application 
.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 al