application

Document Sample
application Powered By Docstoc
					.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


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:3814
posted:7/8/2008
language:English
pages:118