emminger, Associate Planner, report from Jennifer containing the pre application recommendations accepted the aboveby the City of Danbury Planning Commission {"the Commission") on May 17, 2006 regarding mentioned wireless telecommunications proposed that the me facility ("the Facility") Ms Emminger advises Commission voted to send a to the Siting Council based on her report, particularly negative recommendation sections I and II As you know, the Commission held a punic on emphasizing headng May 3, 2006, regarding the Facility ("Optasite"), from to enable the Commission their concerns and members of the the and to express regarding public proposed to ask questions I also of your enclose a client, copy Optasite, of the Inc Facility minutes the May 3, 2006, meeting The enclosed The Concerns report Commission's -The is broken concerns down into two and main sections entitled may "Concerns" and as "Recommendations to Applicant". recommendations members for be summarized follows: the public have expressed concerns regarding location and the suitability of the proposed in value of the the proposed potential resulting diminution residences, height of the Facility, the proposed of the Facility, the safety of the Facility, the impact on the environment design and the resources impact on natural lack Commisslon and of the of demonstrated public need the Facility, nearby the II. that: (1 .) Oplasite explore alternate sites prior to for service at the (2.) Optasite further justify the need location, (3.) Optasite redesign the proposed proposed a steallh Facility to contain design such as a church of antennae steeple or a silo, the height of the Facility and the amount slots be reduced, (4) the Facility be surrounded and a fence, and shehers be by trees (5) the equipment sufficiently insulated. a noise decibel Also, the Commission and that any future requests study be conducted bafloon floadngs be conducted with a red balloon that it is visible so Recommendations an -The Commission the recommends filing appl]cation with Siting Council, .... site for the Facility •s potential alternate with the owners of a ten-acre agreement vacant of East Pembroke Road (Assessor Lot No H06001) for the location parcel of land with an address of a 140-foot wireless telecommunications with the Council facility and that the filing of an application •s Siting I am that the negotiations imminent advised which have taken the the place over past few years regarding Correctional Institute to the through the Federal ten-acre concluded granting of an easement parcel are almost You indicated that you will ask your client to explore the possibility of locating on this site As I mentioned in our available I have been advised telephone conversation that Sprint has entered the other a day, a into lease Attorney Cuddy Lucia Chiocchio LLP Page 2 & Feder May 23, 2006 Thank information on you the for alternate your consideration of these comments Ptease call me if you need any additional proposed sile Very truly yours, Robin Assistant L Edwards Corporation Counse] Enclosure Honorable Michael Dennis Robert Jennifer I J cc: Mark McLachlan, D. Boughton, Mayor Administrative Assistant to Mayor Elpern, Planning Director Yamin, Corporation Counsel L Emminger, Associate Planner CITY 155 OF DANBURY I)tlER t4ILI, AVENIJE 06810 CONNECTICUT DANBURY, PLANNING & ZONING (203) 797-4525 DEPARTMENT (203) 797-4586 gAX) May 17, TO: From: 2006 Planning Jennifer Associate Commission L Emminger Planner Re: Proposed Final 52 Wireless Telecommunications Tower Facility Recommendations Candlewood Assessor's Stadley Rough Road Baptist Church Lot # K07019 At May 3, 2006, testimony from an Optasite representative, Jennifer Gaudet, presented City of Danbury Planning Commission during the pre-application 16-50 I (e) of the Connecticut period pursuant to Section General Statutes The application has been reviewed the by City of Danbury Planning and Zoning Department, the Danbury Airpod a punic hearing was held on to the Administrator taken to and the Health Department of the whose various comments comments documents In and and recommendations to the at the and been raised have been on into consideration Copies letters comments Editor in opposition the tower published in The News Times, and hereto ExNblts May 3, 2006, are attached as received during the public hearing from concerned submitted punic considered hearing addition, residents recommendations have also The 2006 following is a summary public hearing: of the concerns and outstanding questions during the May 3, I Summary A, of Concerns: Tower Location: Pursuant to Preference the 1 City 6 th Location a Guidelines, is the residential district, applicant The of Danbury Zoning Regulations, Section 3E6c, the proposed wireless which is located facility, least preferred location for a wireless facility in 2 The has not adequately for ft high tower technical repod did not coverage maps to indicate appear demonstrated both Nextel and site the public need for a 130 T-Mobile submitted in the overlapping towers/antennas report the area illustrate additional coverage from other Also, carriers the technical located in 3 The the applicant has failed to identify was area additional In provide Optasite carriers' coverage stated the on sought record by Optasite that she in the addition, familiar sites that possible the representative with the may from not locations of other antennas/towers located B, Height: t to be Why available are so many slots on the tower needed in the when other carners appear and provide adequate coverage construct may vicinity? tall tower a 2 the be Does the neighborhood necessary applicant need to when technology future ? such a at the tall tower expense of not change and such might in the C, Design: 1. The illustrations of tower as presented different types designs they were were by Optasite's representagve not to the acceptable too area showing residents or the the Planning impacted 2 Commission the scenic the 10 visible and obtrusive and adversely resources of the During approximately alternate tower public hearing, Optasite presented "1 away to an alternate close tower location of the tower the from the the church Given the proximity of location foundation? church be protected impact the church from potential failing debris? Although the tower would be farther from the residential property, the equipment is stiN extremely close to a residential building and as such would have a not given great visual impact Additionally, City staff was time to review the alternate location adequate B, church, how will the In addition, how will the construction Safety: 1. zone, residential Although the concern structures Optasite for and discussed debris schools, issues was raised failing not discussed. concerning Given has the the the 130 fl fall of proximity applicant what safety measures considered 2 the that The for falling debris? discussed a safety a of City of Danbury Airport Administrator helicopters flying in the vicinity of light tower within be hJs and concern about t 30 ft tower tower recommended red aeronautical placed will be on top of the 3 The a proposed school located adjacent Hills and to Stadley Rough ELementary single School, Colonial family 4 residences along the tower and northerly Baptist Church, and westerly property lines, to pose an attractive two Inca1 will abut The proposed children neighborhood children in the would appear for children nuisance schools for and attending the neighborhood E, Environment: 1 The applicant the tower did not address that this the foundation area is to support drilling and/or in the area? in the Given served blasting The area required for the of the foundation could presence tower would be required private wells, will any disrupt the integrity of the wells have an adverse impact on the be deplh that wells 2 areas submitted The proposed site is wooded immediately adjacent to the staff a report discussing areas towards the rear area and contains Health two wetlands compound their tower concerns The about an Department the the wetland natural The presence of the could and have construction within adverse impact on resources, Several as a vegetative composition residents result have wetlands 3 voiced of the an their and concern that the wildlife resources habitat would presence be of displaced the tower tower equipment on compound The could adverse impact the scenic F, Aesthetics: 1 residential 2 that locating Many residents expressed concern would substantially depreciate the neighborhood The the the value tower within their of their homes. neighbors along that of will Indian would close out during other hearing because Residents scenic they the Spring Road and adjacent neighbors be directly impacted visually and in proximity their of the stated many their ways their proposed at the tower to properties. and look will be windows directly very tall tower resources destroyed has been 3 The for Technical review and Report scenic referred to to the the Candlewood Lake to is Authority Lake recommendation resources pedaining The has potential Lake Candlewood's Candlewood that their impact Authority fort, yarded currently to the 4 would adverse 5 on reviewing Siting Council The tower the proposal this office. and requested report be by qualify impact The for on will be located the National historical within the viewshed of of six Places historic and properties will that an Register Historic have sites the are top of light would 6 located the Commission recognizes however, many residents disrupt the tranquil quality existing Planning tower; safety concerned rural need for that a beacon red light beacon the in the neighborhood amount are The technical the rear report of the view did not area clearly would wildlife illustrate the the of wooded concerned of area along buffer property of the Many residents that the the destruction natural of the and wooded their destroy screening existing II Recommendations that the to Applicant: is located that the in a Given proposed tower Zoning Department requests and/or dense residential neighborhood, be considered the following recommendations by Siting 1 for Council: Alternative sites tower must be Planning and the applicant explored Alternate CT the Additional search such as on rings the should be researched Water a other possible located at locations on sites, City Rockwell of Tower acre Nabby Road, located been Danbury Road, and DOT Garage and the located 10 vacant parcel have East Pembroke Road, adjacent to the Federal Correction It is our Institute, parcel, an suggested information by a a understanding, of through the public provided by for a Planning owners Commission East that of the Pembroke the is imminent Road The that they have negotiated application for placement of to explore applicant is requested lease 140 the tower with to the Sprint and submission foot tower possibility of Siting co-locating Council on this tower newly proposed 2. the Further claims of documentation and justification must relating be to the need and for new service and signfficant gaps in coverage investigated church substantiated silo is 3 A complete The stealth pole, such and as a recommended. monopole, the and flagpole impact stick design are or steeple, not preferred highly 4 TO reduce of the tower visual of the proposed slots tower on the height 5 stockade neighborhood, the the amount of antenna should must be reduced be Three fence rows of staggered to a 10 ft. high evergreens buffer the constructed equipment compound. (3) years and any properly must maintained be replaced A decibel The to for planted as a buffer and A•I landscaping must plant die-off that occurs a be minimum of three 6 study incorporating and all expected from on equipment should shelters residential be conducted be 7 insulated noise eliminate vibration any adverse emitted effects the equipment the must sufficiently adjacent flown properties 8 The black difficult to view. date of the and white balloons we which were prior to the Therefore, Council actual public hearing, balloon so that for the on a were recommend that Siting of the visual to view picture hearing, and height of the before proposed Optasite launch a red such hearing if possible tower wiil the clear be available citizens CC: Hon Mayor Mark D Boughton Administrative Aide to the Michael McLachlan, Mayor Attorney Robin L Edwards Scott LeRoy, Director Health Paul Department D Estefanl Airport Administrator Candlewood Lake Authority Attorney Lucia Chioochio, Cuddy & Feder / f• / / i] CITY 155 OF DEER DANBURY Flll.[ AVENUE ICU i (16810 DANBURY, PI,ANNING & ZONING CONNhC'[ DEPARFMENT (2(13) 797 4325 12113) ?97-4586 (FAX/ May 3, o 2006 Planning Jennifer Associate Colnndssion From L Emminger Planner Re: Proposed 52 Stadley Candlewood Assessor's Wireless Telecomnnmicadons Tower Faeiliej P,o•lgh Road Baptist Lot Churcb # K07019 an Optasbe has submitted application tor a flmse Road Jurisdiclfon oveT Telecommunications Stadley Rough Facilily proposed Wireless The purpose of this review with tile State of Colmecticut by the rests Siting Council ill facilities exclusively types and start reports from the Plarming and Zoning Department. for public commem is to allow Conmllsslon planning Prior to Optasge submdting die Health Depanment and tile Airport Authority during the pre applicadon period issue bebalf of the City of Dmlbury, shall the Plaiming Conmlission, on any application lo the Siting Council, the proposed facildy it may have recolim•endalions concerning Pursuant In Section 16 501{e) of the Comiecticut "rowel General Stamles, at located 52 approximately five acre parcel of land fool facility selRsuppomng monopole tower owned Baptist by the Candlewood related m stogie-story equipmenl 50 ft by 90 fl compound designed to accommodate equipment eitber and a five sets of antennas, would accommodate Initially, anleimas pads The proposed tower buildings or on concrete The tower Commumcat•ons are Communications and Omnipoinl proposed and associated equipment lbr Nextel to and gate, with additional 84oo1 fence screening would be enclosed an high secunty and equipment by buildings to tile site would extend from Vehicular access Sladley Rough Road along an existing vegetation supplement existing paved driveway, to the rear of the propctay and then a fol/g a new gravel driveway o f approximately 88 feet drive from Slad/ey would extend Rough Road along tile access Underground udldy conneclions Oplasite is ptoposnlg to Applic•lim•: install a wireJess lelecommunications The facility on an Church will consist era 130 Review; Tile site is located and within schools wghin The an RA-40 Zone tower The will and area churches located Colonial lines HiIls proposed Baptist Church, be generally adjacent to will also abut consisls two and several single 13rally homes and a school Rough School Sladley afong the norlherly and single family residences of dense schools; westerly property Tile property to is tile for adjacent Departnlent The partially wooded compound area their review and towards The recommendagon the rear of lhe properly and contains two wellands been areas immediately to Technical Report prepared by Optasite has revered tile Ifoalth proposed lacilJb Report has been reterred is located to lhe x•idlin apptoxlmalely Airport Au•llority fol six their miles review ot tile and Danbuly Municipal Airpotl 1be ]ethnical reconmlendaPon (](• nlllle iit 'g I I•kJTSllillll to IhL' £iP, Ol J)unhul LaeJblX 3 PimlJlg Rcgulatgm• is IncaLed ill a Necli/m 3J di•lrkcL 6 c, ] ocation Plciblen e Guido•incn Io• ]tl(in tll•IO] a ptopostd i',dele',s ; ] his Ihe \vddt's• Igcih h //hic]l IC•g]Clllqll i% IhL" (•1' ]uaM preferled 3 e•Cl)lOlt'd all po [•litia] •>itt;s- i]lcludJt/g [h(ise whit3]l w°u]d icsu][ n/ niddllla] Have Oil C•l•tlllg [(llvels! Ihc applicaui explored possdl]• GOdC)C•[iOI%• ]]II]);IG[ considered? bee• ltrook•eid, ]ocat¢:d ill stlrloundlng [owu S le lull StlUCIDTe, il•e applic int con•idmed His tlle proposed antmula•? between Is there adequate space separatioPJdNersdy Itl applic]lul IholOtlghly resldenlia] ¢ lr•lS'? ] las a 20 •i Ille the separatkmd a 4 Has has 5 Tile rise applicant established applicanl considered kicddy desciiplion stales be installed II Ihree ls safe" zone! Given tile proxnnlly cd ieskkintia] slruclures, 'a,hal measures would cldlapse 9 falling debris or tower and related lhal 'indially, antmmas there adequ•lte 100111 in die conlpound ft•r eqmpmenl arcs fol Nextel's tile and she]lets T-Mobile's for equlpmenl r•quiled for 6 Ih¢ additiolI Ihe carrielsd 7 g 9 10 has /he applicaul considered deplb Ih•ll •a'OLl]d he required 1o suppori [his structure, aread Will blasting be reqtdred fur tile pole foundalion? impact I(/ die wells in tile qnmediate pOlential ! Ihe setback Have requirements as sel lorth gl Ihe City of Danbury Zoning RegUlalkins been COllSidered sile thai may be impacled ? on easenlents Slle OI utilities oil velifled il there are ;lily Has tile applicant will be minimal (leardlg and grading required for tile development Ibere l'be techmcal repori indicales tbe close properhes Given will be removed? proxiinily IO residential area of the wooded much Plow of side the rear and lines, such as two rows shoLdd be proxdded along properly adddional screennlg around the compound area is lecommended [rees A SlOCkade fence slaggered evergreel>type • from emdted The noise and vibration much noise and light is expected Item the kicility compound How the adverse effects Io eliminale on adjacent be sufl3ciently insulated an)' I•atlal sheltels the equipment Given ihe foundation residential I1 Whai Whal 12 As pmperlles ill o{ mainlenanc¢ is type lype expected? How oftei1 uill vehicles be entering the site for maintenance? be parkPlg in the v, ill be needed? for indicated die Nexlel chart Surrounding Sites fur T-Mobile. die following infornlalion sbould hlcluded l•r 13 /4 15 16 and beighl chart facility type, tower owner the lower is in the event and titkilily removal provisions will the applicant make lbr site restoration utilized? no longer of win be located wllhm the viewshed that tile tower site, is Ihe applicant aware lid picking the proposed of Hisloric Places? Register six historic properties thai would qualify for the National within */z mile of die proposed site'? a radius showing all tall structures Ihe applicant have map Does residential in a dense is located neighborhood, the Plamling and Zoning tower that the proposed Given be considered by the applicanl Department requests dial I]le following reco•unendations steeple or smaltb pole: such as a monopine (pine tree pole with bark), flag pole, church A complete A Whal silo; B To reduce slots the visual should impact be reduced of lhe and proposed lower, die height of the tower and Ihe amount of antenna C Additional search rings sbould be researched for other possible tower localiolis Healib By Staff: Deparimenl Airporl Authority Revie• - Conlments Comments received on on May 2, 2006 • received May 2, 2006 ce Mayor Michael Robin Lucia Mark Bougluon McLachlan Edwards Chiocehio Cuddy & Feder ® CITY DANBURY, HEALTH C41YOr f;#• • OF DANBURY ItILL AVENUE 155 DEER CONNECTICUT 06810 DEE AJ<TMENT OF (203) 797.4625 (FAX) (203) 797-4596 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Jmmifer L Ermninger, Associate Daniel Planner Environmental Baroody, RS, MPH, 2006 Senior knspector May 2, Optasite, Inc., Proposed 52 Celt Tower Facility, CT the Stadley Rough Road, Danbury, in the Technical concerns: After Health 1 review of the information has the Report prepared by Optasite, lnc, Depar'ment The following submit an applicam must Environmental wetlands. The Impact Commission Application forRegulatedActivitytothe (EIC) due to the proximity to inland 2 applicam must determine serving the subject property. The and the size and location of the existing septic system 3. applicant must locate adjacent properties. the existing water supply well on the subject property CITY 155 OF DEER DANBURY HILL AVENUE DANBURY, CONNECTICUT 06810 DANBI2Ry MUNICIPAL P.O. BOX CT 2299 AI](P( )1 •`T AIRPORT PAIJL ADMINIS3 D RA I'OR ESI'EII'AN 797-4624 DANBURY, 06813-2299 (203} May 2 2006 Elpem Planning Direclol Cd) ill Danbmy l bb 1)c•1 ¸ Dennis 2oas I Idl Avenue Da]lbury, Connecticut Dem Dennis: ] have reviewed Conl•ecticut one the proposed Optasite Facility and offer the to be located The Danbur). mile east lbllowmg opinion shore of Lattins ] have approxmmtely lecreational mile Town as fiom Park. such the As south have at 52 Stadle) Rough proposed site is located Landing and approximately Road one- is a previously stated Lake Candlewood amphibious aircrMt and helicopters ulilizing il fcu landings and takeoffs. In my opinion due 1o the height oflhe Cell Towm in relationshlp [ am requesting that an aeronautical Candlewood Light be installed at Ihe top of to Lake for the safety of the flying public the tower Danbury lake and we If you have any queslions concerning this matlel please libel flee to contact me. Paul D. Este]'an Admin]s Aii'polt ( • [:ile Oplnsilc {I•£¢TCLD I P•PfR 44b Ham•l[Ol P!sirts. A/,entre, New /41h Fioo! Whi[{ I YoJ k t0501 •ax •L 914•6113(10 ( 914 76/.5372 www L•dyfe•Je•com June 10, 2008 VIA OVERNIGHT Mark D. MAIL Mayor Boughton City City of Danbury Hill Avenue 06810 Hall 155 Deer Danbury, Re• Connecticut Telecommunications Proposed Wireless 52 Stadley Rough Road Danbury, Connecticut Optasite Towers LLC Tower Facility Dear Mayor Boughton: letter is This respectfully status tower submitted of the above on behalf referenced located of our client, Optasite wlfich Towers a update you on the telecommunications matter at 52 involves ("Optasite"), proposed wireless LLC to facility Stadley Rough Road, site of the Christ the Sheppard Church, in the City of Danbury. Optasite is preparing to submit its Application for a of Enviroltmental Certificate Compatibility and Public Need ("Certificate Application") to the Connecticut Siting Council, which has exclusive jurisdiction over the proposed wireless facility. to you to provide an overview of Optasite's activities and analyses since it first We are writing the revisions to the Facility on the church property and to summarize proposed a wireless that resulted from its efforts. Details of the proposed will be included proposed Facility Facility in the Certificate Application, several copies of which will be sent to the City. to be As you may recall, Optasitc began its consultation at the with the City of Danbury regarding its a Tecbalical Report detailing beginning proposed Facility its proposal. Optasite's proposed Facility was discussed at a meeting with your office and Counsel in March of 2006 and was the subject of a public information session Corporation The City provided comments before the Planning and Zoning Conn•issiou on May 3, 2006. on that were discussed at the punic information session on May 23, 2006. Optasite's proposal Another meeting was held to discuss Optasite's revisions to its proposal with your office and representatives of Optasite in September of 2007. of 2006 with the submission of 10ptasite's Certificate Connecticut General Application Statutes Section will be sent to the City of Danbury in accordance with the tiling requirements of 16-501(b). ATTORNEYS AT LAW White Ptains Fishkill New York City NOl wall{ C•'F 9285471 CUDDYa F E D E R .... June 10, 2008 Page 2 of 3 carriers who expressed a need Optasite has been working with wireless and its technical team to address of the City, the property owner, the area For your information, comments from the City and the need for wireless service in this area. we herein and details of Optasite's have included of the results of Optasite's efforts a surrmlary proposed Facility will be provided in its Certificate Application. the past two for service in this Over years, Proposed Facility with wireless carriers that provide wireless service in Fairfield on-going consultation and the State of Connecticut, learned that wireless carriers need a facility in this County Optasite of Danbury to provide wireless conmmnication service. area Optasite's Certificate Application will include evidence ofT-Mobile's need for the proposed Facility in the form of propagation plots. Moreover, both Sprint-Nextel and Verizon Wireless have committed to shared use of the proposed Facility as both wireless carriers need the proposed Facility to fill gaps in their carriers to respective networks. Accordingly, the proposed Facility will allow several wireless in this area of the City. needed service provide Need for the Public Thrnugh its Investigation In of Alternadve with T-Mobile Sites and other wireless carriers, Optasite has investigated several conjunction alternative properties for the siting of its proposed Facility, including sites suggested by the City of the municipal consultation. as a result Optasite's analysis did not result in any feasible alternative location. The Certificate Application will include details of Optasite's investigation and analysis of alternative sites, including the reasons why the alternative location was not selected. Road location suggested by the City, the East Pembroke is the subject of a pending proceeding before the Institute), (adjacent Connecticut Siting Council (Docket No. 357). A facility at that site, investigated by Optasite in with T-Mobile, would not provide service to the area conjunction targeted for service by the and Sprint-Nextel will share use of proposed Facility at Stadley Rough Road. Indeed, T-Mobile Road to provide service to a different of the City. that proposed site at East Pembroke area For your information, to one of the sties the Federal Correction Facility Design In addition to Revisions worked The with tower's the church to was feasibility of redesigned to include analyzed by the church Optasite secure sites, Optasite investigations of alternative alternative designs of the proposed Facility. flush and mounted antennas. analyze and the A bell the tower type facility as appearance reviewed was obtrusive. ultimately rejected by of the tower from Church too visually shifted the location further approximately 100 feet The towards the south-west will be enclosed corner of the church fence property, with screening the property to the west. in the form of landscaping. of the Act Facility by a Extensive a environmental Environmental of this review National results The Policy comprehensive redesigned Facility (NEPA) analysis and review was conducted review by various environmental will be detailed by Optasite, including State Agencies. in Optasite's Certificate Application. CUDDYa: F E D E R .... June 10, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Conclusion As smnmarized herein, Optasite has been working It should partners and design team to address the the comments conjunction with its wireless carrier from the City to design a Facility needed in also has be noted also been that to provide church owners wireless has in City. changed ownership. As such, Optasite designing its proposed Facility. service within in past two working closely years, with the the new Thank you regarding Very truly for your consideration in this matter. Should this update, please do not hesitate to contact yours, yon us. or any City Staffhave questions Lucia Chiocchio CO: Robin L. Dermis Jennifer Charles Hans I. Edwards, L. Esq., Assistant Director Corporation Counsel Elpem, Planning Planner Emminger, Associate Towers LLC Regulbuto, Optasite T-Mobile B. Fiedler, Christopher Fisher, Esq. C&F9285471 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE 1 Mobile's Need were for sent hereby certify that on this day of for a Certificate Application and Attachments the Construction, Maintenance and Operation by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Richard Btumenthal General u• ,2008, of Environmental of the a copies Wireless of Optasite's and TCompatibility and Public Telecommunications Facility following: The Office Honorable General of the Street Attorney 55 Elm Attorney Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 808-5318 Protection Department of Environmental Gina McCarthy, Commissioner 79 Elm Third Street Floor CT 06106-5127 424-3001 Commission Preservation Senich Director Connecticut of Public and State 06103 Health and Hartford, (860) Connecticut Historic Karen on Culture & Tourism Museum Historic Division Preservation Officer Executive One Constitution Plaza, 2nd Floor Hartford, Department Dr. J. Robert Galvin, Avenue M.D., Commissioner 410 Capitol Hartford, CT 06106 (860) Council Karl J. 509-7101 On Environmental Quality Director Wagener, Street Executive 79 Elm Hartford, CT (860) 424-4000 Department Donald New 10 Franklin 06106 of Public Utility Chairman Control W. Downes, Square CT 06051 Britain, 827-1553 (860) C&F 9207•5 t Policy and Management Genuario, Secretm2 450 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106-1308 (860) 418-6200 Robert L. Office of and Community Development Department of Economic Joan McDonald, Commissioner 505 Hudson Street CT 06106-7106 Hartford, (860) 270-8000 Department of Transportation Joseph F. Marie, Commissioner 2800 Berlin Turnpike CT 06131-7546 Newington, (860) 594-3000 Housatonic Old Town Brookfield Valley Hall Rd Council of Elected Officials 162 Whisconier 06804-3443 B. O'Connor of (203) Chair 775-6256 Andrea Department Commissioner Agriculture F. Philip Prelli 165 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 State Senate Senator J. David 2544 Cappie[lo P. O. Box Danbury House State 109 tL• 06813-2544 of Representatives Taborsak Representative Joseph Assembly District Legislative Office Building Room 5006 CT Aviation 06106-1591 Administration Hartford, Federal 800 Independence Washington, DC Federal 1919 Avenue, 20591 SW Communications M Street, NW DC 20554 Commission Washington, C&F •7•5 b DANBURY City Mark of D. Danbury Boughton, Mayor Hill Avenue City Hall CT 06810 155 Deer City of Danbury Zoning Board of Appeals Richard S. Jowdy, Chairman Hall City 155 Deer Hill Avenue Danbury, Danbury, City Danbury Dennis I. Elpern, Director Planning & Zoning Department 155 Deer Hill Avenue CT 06810 of CT 06810 City of Danbury Impact Chairman Avenue Commission Environmental Bernard Gallo, Hill City 155 Hail Deer Danbury, Danbury, City of Danbury Planning Commission Arnold CT 06810 City of Danbury Commission Chairman l Conservation William Finaldi, Hall Hill Chairman Avenue Montgomery, Hill Avenue City 155 City CT 06810 Hall Deer 155 Deer Danbury, Danbury, City Jean of CT 06810 City Ted of Danbury Commission Chairman Hill Avenue CT 06810 Zoning City 155 Natale, Hall Deer Danbury City Hill Clerk Farah, Hall Deer City 155 Avenue Danbury, City Lori of CT 06810 Danbury, Danbury Town Clerk City 155 A. Kaback, Hall Deer CT Hil[ Avenue 06810 Danbury, Dated Cuddy 445 White & Feder LLP Hamilton Avenue, York 14 th Floor Plains, New 10601 Attorneys for: The Applicants C&F 92O785 I NOTICE Notice the is hereby given, pursuant to Section General Statutes and Section 16-501(b) of the Connecticut 16-50/-1(e) of State Agencies of an Application to be filed with the Connecticut Regulations of Connecticut Siting Council and Omnipoint Communications, LLC Inc. (T("Siting Council") on or after June 30, 2008 by Optasite Towers of environmental Mobile) (the "Applicants") for a certificate compatibility and public need for the construction, of a telecommunications The property being operation and maintenance lhcility in Danbury, Connecticut. considered for the proposed telecommunications facility (the "Facility") is located at 52 Stadley Rough Road owned The proposed Facility will be located in the south-western of the parcel and corner by Christ the Shepherd Church will consist ofa 140-foot and a 55'x tower with flush-mounted antennas 90' fenced self-supporting monopole panel and screened unmanned either in single-story equipment equipment compound designed to accommodate equipment buildings or on concrete pads. The location, height and other features General of the Statutes provisions The this of the Connecticnt is proposed Facility Sections 16-50g and other the are et. subject seq. to review and potential change under Facility area of the environmemal A balloon, being proposed to allow T-Mobile City. The Application explains impacts oftbe proposed Facility federally licensed wireless of the carriers to provide service in the need, purpose and benefits Facility and also describes representative of the proposed height of the monopole, will be flown at the proposed site on Siting Council public hearing on the Application, which will take place in the City, or such other specified by the Siting Council and a time to be determined by the Siting Council, but anticipated to be of lpm and 7pro. hours of the Interested the first date between day the parties business and residents alter June of the City 2008 of at Danbury, any of the Connecticut are invited to review the Application during normal hours 30, following offices: of Connecticut 10 Franklin New Siting Square Council City Jean 155 Natale, Deer Danbury City CT 06810 Clerk Britain, CT 06051 Hill Avenue Danbury, or the offices of the undersigned. All inquiries should be addressed to the Connecticut Siting Council or to the undersigned. Christopher Lucia B. Fisher, Esq. Chiocchio, & Feder Esq. LLP 14 th Cuddy 445 Hamilton Ave, NY Floor White Plains, 761-1300 10601 (914) Attorneys for the Applicant June__2008 VIA CERTIFIED RECEIPT MAIL RETURN REQUESTED Name Address Re: Proposed Wireless Communications Facility Application for Approval by the Connecticut Siting Council Danbury, Connecticut LLC and Omnipoint Communications, Inc. Optasite Towel• Dear We are writing to you lnc. on behalf of our Communications, file an ("T-Mobite") with clients, Optasite respect to the Towers above LLC referenced ("Optasite') matter a and Omnipoint our and clients' intent to application of communications of record of the intent The site for approval of Siting Council proposed wireless tower State law requires that (the "Facility") within the City &Danbury. facility that abuts a parcel on which the proposed facility may be located be sent must property file the application. to considered for with the Connecticut owners notice the proposed telecommunications Facility is located at 52 Stadley Rough The proposed Facility will be located in the south-west Shepherd Church. of the parcel and will consist of a 140-foot self-supporting monopole tower corner with flush-mounted and a 55'x 90' fenced and screened antennas unmanned equipment compound designed to accommodate either in single-story equipment buildings or on concrete equipment pads. being Road, the site of Christ the Vehicular rear access to the then extend site will extend new from of the Facility, would connections along a along gravel access the Stadley Rough Road, along an existing paved.drive to the drive to the proposed Facility. Underground utility drive from Stadley Rough Road. access The location, by the Connecticut have height and other features of the proposed Facility are subject to General Siting Council under the provisions of Connecticut questions concerning the undersigned oil this or review and potential change § 16-50g et Statutes to contact •. If you any or application, please 30 do not on hesitate which the the Connecticut is Siting on Council after June th,the date application expected to be file. Very truly yours, Lucia Chioechio C&F 927616 I ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS 52 Stadley Rough Road, Danbury• CT The records following information at City Hall, City was collected from the Tax Assessors' records and the land of Danbury. Property Charles 10 Indian Owner and Mailin• Ruth R. Addresses Hibbard and Snodgrass Carol Rizza Spring CT and Road 8 Indian Spring CT Road Danbury, Lisa Marie 6 Indian 06811 James Road J. Baker Danbury, Tom and 4 Indian 06811 Peat Rosemary Spring CT Spring CT Road Danbury, 06811 Danbury, Mailing Address: 2 Poppy Road Brookfield, CT and Road Denise M. Griss Andrew 83 06811 06804 Catherine 85 R. Stone Stadley Rough Danbury, CT 06811 Jose 81 A. Collado Alpert Stadley Rough Road Danbury, CT 06811 City of Danbury 73-79 Stadley Rough Danbury, CT 06811 Mailing Address: 155 Deer Hill CT Avenue 06810 Carvalheiro Road and Monica A. Espinal Stadley Rough Danbury, CT 06811 Road Road Danbury, Colonial 40 Baptist Church Stadley Rough Road Hills CT 06811 Jose and Christina 14 Indian Spring CT Danbury, Danbury, 06811 C&F 928832 1 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE hereby certify mailed by were I the attached list. that on the •-• return gl•lay of• •, to 2008, each a copy of the foregoing letters on certified mail, receipt reqttbsted of the abutting property owners Date c-Cuddy 445 14 th & Feder LLP Avenue Hamilton Floor White Plains, for: New York 10601 Attorneys The Applicants C&F 928832 I Application (A) with An Executive the on Guideline the first and page of the tower Location Summary address, proposed height, A map type of of the proposed. should showing the the location application being proposed site I.B. Executive Application Summary, page 2 and in Attachment accompany description; Description Proposed Facility I.B. Executive 4: Design 2 of description of the proposed facility, including the and heights of each of the various proposed locations proposed sites of the facility, including all candidates referred to in the application; of the purpose for which the application is (C) A statement (B) A brief Summary, pages page 9-10 V: Facility Design: Purpose Purpose The and I.A Authority, Authority, page 3 page 1 made; (D) (E) A statement describing legal or the statutory person address or authority for such I.A. and page 1 application; The exact name of each the authorization business trust, or relief such and of each other person. group, created organized it was seeking the principle place of If any applicant is a corporation, it shall also give the state under or I.C. Applicants, the laws of which name, or organized; the I.C. The (F) The title, address, to and whom attorney addressed. other communications person in regard to the and and telephone number of correspondence or application are to be other such papers service Applicants, page 3 upon the person be service upon Notice, orders, so named, the of the need may be served shall be deemed to applicant; for the (G) much need A statement is the as specific information a description of the proposed system and how including the proposed facility would eliminate alleviate or any existing or limitation; deficiency proposed facility with practicable to demonstrate as III.A. Statement of Need, page 5 Attachment 1 : Pre-FiIed Testimony of Charles Regulbuto Attachment 2: Statement of of Need page 2 with 6 Plots (It) facility with expected proposed is practicable; as specific information (I) A description of the proposed facility at the proposed prime and alternative sites including: antennas (1) Height of the tower and its associated maximum "not to exceed including a height" for the facility, which may be higher than the height proposed by the Applicant; (2) Access roads mid utility services; (3) Special design features; and (4) Type, size, and number of transmitters receivers, as well as the signal frequency and conservative worst-case and estimated operational level approximation of electro magnetic radiofrequency power density levels (facility using FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65, August 1997) at the base of the tower base, site compound are boundary where persons likely to be exposed to maximum densities from the facility; power with which the (5) A map showing any fixed facilities A statement of the benefits from file as III.B. Statement Benefits, much I.B. Executive Summary, pages page 9-10 V: Facility Design: 4: Attachment Description Proposed Facility and Design of VI.C: Power Density Analysis, page 13 C&F•185021 Application proposed facility (6) The coverage would Guideline Attachment Location in Application of Need with Plots interact; 2: Statement signal strength, and integration of the proposed facility any adjacent fixed facility, to be accompanied by multi-colored propagation maps of red, green differ depending on computer and yellow (exact colors may modeling used, but a legend is required to explain each color with any adjacent service used) showing interfaces areas, scale and north arrows; and including a map (7) For cellular systems, a forecast of when maximum capability would be reached for the proposed facility and for facilities that would be integrated with the proposed facility. A description of the named sites, including : (J) U.S.G.S. (1) The most recent topographic quadrangle map scale 1 inch 2000 feet) marked to show the site of the facility and any significant changes within a one mile radius of with the Description Proposed Facility Attaclunent 4: and Design of site; (2) A tract on or 200 feet) of the lot map (scale not less than 1 inch which the facility is proposed to be located showing the of acreage and dimensions of such the showing site, the name adjoining public roads or the nearest public and the names of abutting owners and the portions of road, their lands abutting the site; 40 feet) showing (3) A site plan (scale not less than 1 inch the proposed facility, fall zones, existing and proposed contour md location elevations, equipment 100 and year flood zones, on waterways, and all associated structures the site; profile showing the proposed and access road existing and proposed grades; and aerial photograph (scale not less than 1 (5) The most recent inch 1000 feet) showing the proposed site, access roads, and (4) facility Where a relevant, terrain with all abutting properties. A statement the Attachment for explaining mitigation measures proposed facility including: (1) Construction techniques designed to specifically (K) Description Proposed Facility Vh Environmental 4: and Design of minimize adverse effects on natural features effects of areas and sensitive areas; to Compatibility, pages 10- (2)Special design minimize adverse made on specifically areas avoid sensitive or 14 areas; natural and near (3) recreation, Establishment and for vegetation proposed areas; residential, habitat scenic and (4) and Methods preservation of vegetation for wildlife the screening. A (L) (M) areas description of sites existing and planned land uses of the VII.C. 16 Planned and Existing Land Uses, pages page 10- named A and surrounding areas; of the description scenic, natural, historic, of the named sites and and VI. 14 Environmental Compatibility, recreational scenic characteristics surrounding trails and including officially designated nearby hiking roads; C&F9185021 (N) Sight line areas impacted areas, Application Guideline graphs to the named sites from visually such as residential developments, recreational sites; the type facilities or Location Attachment 5: Visual in Application Resources Evaluation Report IV.A. Site and historic (O) A list describing and proposed towers the the site search area, towers and height a of all existing which and within use Selection, page 8 within four mile radius from a within proposed standpoint for A might any other area be feasible from of Attachment 1 : Pre-Filed Testimony of Charles location Regulbuto Attachment 3: Site Selection page 8 purposes of the application; Summary share (P) description onto of efforts to existing of towers, or IV.A: Site Selection, consolidate services tower telecommunications the antennas public and to private offer IV.B: Tower space, proposed facility including efforts where feasible, at no charge for space Sharing, page 9 for V. municipal antennas; Facility Design, pages 9-10 Attachment 1: Pre-Filed Testimony of Charles Regulbuto Attachment 3: Site Selection Summary page 7 (Q) description technological statement containing justification for the proposed facility; (R) A description of rejected sites with a U.S.G.S. topographic to show the 2,000 feet) marked quadrangle map (scale 1 inc• location of rejected sites; A of the alternatives and a III.C. Technological Alternatives, Site IV.A. Selection, 3: Site page 8 Attachment Selection Summary of Charles Attachment 1 : Pre-Filed Testimony page 8 Regulbuto description and justification for the site(s) selected, including a description of siting criteria and the narrowing process by which other possible sites were considered and eliminated, including, but not limited to, A detailed environmental (S) IV.A. Site Selection, 3: Site Attachment Selection Summary of Charles effects, cost differential, with other coverage lost and or Attachment 1 : Pre-Filed Testimony gained, potential loss due to geographical site(s); (T) with A statement such interference facilities, to features compared the signal proposed Regulbnto describing hazards to supporting data and references of estimated human to health, if any, VI. 14 Environmental Compatibility, pages 10- regulatory standards; (U) A statement construction, costs for site acquisition, equipment for a facility at the various referred proposed sites of the facility, including all candidates to in the application; of site (V) A schedule showing the proposed program construction, completion, operation and relocation acquisition, IX.A. Overall Estimated Cost, page 19 and IX.B. Overall Scheduling, page 19 or removal of existing facilities indicating that, raise a for the named weather a sites; the three V1. A. Visual (W) A statement will permitting, Assessment, page 11 applicant balloon with diameter of at least C&F:918502A feet, day at a at the sites of Application Guideline the various proposed referred first to Location sites in Application page 11 including of the time all candidates Council's in the i or hearing session the Council. For the specified by convenience of the public, this event shall be publicly noticed at least 30 days prior to the hearing on the application as scheduled by the Council; and of the state Such information as (X) any department or agency controls exercising environmental may, by regulation, require including: 1. A listing of any federal, State, regional, district, and municipal agencies, including but not limited to the Federal facility, application, on the the application on of the VI. A. Visual Assessment, otherwise VI. Environmental 14 Compatibility, pages 10- Attachment 7: Correspondence with State Agencies Attachment Aviation Administration; Commission; State Historic of Environmental inland with Federal Communications Preservation Officer; and and local State Department conservation, commissions the Protection; and reviews were Description Proposed Facility 4: and Design of wetland, which a planning agency and conducted facility, including with decision 2. The respect recent to copy the of any zoning concerning position or facility; most conservation, documents inland of the plan of development of the zoning classification of the site and a description and a narrative of the consistency surrounding areas, summary of the project with the City's regulations and plans. road and proposed site clearing for access of vegetation scheduled for removal compound including type and quantity of trees at breast greater than six inches diameter of zoning, and municipality, including wetland, Bulk Filing (Y) Description Attachment Description Proposed Facility 4: and Design of height and (Z) Such involvement information as with the wetlands; applicant may consider relevant. C&Fgi85021
Pages to are hidden for
"application"Please download to view full document