T-Mobile Application for Special Permits

Transcription

Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Ashland
Application for Special Permit
Extension of a Pre-Existing Non-Conforming Structure
Supporting Brief and Exhibits
Installation of a Structure-mounted Wireless Communications Facility
Address:
34 Albert Ray Drive
(Map 9, Lot 173)
Applicant:
T-Mobile Northeast LLC
15 Commerce Way, Suite B
Norton, MA 02766
Submitted by:
John-Markus Pinard
Centerline Communications LLC
960 Turnpike Street, Suite 28
Canton, MA 02021
Telephone: (508)667-0363
Facsimile: (617)249-0819
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Application to the Zoning Board of Appeals
for a Special Permit
34 Albert Ray Drive
Ashland, MA
______________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit 1
Application Form
Letter of Authorization
Exhibit 2
Supporting Statement
Exhibit 3
Project Narrative
Exhibit 4
Viewshed Analysis
Exhibit 5
Alternate Site Analysis
Exhibit 6
Radio Frequency Affidavit
Exhibit 7
Radio Frequency Propagation Maps
Exhibit 8
Noise Study
Exhibit 9
EME Report
Exhibit 10
Structural Analysis
Exhibit 11
FCC License
Exhibit 12
Antenna/Equipment Specification Sheet
Exhibit 13
Assessors Map
Exhibit 14
Site Plan
Exhibit 15
Towair Report
Exhibit 16
MA Historical Commission Compliance
Exhibit 17
MA Department of Health Policy
Exhibit 18
Redacted Lease
EXHIBIT 1
Application Form
TOWN OF ASHLAND, MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE OF PLANNING BOARD & PLANNING DIRECTOR
PLANNING BOARD AS SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTING AUTHORITY
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT, CODE – TOWN OF ASHLAND
2/11/11
DATE: ____________________________
The undersigned applies for Special Permit pursuant to terms of Zoning Chapter 282 for premises
located at _________________________________,
which is in a ______________________
Zoning
34 Albert Ray Drive
Residential
District, and is shown on the Assessors’ Map as SHEET ______________,
LOT
________,
Registry
of
9
173
Deed’s respect: grant per Section(s) _________________
of said Chapter with such reasonable
3.3
conditions, safeguards or limitations on time or use, deemed necessary to serve the intended purposes.
1. SPECIAL PERMIT IS FOR (type) and (proposed use)
The Applicant is seeking to extend a Pre-Existing Non-Conforming Structure with respect to the Installation
of a Wireless Communications Facility pursuant to Section 3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance and said
installation substantially complies with Section 8.3 of the Ordinance.
2. IF SPECIAL PERMIT is allowed, it will be of some substantial benefit and serve some need of the
Town because: The proposed wireless facility will a benefit to the community by allowing for competitive
wireless telecommunications services to the residents and businesses of the Town of Ashland and assisting
the Town of Ashland with its obligations under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
3. IF SPECIAL PERMIT is allowed, the proposed use shall not create a condition peculiar to the
particular case that cause nuisance, hazard, congestion or for other reason, cause substantial harm to the
established or future character of the neighborhood because:
Please see the supporting statement to this application as Exhibit 2 as part of this application.
4. APPLICANT is (owner) (lessee of) (under agreement to purchase) (under agreement to lease)
(Please circle which applies)
Centerline Communications LLC,
Applicant: __________________________
agent for T-Mobile Northeast LLC
Turnpike Street, Suite 28, Canton,
Address: 960
___________________________
MA 02021
________________________________________
Reviewed for Content, Inspector of Buildings
NOTE:
APPLICANT SHALL NOT BE
ACCEPTED FOR HEARING
WITHOUT COMPLETE
DOCUMENTATION.
Tel.: (508)667-0363
_______________________________
John-Markus Pinard, Agent (508)667-0363
By: Scott
_______________________________
Lacy, Esq.
(508)801-5084
Agent or Attorney
Telephone
Sign:________________________________
EXHIBIT 2
Supporting Statement
February 11, 2011
Town of Ashland
Zoning Board of Appeals
101 Main Street
Ashland, MA 01721
Re:
Property Address:
Applicant:
Owner:
Application for Special Permit
34 Albert Ray Drive
Assessor's Map 9, Lot 173 (the "Property")
T-Mobile Northeast LLC
Crown Atlantic Company LLC
Dear Honorable Members of the Ashland Zoning Board of Appeals:
Centerline Communications represents the Applicant in connection with an application for a
Special Permit to extend a pre-existing non-conforming structure from the Town of Ashland
Zoning Board of Appeals (the “Board”) with respect to its proposed installation and operation of
a Wireless Communication Facility (the “Facility”). The Applicant proposes to install and
operate the Facility, pursuant to Section 3.3 of the Town of Ashland’s Zoning Ordinance (the
“Ordinance”) and said installation substantially complies with Section 8.3 of the Ordinance,
regulating wireless communication facilities. As more fully described herein, the Facility falls
within the purview of this section and is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Ordinance.
The Facility will consist of three (3) wireless communication antennas mounted at a height of
90’ to the existing 104’ monopole, one (1) E911 Global Positioning System (GPS)/GSM
antenna, associated radio cabinets mounted on a concrete pad within the ten foot by twenty foot
(10’ x 20’) lease area and associated coaxial cables housed by a cable tray. The Facility is more
fully described herein and illustrated on the plans attached hereto, and incorporated herein by
reference (the "Plans").
The existing wireless communication facility is located within the Residence A (RA) District and
is located within three hundred feet (300’) of existing residential structures. Although the
Planning Board is normally the Special Permit Granting Authority with respect to wireless
communication facilities, its authority is limited under Section 8.3.3(4)(a) of the Ordinance
because the existing tower is located within 300 feet of a residential building, which makes it a
pre-existing, non-conforming structure, and, therefore, the proposed application to modify the
existing structure must be filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals. As such, the Applicant is
seeking the necessary zoning relief from this Board for its installation pursuant to Section 3.3.3
of the Ordinance, as more fully described below. In light of the Federal Telecommunications
Act of 1996 (the “1996 Act”), the Facility complies with the Town of Ashland’s Comprehensive
Plan. The Board is vested with the authority to grant the requested approval herein, pursuant to
the Ordinance.
I.
Background
The Applicant is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to construct and operate
a wireless telecommunications network in various markets throughout the country, including the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and in particular the Town of Ashland. A copy of the
Applicant's FCC license is attached hereto. The Applicant is in the process of designing and
constructing a telecommunication system to serve Massachusetts. One of the key design
objectives of its systems is to provide adequate and reliable coverage. Such a system requires a
grid of radio transmitting and receiving links located approximately .5 to 2 miles apart,
depending on the location of existing and proposed installations in the surrounding area, the
existing use of the network and the existing topography. The radio transmitting and receiving
facilities operate on a line-of site basis, requiring a clear path from the facility to the user on the
ground. This dynamic requires the antennas to be located above the tree line, and in a location
where the signal is not obstructed or degraded by other buildings or by topographical features
such as hills.
II.
RF Coverage Determination
The Applicant has performed a study of radio frequency coverage for the Town of Ashland and
from the Property, the results of which are shown on the coverage maps submitted herewith. As
depicted on the coverage maps, Applicant is currently experiencing a significant gap in service
coverage. The Applicant has determined that a wireless communication facility located on the
Property will provide adequate coverage to a portion of the targeted sections of the Town of
Ashland and the immediately surrounding area if the Applicant's height of the facility is 90’. In
connection herewith, the Applicant has submitted a radio frequency propagation map which
shows its current coverage and the gap in coverage that the proposed site will fill, as well as a
radio frequency propagation map showing the anticipated coverage from the site.
III.
Legal Argument
A. The proposed Facility satisfies the standards for the grant of a Special Permit pursuant to
Section 3.3 of the Ordinance.
The proposed Wireless Facility satisfies the criteria for the grant of the requested relief as set
forth in Section 3.3.3 of the Ordinance as follows:
3.3.3 Nonconforming Structures.
The Board of Appeals may award a special permit to reconstruct, extend, alter, or
change a nonconforming structure in accordance with this section only if it determines
that such reconstruction, extension, alteration, or change shall not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming structure to the neighborhood. The
following types of changes to nonconforming structures may be considered by the Board
of Appeals:
1. Reconstructed, extended or structurally changed;
The Applicant is requesting to extend a Pre-Existing Non-Conforming Structure in a
residential zoning district. The Applicant is proposing to install antennas at the ninety
foot (90’) level on an existing one hundred and four foot (104’) monopole and equipment
within the existing footprint of the existing wireless communication facility. The
Applicant’s proposed use is consistent with the current use of the property and the
proposed installation is substantially similar to other existing installations at the Facility.
The proposed Facility will minimize potential adverse visual impacts and changes to the
general character of the area while allowing an FCC licensed provider of wireless
services the ability to provide adequate service in the area as the Applicant will be
utilizing an existing structure. The proposed location is reasonably adaptable to the
proposed wireless communications use because it is an existing wireless facility. The
Applicant is not extending the tower or expanding the compound. The Applicant seeks to
avoid the unnecessary proliferation of towers and to reduce the potential adverse
environmental effects of a new tower facility, while at the same time ensuring the quality
of service provided by the site to users of its network. The Property is unique in that it
already has a viable, available existing structure on it. The proposed Wireless Facility
will have little impact on the surrounding areas because the proposed Wireless Facility is
an insignificant addition to the existing tower.
2. Altered to provide for a substantially different purpose or for the same purpose in a
substantially different manner or to a substantially greater extent.
The Applicant is proposing to utilize the existing non-conforming structure in a manner
consistent with its current use. The Property is unique in that it already has a viable,
available existing structure on it. The proposed Wireless Facility will have little impact on
the surrounding areas because the proposed Wireless Facility is an insignificant addition
to the existing tower.
B. The proposed Facility substantially complies with the requirements Section 8.3 of the
Ordinance.
To the extent feasible, the Applicant’s proposal satisfies the criteria for installation of a Wireless
Facility set forth in Section 8.3 of the Ordinance as set forth below:
8.3.3 District Regulations.
1. New or modified WCFs in Ashland’s zoning districts shall require a special permit
from the SPGA. These include ground mounts, building (roof or side) mounts, and WCFs
mounted on other existing structures. These also include replacement, expansion,
upgrade, modification, or significant change in appearance of a WCF such as an
extension in height or width; addition of cells, antennae, or panels; upgrade of
technology; or a new replacement of a facility.
The Applicant shall submit documentation of the legal right, physical need, and
structural capacity to install and/ or use the proposed facility mount at the time of
application of the special permit.
The Applicant is proposing to modify an existing wireless communication facility located
in the Residence A Zoning District and is pursuing a Special Permit to extend a PreExisting Non-Conforming Structure. The Applicant has submitted all supplemental
documentation as part of this package.
2. In commercial and industrial zoning districts, WCFs are allowed in all areas, subject
to the exceptions listed below.
This section is not applicable as the property is located in the Residence A (RA) Zoning
District.
3. In residential zoning districts, WCFs are not allowed in any areas unless the Applicant
can show that the proposed location is necessary to close a significant gap in wireless
service AND no feasible alternative, location, or technology exists, subject to the
exceptions listed below.
The Applicant is already operating on all available facilities in the area and has exhausted
all opportunities to fill its gap in coverage from existing sites. The Applicant has
provided with this application Radio Frequency Plots indicating the locations of existing
facilities and service provided thereby, an affidavit of a Radio Frequency Engineer
explaining the nature of the existing gap in coverage, and an alternate site analysis
documenting attempts to locate on existing structures or alternate locations. There are no
other available structures that the Applicant can use to close their significant gap in the
area.
4. Under no conditions will the SPGA allow a new or modified WCF located:
a. within 300 feet of a residential building in Ashland’s residential zoning
districts;
The Property is located within 300 feet of a residential building; however, the
Applicant is requesting to extend a Pre-Existing Non-Conforming Structure
located in a residential zoning district. The Applicant is proposing to install
antennas at the ninety foot (90’) level on an existing one hundred and four foot
(104’) monopole and equipment within the existing fenced compound of the
existing wireless communication facility. The Applicant’s proposed use is
consistent with the current use of the property and the proposed installation is
substantially similar to other existing installations at the Facility. The proposed
antennas and related equipment will not be located any closer to the existing
residential buildings than the existing wireless communication facilities already
located at the site. The proposed use complies with the Ordinance to the greatest
extent reasonably feasible. The Facility will minimize potential adverse visual
impacts and changes to the general character of the area while allowing an FCC
licensed provider of wireless services the ability to provide adequate service in the
area. The proposed location is reasonably adaptable to the proposed wireless
communications use because it is an existing wireless facility. The Applicant is
not extending the tower or expanding the compound.
b. within 300 feet of a building in Ashland licensed by the Massachusetts
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to educate persons under
the age of 18; and
The subject parcel is not located within 300 feet of a school.
c. on land for which there is a permanent conservation restriction as authorized
under Sections 31-33 of Chapter 184 of the General Laws of Massachusetts OR
there are active/ fixed recreational activities including but not limited to
playgrounds, ball fields, and tennis courts.
The subject parcel does not have any permanent conservation restrictions.
5. Notwithstanding any of these regulations, the Town encourages co-location on existing
structures, including but not limited to existing WCFs, buildings, water towers, utility
poles and towers, and related facilities, provided such installations preserve the
character and integrity of those structures. In particular Applicants are urged to consider
use of existing telephone and electric utility structures.
The Applicant is proposing to co-locate on an existing free-standing monopole in
accordance with this section of the Ordinance. The Applicant has evaluated the existing
electrical utility structures surrounding the area where there is a coverage gap and
determined that these are not viable alternatives. Please see the alternate site analysis for
further explanation.
6. WCFs on existing structures shall:
a. Not extend the height of the existing structure unless the structure meets all
requirements of this Bylaw;
No extension is proposed. The proposed installation will be at a height of 90’ on
the 104’ monopole.
b. not project above the existing structure by more than ten feet;
the 104’ monopole.
c. be finished in a manner designed to be aesthetically consistent with the exterior
finish of the structure;
The Applicant is proposing to install their antennas in a way that is aesthetically
consistent to what is currently on the monopole. The equipment will be placed
inside of the fenced compound and the antennas, including mounting hardware,
will be painted to match the color of the monopole.
d. be mounted so that it does not obscure any window or other exterior
architectural feature; and
The installation will not obscure any windows or architectural features.
e. not exceed fifty (50) square feet of front surface facing surrounding streets and
adjacent properties, individually or in aggregate. In reviewing an application the
SPGA may increase this surface if it finds that a substantially better design will
result from such increase. In making such a finding the SPGA shall consider both
the visual and safety impacts of the proposed use.
The Applicant is proposing to install its ground equipment within an existing
stockade-fenced compound. No expansion is proposed. The antennas spec sheets
are attached as part of this application and do not exceed fifty (50) square feet of
front surface.
7. WCFs in new locations shall:
a. be allowed only if the Applicant has definitively demonstrated that there are no
feasible existing structures upon which to locate;
This sub-section is not applicable. The Applicant is proposing to co-locate on an
existing Wireless Communication Facility.
b. be camouflaged to the greatest extent possible, including but not limited to the
use of compatible building materials and colors, screening, and landscaping;
and
c. include a “fall zone” equal to 150% of the height of the facility/ mount,
including any antennae or other appurtenances. Within this fall zone there shall
be no habitable structure and the Applicant shall demonstrate control of the land
(via lease or ownership) to prohibit future habitable construction. In reviewing an
application the SPGA may reduce the required fall zone by as much as 50% of the
required distance if it finds that a substantially better design will result from such
reduction. In making such a finding the SPGA shall consider both the visual and
safety impacts of the proposed use.
8. All WCFs shall:
a. be no higher than ten feet above the average height AGL of buildings, tree
canopy, or other structures within 300 feet OR, if on an existing structure, ten feet
above the height of the existing structure, whichever is higher;
the 104’ existing structure.
b. be no higher than ten feet above the height limit of the zoning district within
which the WCF is located, unless the WCF is completely camouflaged such as
within a flagpole, steeple, chimney, or similar structure; and c. meet the setback
requirements of the underlying zoning district.
The Applicant is seeking a Special Permit to extend a Pre-Existing NonConforming Structure. There will be no increase in the height of the existing
monopole and setbacks will not change as the equipment will be installed inside
the existing fenced compound.
8.3.4 Special Permit Regulations. All Wireless Communications Facilities shall comply
with the Requirements and Performance Standards set forth in this section.
1. The following types of wireless communications facilities are exempt from the Special
Permit requirement of this bylaw and may be constructed, erected, installed, placed
and/or used within the Town subject to the issuance of a building permit by the Building
Commissioner:
This section is not applicable. The application is not exempt from applicable zoning
relief.
2. The SPGA shall not grant a Special Permit for lattice towers and similar facilities
requiring three (3) or more legs and/or guy wires for support. Only monopoles, with
associated antenna and/or panels, are allowed.
The Applicant is seeking a Special Permit to install panel antennas on a monopole
structure.
3. Any new free standing towers shall be designed to structurally accommodate the
maximum number of foreseeable users (within a ten (10) year period) as technically
practicable. The intent of this requirement is to reduce the number of facilities which will
be required to be located within the community.
This sub-section is not applicable. The Applicant is proposing to co-locate on an existing
Wireless Communication Facility.
4. Design Standards
a. Site Design Standards
i. All wireless communications facilities shall minimize, to the extent
feasible, adverse visual effects on the environment, the community and
surrounding communities. The SPGA may impose reasonable conditions
to ensure this result, including painting, screening and lighting standards.
The Applicant is attempting to comply as closely as possible with all
portions of the Ordinance. The proposed host parcel is in a Residential
District but contains a use that is not residential. The proposed design is
not as impactful from a visual perspective as would be a co-location on a
parcel containing a tower, which meets the spirit of the Ordinance.
ii. Access shall be provided to a tower site by a roadway which respects
the natural terrain, does not appear as a scar on the landscape and is
approved by the SPGA, the SPGA and the Fire Chief to assure emergency
access at all times. Consideration shall be given to design which
minimizes erosion, construction on unstable soils and steep slopes.
The access will be over an existing drive and no improvements are
proposed or needed.
iii. There shall be a minimum of one (1) parking space for each WCF to be
used in connection with the maintenance of the site, and not to be used for
the permanent storage of vehicles or other equipment.
The Facility has adequate parking for maintenance personal at the site and
will not be used for permanent storage of vehicles or other equipment.
iv. Traffic associated with the tower and accessory facilities and
structures shall not adversely affect abutting ways.
The proposed use is passive, requires no employees on the premises and
has no characteristics that are incompatible with the abutting ways.
Specifically, it will generate, on average, only approximately two (2) trips
per month by one (1) service technician for routine maintenance.
b. Visibility/Camouflage. All WCFs shall be sited in such a manner that the view
of the facility from adjacent abutters, residential neighbors and other areas of the
Town or Adjacent Towns shall be as limited as possible. All monopoles and
dishes shall be painted or otherwise colored so as to blend in with the landscape
or the structure on which they are located. A different color scheme shall be used
to blend the structure with the landscape below and above the tree or building
line.
The granting of the requested relief will not alter the general character of the
surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose of the Ordinance or the
comprehensive plan upon which the Ordinance is based. The proposed use
complies with the Ordinance to the greatest extent reasonably feasible. The
Facility will minimize potential adverse visual impacts and changes to the general
character of the area while allowing an FCC licensed provider of wireless services
the ability to provide adequate service in the area. The proposed location is
reasonably adaptable to the proposed wireless communications use because it is
an existing structure. The proposed location is reasonably adaptable to the
proposed wireless communications use because it does not involve any clearing of
trees and does not involve intrusion upon existing wetlands or other interests
protected by the Ordinance. The equipment will be placed inside of the fenced
compound and the antennas, including mounting hardware, will be painted to
match the color of the monopole.
Satellite dishes and/or antennae shall be situated on or attached to a structure in
such a manner that they are screened, preferably not being visible from abutting
streets. Free-standing dishes or antennae shall be located on the landscape in
such a manner so as to minimize visibility from abutting streets and residences
and to limit the need to remove existing vegetation. All equipment shall be
colored, molded and/or installed to blend into the structure and/or the landscape.
Wireless Communications Facilities shall be camouflaged as follows:
i. Camouflage by Existing Buildings or Structures. When a Wireless
Communications Facility extends above the roof height of a building on
which it is mounted, every effort shall be made to conceal the facility
within or behind existing architectural features to limit its visibility from
public ways. Facilities mounted on a roof shall be stepped back from the
front facade in order to limit their impact on the building's silhouette.
Wireless Communications Facilities which are side mounted shall blend
with the existing building's architecture and shall be painted or shielded
with material which is consistent with the design features and materials of
the building.
This sub-section is not applicable. The Applicant is not proposing to
mount antennas on an existing building.
ii. Camouflage by Vegetation. If Wireless Communications Facilities are
not camouflaged from public viewing areas by existing buildings or
structures, they shall be surrounded by buffers of dense tree growth and
understory vegetation in all directions to create an effective year-round
visual buffer. Ground-mounted Wireless Communications Facilities shall
provide a vegetated buffer of sufficient height and depth to effectively
screen the facility. Trees and vegetation may be existing on the subject
property or installed as part of the proposed facility or a combination of
both. Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent
practicable. The SPGA shall determine the types of trees and plant
materials and depth of the needed buffer based on site conditions.
The existing on-site vegetation will not be disturbed during and after the
installation of the wireless communications facility. The parcel currently
has a substantial amount of vegetated buffer to screen the ground
equipment from abutting views. Please see the Viewshed Analysis
enclosed as part of this submission for further evidence.
iii. Color. Wireless Communications Facilities which are side-mounted on
buildings shall be painted or constructed of materials to match the color
of the building material directly behind them. To the extent that any
Wireless Communications Facilities extend above the height of the
vegetation immediately surrounding it, they shall be painted in a light grey
or light blue hue which blends with sky and clouds. The portion of a
building-mounted WCF extending above the building shall be painted to
blend with sky and clouds.
The Applicant agrees to comply with any reasonable request from the
Board to blend the antennas with the immediate surroundings.
c. Equipment Shelters. Where feasible, the equipment to relay the wireless
transmission or to transfer the wireless transmissions to the phone system shall be
located inside an existing structure. Otherwise, such equipment shall be located
in a new structure in a location where the visual impact to the community and
surrounding communities will be minimized. The SPGA may impose conditions on
the siting and screening of such structure.
Equipment shelters for Wireless Communications Facilities shall be designed
consistent with one of the following design standards:
i. Equipment shelters shall be located in underground vaults;
The proposed equipment location is inside the existing stockade fence.
There is no proposed expansion of the compound and is consistent with
the current design of the wireless communication facility.
ii. Equipment shelters shall be designed to be consistent with the
architectural context, styles and materials, of the surrounding
neighborhood as determined by the SPGA.
The proposed equipment location is inside the existing stockade fence.
There is no proposed expansion of the compound and is consistent with
the current design of the wireless communication facility.
iii. Equipment shelters shall be camouflaged behind an effective yearround landscape buffer, equal to the height of the proposed building,
and/or wooden fence. The SPGA shall determine the style of fencing
and/or landscape buffer that is compatible with the neighborhood.
The parcel currently has a substantial amount of vegetated buffer to screen
the ground equipment from abutting views. Please see the Viewshed
Analysis enclosed as part of this submission for further evidence.
d. Lighting and Signage:
i. Wireless Communications Facilities shall be lighted only if required by
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Lighting of equipment
structures and any other facilities on site shall be shielded from abutting
properties There shall be total cutoff of all light at the property lines of the
parcel to be developed, and footcandle measurements at the property line
shall be 0.0 initial footcandles when measured at grade.
This sub-section is not applicable. The existing structure is not lit and the
proposed installation will not require any additional lighting anywhere on
the property.
ii. There shall be no signs, except for announcement signs, danger signs,
"No Trespassing" signs and a required sign giving the telephone number
where the owner may be reached on a twenty-four-hour (24-hr.) basis. All
signs shall conform with the Town of Ashland Sign Bylaws.
The Applicant is not proposing to install any additional signage on the
outside of the fenced compound other than a small sign on the fence
entrance as required by the FCC.
e. Historic Buildings and Districts:
i. Any Wireless Communications Facilities located on or within an historic
structure shall not alter the character-defining features, distinctive
construction methods, or original historic materials of the building.
This sub-section is not applicable. The Applicant is not installing antennas
on or within a historic structure.
ii. Any alteration made to an historic structure to accommodate a Wireless
Communications Facility shall be fully reversible.
This sub-section is not applicable. The Applicant is not installing antennas
on or within a historic structure.
iii. Wireless Communications Facilities within an historic district shall be
concealed within or behind existing architectural features, or shall be
located so that they are not visible from public roads and viewing areas
within the district.
This sub-section is not applicable. The subject property is not located
within a historic district.
f. Scenic Landscapes and Vistas:
i. Wireless Communications Facilities shall not be located within open
areas that are visible from public roads, recreational areas or residential
development. As required in the Camouflage section above, all groundmounted Wireless Communications Facilities which are not camouflaged
by existing buildings or structures shall be surrounded by a buffer of
dense tree growth.
The Applicant is requesting to extend a Pre-Existing Non-Conforming
Structure in a residential zoning district. The proposed use complies with
the Ordinance to the greatest extent reasonably feasible. The Facility will
minimize potential adverse visual impacts and changes to the general
character of the area while allowing an FCC licensed provider of wireless
services the ability to provide adequate service in the area. The proposed
location is reasonably adaptable to the proposed wireless communications
use because it is an existing wireless facility. The Applicant is not
extending the tower or expanding the compound. The proposed location is
reasonably adaptable to the proposed wireless communications use
because it does not involve any clearing of trees and does not involve
intrusion upon existing wetlands or other interests protected by the
Ordinance. The equipment will be placed inside of the fenced compound
and the antennas, including mounting hardware, will be painted to match
the color of the monopole.
ii. Any Wireless Communications Facility that is located within 300 feet of
a scenic vista, scenic landscape, or scenic road as designated by the
townshall not exceed the height of vegetation at the proposed location. If
the facility is located farther than 300 feet from those elements, the height
regulations described elsewhere in this bylaw will apply.
The Applicant is proposing to install antennas on an existing structure.
The compound will not be expanded and the structure will not be
extended.
g. Service Utilities. All utilities, which will service the proposed personal wireless
service facility, shall be located below ground from the facility’s property line.
The Applicant will be using the existing utility services coming into the
compound. All telephone and electric servicing the wireless communications
facility will be located underground inside the compound.
h. Environmental Standards:
i. Wireless Communications Facilities shall not be located in wetlands.
Locating of wireless facilities in wetland buffer areas shall be avoided
whenever possible and disturbance to wetland buffer areas shall be
minimized and subject to approval of the Conservation Commission.
The Applicant is not proposing to install their facility in wetlands or
within the wetland buffer areas.
ii. No hazardous waste shall be discharged on the site of any Wireless
Communications Facility. If any hazardous materials are to be used on
site, there shall be provisions for full containment of such materials. An
enclosed containment area shall be provided with a sealed floor, designed
to contain at least 110% of the volume of the hazardous materials stored
or used on the site.
The Applicant will not be introducing or discharging any hazardous waste
on the site of the Wireless Communication Facility
iii. Stormwater run-off shall be contained on-site. Any WCF or related
groundwork shall comply with Chapter 282 sec 9.4 (Site Plan Review) and
Chapter 247 Stormwater Management of the Codes of the Town of
Ashland.
The Applicant agrees to comply with the Stormwater Management Codes
of the Town of Ashland.
iv. Ground-mounted equipment for Wireless Communications Facilities
shall not generate noise in excess of 50 db at the property line.
The Applicant’s installation will not generate noise in excess of 50 db at
the property lines. There has been a noise study included as part of this
submission as evidence.
v. Roof-mounted or side-mounted equipment for Wireless Communications
Facilities shall not generate noise in excess of 50 db at ground level at the
base of the building closest to the antenna.
This sub-section is not applicable. The Applicant’s equipment will be
placed at the base of the structure within the compound.
i. Safety Standards:
i. Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR) Standards. All equipment proposed for
a
Wireless Communications Facility shall be authorized per the FCC
Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency
Radiation (FCC Guidelines), as well as the Massachusetts Department of
Public Health standards with respect to emissions from wireless facilities.
The Facility complies and will continue to comply with the standards and
regulations of the FAA, FCC and any other agency frequency emission
standards established by the FCC. The Applicant has provided Town of
Ashland with their FCC license to own and operate a wireless
telecommunications facility and compliance with the FAA as part of this
application. In addition, the Applicant has also supplied a letter from the
Department of Health indicating that they no longer review wireless
communications facilities for emission compliance.
ii. All ground-mounted WCFs shall be surrounded by a security barrier.
The security barrier shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in height. All
fencing, walls and gates shall be compatible with the context of the
existing neighborhood and community as determined by the SPGA and the
Building Inspector.
The Applicant’s equipment will be installed within the existing stockade
fenced compound. There will be no expansion or modifications done to
the security barrier that currently exists at the site.
8.3.5 Application Procedures.
1. All persons desiring to erect, replace, upgrade or modify a WCF shall apply for a
Special Permit from the SPGA. As part of any application for a permit, applicants shall
submit the information required for special permit approval as set forth herein and by the
Town of Ashland.
The Applicant is applying for a Special Permit to extend a Pre-Existing Non-Conforming
Structure pursuant to Section 3.3.3 and Section 8.3 of the Town of Ashland Bylaws.
2. If the SPGA determines that independent review of the special permit is required, the
Board will require the applicant to pay a review fee consisting of reasonable costs to be
incurred by the Board for the employment of outside consultants pursuant to SPGA rules
as authorized by G.L. c. 44, Section 53G.
The Applicant agrees to provide a review fee of reasonable costs to be incurred by the
Board for an outside consultant.
3. Fees for permits shall be established and amended periodically by the Special Permit
Granting Authority.
4. No application shall be accepted or acted upon until all the required information as set
forth in this bylaw is provided by the applicant and all required fees are paid.
The Applicant requests that they receive written notice within 30 days of filing as stated
in the letter accompanying this application.
5. The Building Commissioner or his agent shall perform a field inspection on all
applications for a WCF prior to the hearing for the Special Permit. The results of the
inspection shall become a permanent part of the applicant's file on a form prescribed by
the Building Commissioner, and shall bear the date of inspection, comments and the
signature of the inspecting officer.
6. The SPGA may impose written conditions on the Special Permit.
The Applicant agrees to comply with reasonable conditions imposed by the SPGA.
7. Pre-Application Conference. Prior to the submission of an application for a Special
Permit under this regulation, the applicant is strongly encouraged to meet with the SPGA
at a public meeting to discuss the proposed Wireless Communications Facility in general
terms and to clarify the filing requirements. The SPGA shall meet with an applicant
under this regulation within twenty-one (21) days following a written request submitted
to the SPGA and the Town Clerk. If the SPGA fails to meet with an applicant who has
requested such a meeting within twenty-one (21) days of said request and said meeting
has not been postponed due to mutual agreement, the applicant may proceed with a
Special Permit application under this regulation without need for a pre-application
conference.
The Applicant had a Pre-Application Conference with the Planning Department on
February 8, 2011.
8. Pre-Application Filing Requirements. The purpose of the conference is to inform the
SPGA as to the preliminary nature of the proposed Wireless Communications Facility. As
such, no formal filings are required for the pre-application conference. However, the
applicant is encouraged to prepare sufficient preliminary architectural and/or
engineering drawings to inform the SPGA of the location of the proposed facility, as well
as its scale and overall design.
The Applicant has requested a Pre-Application Conference and submitted drawings on
2/1/11.
9. Application Filing Requirements. Ten copies of the following shall be included with an
application for a Special Permit for all Wireless Communications Facilities:
a. General Filing Requirements:
i. Name, address and telephone number of applicant and any coapplicants as well as any agents for the applicant or co-applicants.
Please see the site plans that have been submitted as part of this
application.
ii. Co-applicants may include the landowner of the subject property,
licensed carriers and tenants for the Wireless Communications Facility.
The Applicant is a licensed carrier and tenant for the Wireless
Communications Facility.
iii. A licensed carrier shall either be an applicant or a co-applicant.
The Applicant is a licensed carrier in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Please see the FCC license that has been submitted as part
of this application.
iv. Original signatures for the applicant and all co-applicants applying for
the Special Permit. If the applicant or co-applicant will be represented by
an agent, original signature authorizing the agent to represent the
applicant and/or co-applicant. Photoreproductions of signatures will not
be accepted.
The Application includes an original signature authorizing the agent to
represent the Applicant. In addition, the Owner has submitted a letter
giving the Applicant permission to seek a Special Permit with the Town of
Ashland.
v. The owner of the WCF shall provide to the Town a certificate of
insurance on a Commercial General Liability (CGL) form. The CGL
insurance must be on an occurrence basis and at a limit as established
and as may be amended from time to time by the Town of Ashland.
The Applicant will supply the town with a CGL form as directed.
b. Location Filing Requirements:
i. Identify the subject property by including the Town as well as the name
of the locality, name of the nearest road or roads, and street address, if
any.
application
ii. Tax map and parcel number of subject property.
application.
iii. Zoning district designation for the subject parcel (Submit copy of Town
zoning map with parcel identified).
application
iv. A line map to scale showing the lot lines of the subject property and all
properties within 300 feet and the location of all buildings, including
accessory structures, on all properties shown.
application.
v. A town-wide map showing the other existing Wireless Communications
Facilities in the Town and outside the Town within one mile of its
corporate limits.
The Applicant has provided a town-wide map of its existing Wireless
Communications Facility in the Town and outside of the Town within one
mile of its corporate limits. The Applicant does not have locations
regarding other carriers’ Facilities as that is proprietary information.
vi. The proposed locations of all existing and future Wireless
Communications Facilities in the T Facilities in the Town on a Town-wide
map for this carrier own on a Town-wide map for this carrier.
The Applicant has provided a town-wide map of its existing Wireless
Communications Facility in the Town and outside of the Town within one
mile of its corporate limits.
c. Plan Filing Requirement. A one-inch-equals-40 feet vicinity plan showing the
following:
The Applicant has included all plan filing requirements on the site plan that was
submitted as part of this application.
d. Sight Line Filing Requirement:
i. Sight line representation. A sight line representation shall be drawn
from any public road within 300 feet and the closest facade of each
residential building (viewpoint) within 300 feet to the highest point (visible
point) of the Wireless Communications Facility. Each sight line shall be
depicted in profile, drawn at one inch equals 40 feet. The profiles shall
show all intervening trees and buildings. In the event there is only one (or
more) residential building within 300 feet there shall be at least two sight
lines from the closest habitable structures or public roads, if any.
The Applicant has submitted photo simulations showing the before and
after images of the proposed facility. These photographs were taken from
five different viewpoints and show the tower from all different angles for a
simulated view.
ii. Existing (before condition) photographs. Each sight line shall be
illustrated by one eight by ten inch color photograph of what can currently
be seen from any public road within 300 feet.
simulated view.
iii. Proposed (after condition). Each of the existing condition photographs
shall have the proposed Wireless Communications Facility superimposed
on it to show what will be seen from public roads if the proposed Wireless
Communications Facility is built.
simulated view.
e. Elevations Filing Requirement. Siting elevations, or views at-grade from the
north, south, east and west for a 50-foot radius around the proposed Wireless
Communications Facility plus from all existing public and private roads that
serve the subject property. Elevations shall be at either one-quarter inch equals
one foot or one-eighth inch equals one foot scale and show the following:
The Applicant has included all elevation filing requirements on the site plan that
was submitted as part of this application.
f. Design Filing Requirements:
i. Equipment brochures for the proposed Wireless Communications
Facility such as manufacturer's specifications or trade journal reprints
shall be provided for the antennas, mounts, equipment shelters, cables as
well as cable runs, and security barrier, if any.
The equipment specifications for antennas, mounts and cables can be
found on the site plans submitted as part of this application. The Applicant
has also included an antenna specification sheet for further detail.
ii. Materials of the proposed Wireless Communications Facility specified
by generic type and specific treatment (e.g., anodized aluminum, stained
wood, painted fiberglass, etc.). These shall be provided for the antennas,
mounts, equipment shelters, cables as well as cable runs, and security
barrier, if any Colors of the proposed Wireless Communications Facility
represented by a color board showing actual colors proposed. Colors
shall be provided for the antennas, mounts, equipment shelters, cables as
well as cable runs, and security barrier, if any.
The antennas will be of similar color to what is existing on the tower. The
equipment will be placed inside of the fenced compound and are being
placed on a concrete pad located within the existing security barrier and
will not be visible. The antennas, including mounting hardware, will be
painted to match the color of the monopole.
Dimensions of the Wireless Communications Facility specified for all
three directions: height, width and breadth. These shall be provided for
the antennas, mounts, equipment shelters and security barrier, if any.
The equipment specifications for antennas, mounts and cables can be
found on the site plans submitted as part of this application. The Applicant
has also included an antenna specification sheet for further detail.
iii. Appearance shown by at least two photographic superimpositions of
the Wireless Communications Facility within the subject property. The
photographic superimpositions shall be provided for the antennas,
mounts, equipment shelters, cables as well as cable runs, and security
barrier, if any, for the total height, width and breadth.
simulated view.
iv. Landscape plan including existing trees and shrubs and those proposed
to be added, identified by size of specimen at installation and species.
The existing landscape on the parcel has been identified on the site plans
that were submitted as part of this application. In addition, the photo
simulations accurately show what is currently on the property.
v. Specifications for construction, lighting and wiring in accordance with
State and National building codes, including a description of the capacity
of the WCF, including the number and types of panels, antennas and/or
transmitter receivers that it can accommodate and the basis for these
calculations. Describe the technical, economic and other reasons for the
tower design, and the need for the tower at the proposed location.
The Applicant has submitted a structural analysis indicating the capacity
of the Wireless Communications Facility and the number/type of
equipment that is currently attached. Please see the introductory section of
this supporting statement for the technical and economic reasons for the
design and need at the specific location.
vi. A statement of the services to be supported by the proposed
communications structure;
T-Mobile Northeast, LLC, formerly known as Omnipoint
Communications, Inc., operates under T-Mobile USA, Inc. T-Mobile
Northeast LLC (“T-Mobile”), an FCC licensed carrier, is registered to
conduct business in each New England State and, in this context. TMobile USA, Inc.’s communication service is built upon the use of the
GSM and UMTS operating systems. The GSM operating system is one of
the world’s largest and
most often employed operating systems.
The company, as a whole, has been a provider of communications services
since 1996 and through a series of mergers and license acquisitions, is a
truly national wireless carrier with the largest license covered population
of all carriers. The T-Mobile brand is marketed nationally and brings
communication services from Hawaii to New England and points in
between.
vii. Describe the wireless telecommunications provider's master antenna
plan, including detailed maps, showing the precise locations,
characteristics of all antennas and towers and indicating coverage areas
for current and future antennas and towers;
The Applicant has submitted Radio Frequency Plots showing all current
Wireless Communications Facilities within the Town of Ashland. A
description of each facility is available upon request from the Board.
viii. Evidence, if applicant is sole user of a structure, that all possible
means of co-location for multiple use of antennae elsewhere have been
exhausted
The Applicant is proposing to co-locate on a structure built for the colocation of multiple users as preferred by the Town of Ashland.
ix. If lighting of the site is proposed, the applicant shall submit a
manufacturer’s computer-generated point-to-point printout, indicating the
horizontal footcandle levels at grade, within the property to be developed
and twenty-five (25) feet beyond the property lines. The printout shall
indicate the locations and types of luminaires proposed.
This sub-section is not applicable. The Applicant is not proposing any
additional lighting at the site.
x. Demonstrate that the tower and facilities comply with this regulation
This sub-section is not applicable. The Applicant is not proposing any
additional lighting at the site.
xi. The SPGA may require the applicant to perform an on-site
demonstration of the visibility of the proposed tower by means of a crane
with a mock antenna array raised to the maximum height of the proposed
tower. A colored 4' minimum diameter weather balloon held in place at
the proposed site and maximum height of the tower may be substituted for
the crane if approved by the SPGA. This demonstration shall take place
after the application for Special Permit has been made, but prior to the
close of the public hearing on said Special Permit and shall be maintained
for a 10 hour period. The date, time and location of such test shall be
advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town at least 14
days, but not more than 21 days prior to the test. Failure, in the opinion of
the SPGA, to adequately advertise this demonstration may be cause for the
SPGA to require another, properly advertised demonstration.
This sub-section is not applicable. The Applicant is proposing to mount
antennas on an existing facility.
g. Noise Filing Requirements. The applicant shall provide a statement listing the
existing and maximum future projected measurements of noise from the proposed
Wireless Communications Facilities, measured in decibels Ldn (logarithmic
scale, accounting for greater sensitivity at night), for the following:
i. Existing, or ambient: the measurements of existing noise.
The Applicant has submitted a Noise Study as part of this application.
ii. Existing plus proposed Wireless Communications Facilities: maximum
estimate of noise from the proposed Wireless Communications Facility
plus the existing noise environment. Such statement shall be certified and
signed by an acoustical engineer, stating that noise measurements are
accurate and meet the Noise Standards of this Bylaw.
The Applicant has submitted a Noise Study as part of this application.
h. Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR) Filing Requirements. Massachusetts
Department of Public Health regulation 105 CMR 122.000 requires that the
Department of Public Health approve all sites for wireless facilities with respect
to emissions. Applicant must submit a copy of the approval letter from the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health prior to project approval as part of
their application package.
Please see the letter from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health
indicating that they no longer review Wireless Communications Facilities.
The applicant shall provide a statement listing the existing and maximum future
projected measurements of RFR from the proposed Wireless Communications
Facility, for the following situations:
i. Existing, or ambient: the measurements of existing RFR.
Please see the enclosed EME Report for measurements.
ii. Existing plus proposed Wireless Communications Facilities: maximum
estimate of RFR from the proposed Wireless Communications Facility
plus the existing RFR environment.
Please see the enclosed RFR Analysis as part of this application.
iii. Certification signed by a RF engineer stating that RFR measurements
are accurate and meet FCC Guidelines as specified in the Radiofrequency
Radiation Standards sub-section of this Bylaw.
A site is considered out of compliance with FCC regulations if there are
areas that exceed the FCC exposure limits and there are no RF hazard
mitigation measures in place. Any carrier which has an installation that
contributes more than 5% of the applicable MPE must participate in
mitigating these RF hazards. Additionally, based on the FCC and MA
DPH criteria, there are no measured areas on any accessible ground
walking/working surface related to the existing site conditions that exceed
the FCC and MA DPH occupational and general population exposure
limits at this site. Please see the attached Affidavit signed by a Radio
Frequency Engineer and an EME Study prepared by EBI Consulting.
i. Federal Environmental Filing Requirements. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) applies to all applications for Wireless Communications
Facilities. NEPA is administered by the FCC via procedures adopted as Subpart
1, Section1.1301 et seq. (47 CRF Ch. I). The FCC requires that an environmental
assessment (EA) be filed with the FCC prior to beginning operations for any
Wireless Communications Facility proposed in or involving any of the following:
The FCC does not require an EA be submitted on a co-location. The Applicant
has been given a letter from the tower owner stating that they are in compliance
with the FCC.
At the time of application filing, an EA that meets FCC requirements shall be
submitted to the Town for each Wireless Communications Facility site that
requires such an EA to be submitted to the FCC.
The FCC does not require an EA be submitted on a co-location. The Applicant
has been given a letter from the tower owner stating that they are in compliance
with the FCC.
The applicant shall list location, type and amount (including trace elements) of
any materials proposed for use within the Wireless Communications Facility that
are considered hazardous by the federal, state or local government.
The Applicant will not introduce, or install, any hazardous materials on-site. If
any of these materials are proposed, the Applicant will supply a list to the
Building Inspector.
j. The Special Permit Granting Authority may waive one or more of the
application filing requirements of this section if it finds that such information is
not needed for a thorough review of a proposed Wireless Communications
Facility.
8.3.8 Monitoring and Maintenance
1. After the Wireless Communications Facility is operational, the applicant shall submit,
within 90 days of beginning operations, and at annual intervals from the date of issuance
of the Special Permit, existing measurements of RFR emitted from the WCF in aggregate
worst case conditions at 50’ foot intervals from the WCF up to 1000’ on an annual basis
to the SPGA. The report will compare the measured results to the applicant’s calculated
worst case scenario provided with its original application, to previous annual
measurements and to stated FCC limits. The report will be made available to the public
on the town web site. If the RFR levels are higher than what was indicated in its
application the applicant will be asked to provide details as to why the levels are higher
and what will be done to lower RFR to the levels approved by the SPGA. Such
measurements shall be signed and certified by a RF engineer, stating that RFR
measurements are accurate and meet FCC Guidelines as specified in the Radiofrequency
Standards section of this Bylaw. At the request of the SPGA, the applicant shall pay for
an independent and qualified third party hired by the Town to measure and report on the
levels of RFR.
The Applicant agrees to comply with this request. In addition, the Applicant agrees to pay
for an independent and qualified third party provided that the cost is reasonably
consistent with the industry standard.
2. After the Wireless Communications Facility is operational, the applicant shall submit,
within 90 days of the issuance of the Special Permit, and at annual intervals from the
date of issuance of the Special Permit, existing measurements of noise from the Wireless
Communications Facility. Such measurements shall be signed by an acoustical engineer,
stating that noise measurements are accurate and meet the Noise Standards provisions of
this Bylaw.
The Applicant agrees to comply with this request.
3. The applicant and co-applicant shall maintain the Wireless Communications Facility
in good condition. Such maintenance shall include, but shall not be limited to, painting,
structural integrity of the mount and security barrier, and maintenance of the buffer
areas, landscaping and trash removal. Verification of maintenance and structural
integrity by a certified structural engineer shall be required at the request of the Building
Commissioner on a biannual basis.
The Applicant has submitted a Structural Analysis as part of this application.
4. The WCF shall be subject to ongoing monitoring by the building commissioner with
respect to adherence to all zoning ordinances and special permit conditions, including,
but not limited to hours of operation, noise, lighting and on-site activity.
The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions placed on the Special Permit for the
proposed Wireless Communications Facility.
8.3.9 Abandonment or Discontinuation of Use
1. At such time that a licensed carrier plans to abandon or discontinue operation of a
Wireless Communications Facility, such carrier will notify the Town by certified U.S.
mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations. Such notice
shall be given no less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinuation of
operations. In the event that a licensed carrier fails to give such notice, the Wireless
Communications Facility shall be considered abandoned upon such discontinuation of
operations. If more than one WCF is located on the same structure, the facility is not
considered abandoned unless all carriers have
discontinued operations. In that case, each carrier shall be responsible for physically
removing only the equipment specific to that carrier, in accordance with the provisions of
this Bylaw.
The Applicant agrees to remove its equipment from the structure if they plan on
abandoning or discontinuing operation of the facility at this location.
2. Upon abandonment or discontinuation of use, the carrier shall physically remove the
Wireless Communications Facility within 90 days from the date of abandonment or
discontinuation of use. "Physically remove" shall include, but not be limited to:
a. Removal of antennas, mount, equipment shelters and security barriers from the
subject property.
The Applicant agrees to remove its equipment from the structure if they plan on
abandoning or discontinuing operation of the facility at this location.
b. Proper disposal of the waste materials from the site in accordance with local
and state solid waste disposal regulations.
The Applicant will follow all proper disposal methods in accordance with local
and state regulations.
c. Restoring the location of the Wireless Communications Facility to its natural
condition, except that any landscaping and grading shall remain in the after
condition.
The Applicant agrees to restore the location to its natural condition, reasonable
wear and tear accepted.
3. If a carrier fails to remove a Wireless Communications Facility in accordance with
this section of this Bylaw, the town shall have the authority to enter the subject property
and physically remove the facility. The SPGA shall require a maintenance and removal
guarantee bond for all wireless communications facilities subject to Special Permit under
this Section in the event the Town must remove the facility. The Building Commissioner
may also require such bond for facilities which are exempt from Special Permits.
The Applicant agrees to comply with this request on thirty (30) days written notice from
the Town. The Applicant agrees to supply the Town a Bond for the removal of the
Wireless Communication Facility.
8.3.10 Reconstruction or Replacement of Existing Towers and Monopoles. Modifications
to pre-existing conforming WCFs shall comply with the requirements of this Bylaw.
Modifications to pre-existing non-conforming WCFs shall meet the requirements of
Section 3.3.3 of the Zoning Bylaw (Nonconforming Structures).
The Applicant is applying for a Special Permit on a Pre-Existing Non-Conforming
Wireless Communication Facility under Section 3.3.3.
8.3.11 Independent Engineering Review. The Town may retain a technical expert to
review any of the Special Permit submission requirements required in this Bylaw and for
other technical review and advice as may be required during the Special Permit process
and required by the conditions of the Special Permit. The cost for such a technical expert
will be at the expense of the applicant.
The Applicant agrees to incur the cost of any reasonable review fee by an outside
consultant during the Special Permit process.
8.3.12 Permit to Construct. Upon receipt of a Special Permit from the SPGA, and site
plan approval from the SPGA, the applicant shall apply to the Building Commissioner for
a permit to construct, upgrade, replace or modify a WCF and shall provide written
evidence that all preconstruction conditions as may be a part of the Special Permit
decision have been satisfied.
The Applicant will comply with any and all preconstruction conditions as part of the
Special Permit decision.
8.3.13 Term of Special Permit. A Special Permit issued for any Wireless Communications
Facility over fifty (50) feet in height shall be valid for fifteen (15) years. At the end of that
time period, the Wireless Communications Facility shall be removed by the carrier or a
new Special Permit shall be required.
The Applicant agrees to comply with this request.
8.3.14 Fines And Penalties. Violations by the Applicant of above conditions, regulations,
standards or restrictions, or violation of any conditions contained in the Special Permit
or Site Plan decisions, may be subject to fines in the amount of $300 per day, at the
discretion of the SPGA and the Building Commissioner.
The Applicant agrees to comply with this request after thirty (30) days written notice for
any violation of conditions, regulations, standards or restrictions.
IV.
Conclusion
As evidenced by the materials submitted with the Application and as will be
further demonstrated by Applicant through evidence submitted to the Board at the public
hearing(s) in connection herewith, the Facility satisfies the intent and objectives of the
Ordinance. Applicant respectfully requests that the Board grant all necessary zoning
relief to install and operate the Facility. For the foregoing reasons, as well as to satisfy the
mandate of the Federal Government to facilitate competition in the telecommunications
industry as set forth in the 1996 Act, Applicant respectfully requests that the Board grant
the foregoing zoning relief. We respectfully submit that the standards for zoning relief as
set forth in the Ordinance as well as Massachusetts law relating to zoning must be
interpreted and applied such that the decision issued by the Board is in conformance with
the 1996 Act. Accordingly, a denial of the foregoing petition would effectively prohibit
Applicant from providing adequate service to the Town of Ashland and thus would be
contrary to the purpose and intent of the 1996 Act.
Regards,
John Markus Pinard
Site Acquisition
Centerline Communications LLC
Agent for T-Mobile Northeast LLC
EXHIBIT 3
Project Narrative
Re:
Property Address:
Subject:
Project Narrative
34 Albert Ray Drive
Wireless Communication Facility
The Facility will consist of three (3) wireless communication antennas mounted to the existing
monopole, one (1) E911 Global Positioning System (GPS)/GSM antenna, associated radio
cabinets mounted on a concrete pad within the 10’x20’ lease area and associated coaxial cables
housed by a cable tray. The equipment will be located at the base of the tower. The Facility is
more fully described herein and illustrated on the plans attached hereto.
The antennas will be located a height of 90’ on the existing 104’ monopole and the GPS/GSM
antenna will be placed within the leased ground space as depicted below.
The 10’x20’ leased area will be located at the base of the tower where it will house the
associated equipment cabinets:
EXHIBIT 4
Viewshed Analysis
EXHIBIT 5
T-Mobile first establishes a “site search area” to initiate its site selection process in an area where
a coverage need has been identified. The site search area is a general location where the
installation of a wireless facility would address the identified coverage need problem while still
allowing for orderly integration of the site into T-Mobile’s network, based on the engineering
criteria hand-off, frequency reuse and interference. In any site search area, T-Mobile seeks to
avoid the unnecessary proliferation of towers and to reduce the potential adverse environmental
effects of a needed facility, while at the same time ensuring the quality of service provided by the
site to users of its network.
The candidate identification process includes reviewing the applicable zoning ordinance to
identify areas within which the proposed use is allowed. Viable candidates consist of existing
structures of sufficient height from which an antenna installation can provide sufficient coverage,
or lacking such a structure, parcels located within the narrowly defined search area upon which a
tower may be constructed to a sufficient height. In order to be viable, a candidate must provide
adequate coverage to the significant gap in T-Mobile’s network. In addition, all viable candidates
must have a willing landowner with whom commercially reasonable lease terms may be
negotiated. Preference is given to locations that closely comply with local zoning ordinances, or
in the event no viable candidates are determined to be located within such areas, to identify other
potentially suitable locations, with preference given to existing structures. In the case of this
particular site search area in Ashland, T-Mobile identified two utility poles, one water tank, one
water tank, and two parcels for new tower builds.
As noted in the documentation attached, different parcels of land within and near this area were
investigated by T-Mobile for construction of a new facility. The descriptions of the individual
sites investigated include sites in and outside the search area that were analyzed and found to be
either unavailable for the siting of a facility or technically inadequate.
Prepared By: John-Markus Pinard
Date: 1/21/11
Company Affiliation: Centerline Communications LLC
Phone: (508)667-0363
Email: [email protected]
Properties Investigated
T-Mobile’s representatives identified and investigated six (6) sites in and around the Ashland site
search area where the construction of a new facility might be feasible for radio frequency
engineering purposes. The description of the individual sites investigated is set forth below.
Where applicable, the reason for eliminating the property is also included.
A. Address: 34 Albert Ray Drive
Owner: Crown Castle
Type: Colocation
Zoning District: RA – Residential A
This parcel is the primary candidate.
B. Address: Woodridge Lane
Owner: Town of Ashland
Type: Water tank
Zoning District: Residential
The parcel was not feasible from a radio
frequency perspective.
C. Address: Winter Street
Owner: NSTAR
Type: Utility Pole
D. Address: Winter Street
Owner: NSTAR
Type: Utility Pole
E. Address: Checkerberry Lane
Owner: Town of Framingham
Type: Water tank
frequency perspective. Also, the Town of
Framingham is not releasing RFPs at this
time.
F. Address: 117 Waverly Street
Owner: Shri Lakshmi Temple
Type: New tower build
\
Address
Town
Existing Structure /
Building Roof /
Property Description
Map
Key
Identify Owner
Height
Current Uses
Zoning
Surounding
Land Uses
Lat/Long
AMSL
Finding
34 Albert Ray Drive
Ashland
Monopole
A
Crown Castle
100'
Wireless
Communication
Facility
Reside
ntial
Residential
42.2736, 71.4516
317'
This parcel is the primary candidate
Woodridge Lane
Ashland
Water tank
B
Town of Ashland
65'
Water tank
Reside
ntial
Residential /
Undeveloped
42.27664, 71.469806
430'
The water tank was not feasible from a radio
Winter Street
Ashland
Utility pole
C
NSTAR
70'
Utility pole
Reside
ntial
Residential /
Undeveloped
42.27551, 71.46080
301'
The utility pole was not feasible from a radio
Winter Street
Ashland
Utility pole
D
NSTAR
70'
Utility pole
Reside
ntial
Residential
42.274779, 277'
71.460356
The utility pole was not feasible from a radio
Water tank
E
Town of Framingham
65'
Water tank
Reside
ntial
Residential
42.279409, 324'
71.447190
The water tank was not feasible from a radio
Temple
F
Shri Lakshmi Temple
100'
Temple
Reside
ntial
Residential
42.268645, 234'
71.443211
The property was not feasible from a radio
Checkerberry Lane Framingham
117 Waverly Street
Ashland
Site Analysis Maps
Radio Frequency Existing Coverage Map
Google Earth Overlay
Street Map
Zoning Map
EXHIBIT 6
Radio Frequency Affidavit
AFFIDAVIT
of
RADIO FREQUENCY EXPERT
The undersigned, hereby states the following in support of the application of T-Mobile
Northeast Inc. a wholly owned subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as
“T-Mobile”) to construct an antenna installation with related equipment cabinets at 34 Albert
Ray Drive, Ashland, MA (The “Wireless Communications Facility”):
1. I am a Radio Frequency Engineer representing T-Mobile USA, Inc. and responsible
for radio network design in Massachusetts.
2. As enabled under its Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license T-Mobile
seeks to design its wireless network in order to provide reliable wireless services to its
customers, whether those customers are on the street, in a vehicle, or in a building.
Providing reliable service to its customers in each context is critical for T-Mobile to
provide the quality of wireless service that customers demand, and to meet the
objectives of Congress that a robust, competitive and low cost wireless
communication capacity be developed to serve the entire nation.
3. I have thoroughly reviewed the radio frequency engineering studies, reports, and
computer model prepared by T-Mobile with respect to the subject wireless
communications facility. I used Asset, a propagation modeling software developed
by Aircom Inc., to simulate the proposed coverage created by the facility. This
software calculates frequency strength over distance taking into account geographical,
and topographical land features and other contributors to signal loss. Finally, this
calculation has also been adjusted by empiric data obtained from field measurement.
4. In order to meet its obligations under the radio license T-Mobile must have in place a
network of base station antenna facilities to serve portable wireless communication
devices and mobile telephones. These facilities consist of antennas mounted on a
pole, building, or other structures that are connected by cables to a small equipment
cabinet located near the antenna. These antennas transmit voice and data to
subscribers within a defined area of coverage. Likewise, the antenna receives the
radio signal from mobile transmitters (such as telephones) which then goes to
equipment located in the cabinet and to ordinary phone lines from which the
transmission may be routed anywhere in the world.
5. Wireless antenna facilities are integral to T-Mobile’s network. Each facility, servicing
only a limited area, must be carefully located so that it can properly interact with
surrounding facilities. To maintain reliable, uninterrupted service to a wireless
telephone user living and/or traveling in a given area serviced by multiple antenna
facilities, T-Mobile depends on a continuous interconnected series of facilities, which
in-part overlap in a grid or “cellular” pattern.
6. In compliance with its FCC license, T-Mobile is actively building its PCS network to
provide service in Massachusetts
Rhode Island. In order to meet its goal of providing reliable,
seamless and uninterrupted service T-Mobile must continue to acquire interest in
property for additional facilities, and is applying for and obtaining local governmental
approvals to construct the facilities in order to eliminate gaps in reliable service
coverage. Any delay at this point in time severely curtails T-Mobile’s ability to
achieve a market position that will allow it to compete for customers, which is in the
public interest.
7. Using precise computer prediction model and following a thorough review of the RF
engineering studies and reports prepared by T-Mobile it was determined that a new
facility in proximity to Albert Ray Drive, Green Street and Fountain Street in
Ashland, MA is critical to the overall engineering and technical plan for T-Mobile’s
network.
8. The subject location has specific characteristics, of topography, relationship to
existing structures and its location within the narrow search limits specified by the
above referenced computer model, makes it uniquely suitable to address T-Mobile’s
need for a proposed wireless telecommunications transmission facility. With the
above considerations the proposed site was determined to be the most appropriate
location for a facility to fill the existing gap in service coverage within the context of
available land parcels provided to me for analysis.
9. Without a wireless transmission facility located at or near this location, a significant
area of inadequate, unreliable coverage would remain in T-Mobile’s wireless network
in the vicinity of the proposed installation. This lack of service area or “gap” in
coverage would adversely impact the service T-Mobile is able to provide to
businesses and residents of Ashland as well as travelers along Albert Ray Drive,
Green Street, Fountain Street and other primary roads through and around Ashland,
MA.
10. The result of such a “gap” will be an inability for the T-Mobile customer to reliably
initiate, receive, or maintain voice and data connections, including 911 emergency
calls, from the time that subscriber leaves the service area until that subscriber
reaches that point where a quality signal is available to reinitiate the communication
link.
11. All proposed wireless communications equipment will be installed, erected,
maintained and operated in compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local
regulations, including, but not limited to: the radio frequency emissions regulations
set forth in the 1996 Federal Communications Act, applicable regulations
administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), and Massachusetts Department of Health. All
equipment proposed is authorized by the FCC Guidelines for Evaluating the
Environmental effects of Radio Frequency Emissions. The radio frequency exposure
levels generated by the proposed facility are substantially below the maximum
allowable health and safety standards established by the FCC. In addition, the
proposed equipment and transmission characteristics are in compliance with
standards set forth by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the
National Council of Radiation Protection (NCRP).
Based upon the best radio frequency technology that is available to T-Mobile at this
time, it is my professional opinion that the proposed project is necessary to ensure
adequate PCS service to area residents and businesses in accordance with system
specifications.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this 21st day of January, 2011.
Dinesh Dasani, RF Engineer
T-Mobile USA, INC.
15 Commerce Way Suite B
Norton, MA 02766
[email protected]
EXHIBIT 7
Radio Frequency Propagation Maps
33
4DE4132A
4DE4132A
Coverage Thresholds
4BN0
4BN0
-76 dBm to -84 dBm
4DE4125A
4DE4125A
-40 dBm to -76 dBm
0.5
0
TT
4DE4134A
4DE4134A
SS
TTTT
D
E
RD
SSE
RR
ER
E
U
K
K
U
R
R
H
A
PA
P
CH
AAC
S
S
ASS
MA
4BN0510A
4BN0510A
M
Ashland
4BS0538C
4BS0538C
RD
ER
RD
ER RD
DGER
BA
BADG
4BS0210A
4BS0210A
D
RD
YR
EY
DLLE
UD
D
DU
STTT
S
RS
R
ER
E
NTTTE
N
WIIIN
W
W
Framingham
4WL0731A
4WL0731A
EE
AAVV
N
ON
O
NII
UN
U
miles
EE
4DE5007ATPPKK
14DE5007A
4BN0134A
4BN0134A
4BS0498C
4BS0498C
4DE4269D
4DE4269D
Natick
4BS0503B
4BS0503B
GG
RRE
4BN1137D
4BN1137D
EEE
NN
SSTT
S
STTA
ATTE
EH
HW
WY
Y 11
3355
gh
BOI0124A
BOI0124A
4DE4129A
4DE4129A
4BS0247B
4BS0247B
4BN0167A
4BN0167A
4BN1175C
4BN1175C
44
Sherborn
4BN0138A
4BN0138A
4BN1312A
4BN1312A
4BS0609B
4BS0609B
Hopkinton
4BS0500H
4BS0500H
4BS0539A
4BS0539A
- T -Mobile---
Existing T-Mobile On Air Coverage
Coverage Threshold Descriptions
Dark Green: In-Building Coverage ( Residential)
Light Green: In-Vehicle Coverage
33
4DE4132A
4DE4132A
Coverage Thresholds
4BN0
4BN0
-76 dBm to -84 dBm
4DE4125A
4DE4125A
-40 dBm to -76 dBm
0.5
0
TT
4DE4134A
4DE4134A
SS
TTTT
D
E
RD
SSE
RR
ER
E
U
K
K
U
R
R
H
A
PA
P
CH
AAC
S
S
ASS
MA
4BN0510A
4BN0510A
M
Ashland
4BS0538C
4BS0538C
RD
ER
RD
ER RD
DGER
BA
BADG
4BS0210A
4BS0210A
D
RD
YR
EY
DLLE
UD
D
DU
STTT
S
RS
R
ER
E
NTTTE
N
WIIIN
W
W
Framingham
4WL0731A
4WL0731A
EE
AAVV
N
ON
O
NII
UN
U
miles
EE
4DE5007ATPPKK
14DE5007A
4BN0134A
4BN0134A
4BS0498C
4BS0498C
4DE4269D
4DE4269D
Natick
4BS0503B
4BS0503B
GG
RRE
4BN1137D
4BN1137D
EEE
NN
SSTT
S
STTA
ATTE
EH
HW
WY
Y 11
3355
gh
BOI0124A
BOI0124A
4DE4129A
4DE4129A
4BS0247B
4BS0247B
4BN0167A
4BN0167A
4BN1175C
4BN1175C
44
Sherborn
4BN0138A
4BN0138A
4BN1312A
4BN1312A
4BS0609B
4BS0609B
Hopkinton
4BS0500H
4BS0500H
4BS0539A
4BS0539A
- T -Mobile---
Existing T-Mobile On Air Coverage
With 4BN1137D @ 90 feet
Coverage Threshold Descriptions
Dark Green: In-Building Coverage ( Residential)
Light Green: In-Vehicle Coverage
town boundary
Brown
Brown -- 1mi
1mi from
from town
boundary
Blue
Blue -- Town
Town boundary
boundary
Grey
Grey -- Existing
Existing sites
sites
Pink
Pink -- Crown
Crown tower
tower
Ashland, MA
T-Mobile
4DE4132A
4WL1764A
4BN0129A
4DE4125A
4BS0247B
Southborough
Southborough
4DE5007A
4DE4129A
BOI0124A
4DE4134A
L0941E
4BN0134A
4DE5006A
4WL0731A
4BN0510A
4BS0210A
4BS0498C
4DE4269D
4BS0503B


4BN0167A
Ashland
Ashland
4BN0511A
4BS0538C
4BN1175C
Framingham
Framingham
4BN1312A
4BN0138A
4BS0609B
4DET51
4BS0610A
4BS0500H
4DET
4BS0539A
4BS0527B
Hopkinton
Hopkinton
Sherborn
Sherborn
Holliston
Holliston
BOI0108A
4BS0506A
4DET258C
4BN0190A
EXHIBIT 8
Noise Study
P.O. Box 4623
Portsmouth, NH 03802
603-430-2081
December 21, 2010
Tom Johnson, P.E.
ProTerra Design Group, LLC
1 Short Street, Suite 3
Northampton, MA 01060
SUBJECT: T-Mobile 4BN-1137-D Albert Ray Drive, Ashland – Noise Study
Dear Tom,
At your request, I have reviewed noise impacts associated with the addition of T-Mobile
equipment to the existing wireless communications site at 34 Albert Ray Drive in
Ashland, MA.
Noise Criteria and Reporting Requirements
The Town of Ashland Bylaw Section 8.3 “Wireless Communication Facilities” addresses
noise in two parts:
8.3.4, h, iv: Ground-mounted equipment for Wireless Communications Facilities shall not
generate noise in excess of 50 dB at the property line.
8.3.9.9 g: Noise Filing Requirements. The applicant shall provide a statement listing the existing
and maximum future projected measurements of noise from the proposed Wireless
Communications Facilities, measured in decibels Ldn (logarithmic scale, accounting for greater
sensitivity at night), for the following:
i. Existing, or ambient: the measurements of existing noise.
ii. Existing plus proposed Wireless Communications Facilities: maximum estimate of
noise from the proposed Wireless Communications Facility plus the existing noise
environment.
Such statement shall be certified and signed by an acoustical engineer, stating that noise
measurements are accurate and meet the Noise Standards of this Bylaw.
Existing Noise Monitoring
In order to assess the existing noise levels at the site, as required by the town’s bylaws, a
sound monitor was installed at the property line location closest to the proposed
equipment. The attached Figure 1 shows the locations of the proposed equipment and the
sound monitor.
The monitor was programmed to run for a period of 3 days, beginning Thursday,
December 9. Data were collected in 1-hour intervals. The attached Figure 2 presents the
data collected.
MEMBER
FIRM,
NATIONAL
COUNCIL
OF
ACOUSTICAL
CONSULTANTS
Tom Johnson, T-Mobile 4BN-1137-D Noise Study
Page 2 of 5
This plot includes three statistical descriptors: LEQ, L90 and L01. The L90 represents the
sound pressure level exceeded during 90% of the measurement interval. This is generally
considered to be the ambient or background sound level. The L01 represents the level
exceeded during only 1% of the 1-hour interval. This represents the loudest normallyoccurring short-duration events, such as car pass-bys.
The LEQ represents the energy-average sound pressure level during each 1-hour period.
These data are used for the calculation of LDN, as required by the bylaw. The LDN was
calculated for each of the two full days measured (midnight to midnight) The LDN the
first day was 51.4 dBA and the LDN the second day was 54 dBA. Wind and rain on
Saturday likely accounts for the difference in LDN.
A conservative estimate of the LDN at the site is the lower of the two, 51.4 dBA.
Proposed Equipment
T-Mobile plans to install 3 pieces of equipment at the site that generate noise. These are:
•
•
Two (2) Ericsson RBS 2106 Cabinets with Andrew Micro-3 Boosters
One (1) Ericsson RBS 3106 Cabinet with Andrew Micro-3 Booster
These are to be located at the positions shown in Figure 1.
The noise associated with these units is from the built-in cooling equipment. This
equipment cycles on and off, based on heat load.
I understand that the perimeter fence at this site has a height of 10 feet, and is lined with
1-inch thick sound-absorbing material.
Maximum Sound Level
According to sound data supplied by the manufacturer, and taking into account the
shielding provided by the perimeter fence, the total maximum sound pressure level at the
nearest property line would be 48 dBA. This is below the limit of 50 dBA provided in
the bylaw.
It should be noted that this level would only occur if all three units were to cycle on
simultaneously. This would be unlikely during nighttime hours.
Future LDN
In order to calculate the future LDN, the LDN of the equipment operating in the absence of
any other sound sources was added to the existing LDN at the site. As LDN is a measure of
accumulated noise over a period of 24 hours, the percentage of time that each unit cycles
on must be known in order to do this calculation.
Page 3 of 5
I have assumed in my calculations that each of these units would be on 50% of the time
during the day, and 30% of the time at night (when heat loads are lower). Based on my
experience with these cabinets, I believe these assumptions to be conservative. For this
calculation, the number of units cycling on simultaneously has no effect on the result.
Based on these assumptions, the contribution to the LDN from the new equipment would
be 49.7 dBA. Combined with the existing LDN of 51.4 dBA, the total future LDN would
be 53.6 dBA.
The bylaw requires that the current and future LDN be calculated, but does not provide
any limits.
Summary
Based on the manufacturer’s sound data, the proposed equipment will produce a
maximum level of 48 dBA. This complies with the limit of 50 dBA, as required by the
town’s bylaw.
The existing LDN is 51.4 dBA, and the estimated future LDN is 53.6 dBA. The bylaw does
not provide any limit for LDN.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Eric L. Reuter, INCE Bd. Cert.
Principal
Proposed
Equipment
Figure 1 - Monitor Location
Page 4 of 5
Monitor
Location
Page 5 of 5
T-Mobile 4BN-1137-D
34 Albert Ray Drive, Ashland, MA
80
60
50
40
Thursday
Dec 9, 2010
Friday
Dec 10, 2010
Saturday
Dec 11, 2010
Ldn = 51.4
Ldn = 54.0
Sunday
Dec 12, 2010
30
Hour Beginning
LAeq
LA90
Figure 2 - Sound Monitor Data
LA01
Noon
6:00:00
Midnight
18:00:00
Noon
6:00:00
Midnight
18:00:00
Noon
6:00:00
Midnight
18:00:00
20
Noon
Sound Levels (dBA)
70
EXHIBIT 9
EME Report
Radio Frequency – Electromagnetic Energy (RF-EME)
Compliance Report
Prepared for:
T-Mobile USA
c/o C. David Associates
66-E. Concord Street
Wilmington, MA 01887
Site No. 4BN1137D
Albert Ray Drive
Crown Castle Site 806042
34 Albert Ray Drive
Ashland, Massachusetts 01721
42.273599; -71.451551 NAD83
EBI Project No. 62110004
January 14, 2011
RF-EME Compliance Report
Site No. 4BN1137D
34 Albert Ray Drive, Ashland, Massachusetts
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... 1
1.0
SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ 2
2.0
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIREMENTS ................................... 2
3.0
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH (MA DPH) REQUIREMENTS ............ 4
4.0
WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING................................................................................. 5
5.0
MITIGATION/SITE CONTROL OPTIONS ................................................................................ 5
6.0
SITE AND VICINITY SURVEY .................................................................................................. 6
7.0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 6
8.0
LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 6
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Antenna Inventory
Modeling Export Files
Modeling Graphics
Compliance/Signage Plan
Site Photographs
Site Plan with Monitoring Results
Site Survey Data
21 B Street Burlington, MA 01803 1.800.786.2346
i
Site No. 4BN1137D
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of Report
EnviroBusiness Inc. (dba EBI Consulting) has been contracted by T-Mobile USA, to conduct radio
frequency electromagnetic (RF-EME) monitoring and modeling for T-Mobile Site 4BN1137D located at 34
Albert Ray Drive in Ashland, Massachusetts to determine RF-EME exposure levels from proposed TMobile wireless communications equipment at this site. As described in greater detail in Section 2.0 of
this report, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Massachusetts Department of Public
Health (MA DPH) have developed Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Limits for general population
exposures and occupational exposures. This report summarizes the results of RF-EME monitoring and
modeling in relation to relevant FCC and DPH RF-EME compliance standards for limiting human
exposure to RF-EME fields.
EBI field personnel visited this site on January 6, 2011. This report contains a detailed summary of the
RF EME analysis for the site, including the following:
Antenna Inventory
Site Plan with antenna locations
Antenna inventory with relevant parameters for theoretical modeling
Graphical representation of theoretical MPE fields based on modeling
Graphical representation of recommended signage
Site Photographs
Graphic representation of on-site monitoring results
This document addresses the compliance of T-Mobile’s transmitting facilities independently and in
relation to all collocated facilities at the site.
Statement of Compliance
A site is considered out of compliance with FCC regulations if there are areas that exceed the FCC
exposure limits and there are no RF hazard mitigation measures in place. Any carrier which has an
installation that contributes more than 5% of the applicable MPE must participate in mitigating these RF
hazards.
Additionally, based on the FCC and MA DPH criteria, there are no measured areas on any accessible
ground walking/working surface related to the existing site conditions that exceed the FCC and MA
DPH occupational and general population exposure limits at this site.
1
1.0
Site No. 4BN1137D
SITE DESCRIPTION
This project involves the proposed installation of up to three (3) wireless telecommunication antennas
on a monopole in Ashland, Massachusetts. The Sector A antenna is oriented 0° from true north. The
Sector B antenna is oriented 120° from true north. The Sector C antenna is oriented 240° from true
north. The bottoms of the antennas are 87 feet above ground level.
Access to this site is accomplished via a compound access gate. The access gate is unlocked and, as such,
the general public is able to access the flagpole. Access to the antennas is accomplished by elevating
workers to antenna level.
EBI conducted a site visit on January 6, 2011. At the time of the site visit, AT&T, Metro PCS and
Verizon antennas were present in the flag pole. Measurements were taken at the ground to record
existing RF-EME levels resulting from these antennas prior to the installation of T-Mobile's equipment.
This other carrier was also included in the modeling analysis using elevations collected on site and
assumed parameters. Appendix E contains site photos taken on January 6, 2011 during the on-site
survey. Appendix F presents a site plan indicating monitoring and antenna locations. Appendix G
contains climate and site observations recorded during the site visit.
2.0
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REQUIREMENTS
The FCC has established Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for human exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic (RF-EME) energy fields, based on exposure limits recommended by the
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and, over a wide range of
frequencies, the exposure limits developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
(IEEE) and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to replace the 1982 ANSI
guidelines. Limits for localized absorption are based on recommendations of both ANSI/IEEE and
NCRP.
The FCC guidelines incorporate two separate tiers of exposure limits that are based upon
occupational/controlled exposure limits (for workers) and general population/uncontrolled exposure
limits for members of the general public.
Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a
consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully
aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/
controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental
passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general population/uncontrolled limits
(see below), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and
can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means.
General population/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may
be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be
made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure.
Therefore, members of the general public would always be considered under this category when
exposure is not employment-related, for example, in the case of a telecommunications tower that
exposes persons in a nearby residential area.
Table 1 and Figure 1 (below), which are included within the FCC’s OET Bulletin 65, summarize the MPE
limits for RF emissions. These limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. They vary
by frequency to take into account the different types of equipment that may be in operation at a
2
Site No. 4BN1137D
particular facility and are “time-averaged” limits to reflect different durations resulting from controlled
and uncontrolled exposures.
The FCC’s MPEs are measured in terms of power (mW) over a unit surface area (cm2). Known as the
power density, the FCC has established an occupational MPE of 5 milliwatts per square centimeter
(mW/cm2) and an uncontrolled MPE of 1 mW/cm2 for equipment operating in the 1900 MHz frequency
range. These limits are considered protective of these populations.
Table 1. FCC OET 65 Non-Occupational Radiofrequency Exposure Limits for the General Public
Maximum Allowed
Frequency Range
Mean Squared Electric Field
2
Strength (V/m)
W ave Mean Squared Magnetic
2
Field Strength (A/m)
Equivalent Plane Free Space
2
Power Density (mW/cm )
300kHz - 1.34MHz
1.34MHz-30MHz
30MHz-300MHz
300MHz-1500MHz
1500MHz-100GHz
376,996
2
678,976/f
756
-
2.657
2
4.976/f
0.005
-
100.0
2
180/f
0.2
f/1500
1.0
Table 2. FCC OET 65 Occupational Radiofrequency Exposure Limits for Employees
Maximum Allowed
Wave Mean Squared Magnetic
Frequency Range
2
2
Strength (V/m)
0.3MHz - 3MHz
376,996
2.657
2
2
3392964/f
23.911/f
3MHz-30MHz
30MHz-300MHz
3,770
0.027
300MHz-1500MHz
1500MHz-100GHz
-
2
100.0
2
900/f
1.0
f/300
5.0
Based on the above, the most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to RF energy
for several personal wireless services are summarized below:
Personal Wireless Service
Broadband Radio (BRS) /
Educational Broadband (EBS)
Personal Communication (PCS)
Cellular Telephone
Approximate
Frequency
Occupational
MPE
Public MPE
2600 MHz
5.00 mW/cm2
1.00 mW/cm2
1,950 MHz
870 MHz
5.00 mW/cm2
2.90 mW/cm2
1.00 mW/cm2
0.58 mW/cm2
3
Site No. 4BN1137D
Personal Wireless Service
Approximate
Frequency
Occupational
MPE
Public MPE
855 MHz
30-300 MHz
2.85 mW/cm2
1.00 mW/cm2
0.57 mW/cm2
0.20 mW/cm2
Specialized Mobile Radio
Most Restrictive Freq, Range
MPE limits are designed to provide a substantial margin of safety. These limits apply for continuous
exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age,
gender, size, or health.
Wireless facilities used by T-Mobile in this area operate at a frequency of 1900 MHz. Facilities typically
consist of: 1) electronic transceivers (the radios or cabinets) connected to wired telephone lines; and 2)
antennas that send the wireless signals created by the transceivers to be received by individual
subscriber units. Transceivers are typically connected to antennas by coaxial cables.
Because of the short wavelength of wireless services, the antennas require line-of-site paths for good
propagation, and are typically installed above ground level. Antennas are constructed to concentrate
energy towards the horizon, with as little energy as possible scattered towards the ground or the sky.
This design, combined with the low power of T-Mobile’s wireless antennas, generally results in no
possibility for exposure to approach Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) levels, with the exception of
areas directly in front of the antennas.
3.0
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH (MA DPH) REQUIREMENTS
The purpose of 105 CMR 122.000 is to prevent possible harmful effects to the general public from
exposure to electromagnetic fields in the frequency range of 300 kHz to 100 GHz and to employees
from occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields in the frequency range of 10 kHz to 100 GHz.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MADPH) standards apply to any fixed facility operating
in the 300 kHz to 100 GHz frequency range, any person who operates or controls the operation of
such facility, any occupational exposure of employees by facilities generating electromagnetic fields
between 10 kHz to 100 GHz, and to any person or employer who operates such facility. The proposed
antennas operate at the design frequency of 1900 MHz and are subject to the MADPH standards.
Like the FCC, the MADHP measures MPE in terms of power (milliwatts or mW) over a unit surface
area (cm2). The applicable MPE limits for an installation are a function of the frequency of transmission
as presented in Table 3 for the general public and Table 4 for RF trained workers.
Table 3. Massachusetts 105 CMR 122.015 Non-Occupational Radiofrequency Exposure Limits for the General Public
Maximum Allowed
Frequency Range
2
Strength (V/m)
W ave Mean Squared Magnetic
2
2
300kHz - 3MHz
3MHz-30MHz
30MHz-300MHz
300MHz-1500MHz
1500MHz-100GHz
80,000
2
800(900/f )
800
800(f/300)
4,000
0.5
2
0.005(900/f )
0.005
0.005(f/300)
0.025
20.0
2
180/f
0.2
f/1500
1.0
4
Site No. 4BN1137D
Table 4. Massachusetts 105 CMR 122.015 Occupational Radiofrequency Exposure Limits for Employees
Maximum Allowed
Wave Mean Squared Magnetic
Frequency Range
2
2
2
Strength (V/m)
10kHz - 3MHz
400,000
2.5
100.0
2
2
2
0.025(900/f )
900/f
4,000(900/f )
3MHz-30MHz
30MHz-300MHz
4,000
0.025
1.0
300MHz-1500MHz
4,000(f/300)
0.025(f/300)
f/300
1500MHz-100GHz
20,000
0.125
5.0
For equipment at this site, which operates at a frequency of approximately 1900 MHz, the MDPH’s
maximum allowed equivalent plane free space power density for general population exposure is
1.0mW/cm². For equipment transmitting at a frequency of 1900 MHz, the occupational MPE limit is 5.0
mW/cm² as shown in Table 4.
4.0
WORST-CASE PREDICTIVE MODELING
EBI performed theoretical modeling using RoofView® and/or TowerCalc® software to estimate the
worst-case power density at the site resulting from operation of the antennas. TowerCalc® and
RoofView® are widely-used predictive modeling programs that has been developed by Richard Tell
Associates to predict both near field and far field RF power density values for roof-top and tower
telecommunications sites produced by vertical collinear antennas that are typically used in the BRS,
cellular, PCS, paging and other communications services. The models utilize several operational
specifications for different types of antennas to produce a plot of spatially-averaged power densities that
can be expressed as a percentage of the applicable exposure limit.
For this report, EBI utilized antenna and power data provided by T-Mobile, and compared the resultant
worst-case MPE levels to the FCC’s exposure limits outlined in OET Bulletin 65 and Massachusetts 105
CMR 122.015. The assumptions used in the modeling are based upon information provided by T-Mobile,
and information gathered from other sources. AT&T, Metro PCS and Verizon also have antennas on
the monopole. Information about these antennas was not included in the ground-level modeling analysis.
EBI has performed theoretical modeling to estimate the worst-case power density from each antenna.
The transmitter power output used in the model is based on a 6-6-6 radio configuration for Sectors AB-C. Based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled areas on any accessible
ground/roof-level walking/working surface related to the proposed T-Mobile antennas that exceed the
FCC’s occupational or general population exposure limits at this site.
At the nearest walking/working surfaces to the T-Mobile antennas, the maximum power density
generated by the T-Mobile antennas is approximately 0.10 percent of the FCC and MA DPH general
population limit (0.02 percent of the FCC and MA DPH occupational limit).
The inputs used in the modeling are summarized in the RoofView® and TowerCalc® export files
presented in Appendix B. A graphical representation of the RoofView® and TowerCalc® modeling
results is presented in Appendix C.
5.0
MITIGATION/SITE CONTROL OPTIONS
EBI recommends the following to control exposure around the antennas. In order to alert workers, a
blue “Notice” sign should be posted at the access point to the tower. A yellow “Caution” sign and a
red “Tower Climber Warning” sign should be posted at the base of the tower. Individuals and workers
5
Site No. 4BN1137D
accessing the site should be made aware of the posted signs and should follow the posted instructions.
For additional information on signs posted at this facility, refer to the Signage Plan in Appendix D.
Individuals and workers having access to the tower should be provided with a copy of this plan and
should signify their understanding of its instructions.
6.0
SITE AND VICINITY SURVEY
EBI performed a ground level RF-EME survey on January 6, 2011. The antenna inventory (based upon
the site survey) and site photos taken from ground level are presented in Appendices F and G,
respectively.
Monitoring was performed using a Narda NBM520 Electromagnetic Radiation Survey Meter, Serial #B0496 with a Narda EA5091 Shaped Probe with a frequency range of 300kHz-3GHz. The meter was last
calibrated on November 29, 2010. This meter was programmed to measure the total power density for
all electromagnetic radiation within the 300kHz-50GHz frequency range and report the power density
as a percent of the FCC’s controlled MPE. During this survey, no spatially averaged readings above
6.050% of the FCC’s controlled MPE (1.210% of the uncontrolled MPE) were encountered on any
ground surface. A site plan depicting monitoring locations and measurements of power density can be
found in Appendix F. Appendix G contains notes from the site survey.
At the time of the site survey, there was existing signage indicating the presence of RF emitting
equipment at the site, including an owner identification sign, two RF Notice signs, two No Trespassing
signs, and a yellow Caution sign.
7.0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
EBI has prepared this Radiofrequency Emissions Compliance Report for the proposed T-Mobile
telecommunications equipment at the site located at 1059 Millbury Street in Worcester, Massachusetts.
EBI has conducted theoretical modeling to estimate the worst-case power density from T-Mobile
antennas and other carriers’ antennas to document potential MPE levels at this location and ensure that
site control measures are adequate to meet FCC, MA DPH and OSHA requirements. As presented in
the preceding sections, based on worst-case predictive modeling, there are no modeled exposures on
any accessible ground-level walking/working surface related to proposed equipment in the area that
exceed the FCC and MA DPH occupational and general population exposure limits at this site. As such,
the proposed T-Mobile project is in compliance with FCC and MA DPH rules and regulations.
Additionally, based on the FCC and MA DPH criteria, there are no measured areas on any accessible
ground-level walking/working surface related to the existing site conditions that exceed the FCC and
MA DPH occupational and general population exposure limits at this site.
RF-EME Signage is recommended for installation to alert workers and the general public of the presence
of RF-emitting equipment at this site and of the potential hazards associated with accessing the
equipment. Signage should be installed upon construction of the site and is required by the FCC for all
RF-transmitting facilities.
8.0
LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared for the use of T-Mobile USA. It was performed in accordance with generally
accepted practices of other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same
locale under like circumstances. The conclusions provided by EBI are based solely on the information
6
Site No. 4BN1137D
collected during the site survey andprovided by the client. The observations in this report are valid on
the date of the investigation. Any additional information that becomes available concerning the site
should be provided to EBI so that our conclusions may be revised and modified, if necessary. This
report has been prepared in accordance with Standard Conditions for Engagement and authorized
proposal, both of which are integral parts of this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is
made.
7
Site No. 4BN1137D
Appendix A
Antenna Inventory
Site No. 4BN1137D
Operator
TX Freq
(MHz)
Gain
(dBd)
Azimuth
(deg.)
Length
(ft)
Horizontal
Beamwidth
(Deg.)
X
Y
TMO A1
T-Mobile
GSM 1900
18.8
0
6
66
40
40
87
TMO B1
T-Mobile
GSM 1900
18.8
120
6
66
44
33
87
TMO C1
T-Mobile
GSM 1900
18.8
240
6
66
36
34
87
ATT A1
AT&T
850
16
10
4.5
86
Unknown
Unknown
88
ATT A2
AT&T
850
16
10
4.5
86
Unknown
Unknown
88
ATT B1
AT&T
850
16
120
4.5
86
Unknown
Unknown
88
ATT B2
AT&T
850
16
120
4.5
86
Unknown
Unknown
88
ATT C1
AT&T
850
16
260
4.5
86
Unknown
Unknown
88
ATT C2
AT&T
850
16
260
4.5
86
Unknown
Unknown
88
MPCS A1
Metro PCS
1900
16
90
6
85
Unknown
Unknown
93
MPCS B1
Metro PCS
1900
16
240
6
85
Unknown
Unknown
93
MPCS C1
Metro PCS
1900
16
350
6
85
Unknown
Unknown
93
VZN A1
Verizon
850
16
50
5
85
Unknown
Unknown
98
VZN A2
Verizon
850
16
50
5
85
Unknown
Unknown
98
VZN A3
Verizon
850
16
50
5
85
Unknown
Unknown
98
VZN A4
Verizon
850
16
50
5
85
Unknown
Unknown
98
VZN B1
Verizon
850
16
170
5
85
Unknown
Unknown
98
VZN B2
Verizon
850
16
170
5
85
Unknown
Unknown
98
VZN B3
Verizon
850
16
170
5
85
Unknown
Unknown
98
VZN B4
Verizon
850
16
170
5
85
Unknown
Unknown
98
VZN C1
Verizon
850
16
280
5
85
Unknown
Unknown
98
VZN C2
Verizon
850
16
280
5
85
Unknown
Unknown
98
VZN C3
Verizon
850
16
280
5
85
Unknown
Unknown
98
VZN C4
Verizon
850
16
280
5
85
Unknown
Unknown
98
Antenna
Number
1. Note that EBI uses an assumed set of antenna specifications and powers for unknown and other carrier antennas for modeling purposes.
Z
Site No. 4BN1137D
Appendix B
Modeling Export Files
Site No. Report
4BN1137D
RF-EME Compliance
34 Albert
Ray Drive, Ashland, Massachusetts
EBI Project No.
62110004
Done on 1/12/2011 at 10:52:27 PM.
Use this format to prepare other data sets for the TowerView workbook file.
You may use as many rows in this TOP header as you wish.
The critical point is the cells in COLUMN ONE that read 'Start...' (eg. StartTowerDefinition)
These (2) headers are required to be spelled exactly, as one word (eg. StartTowerDefinition)
The very next row will be considered the start of the data.
The first row of the data section can be a header (as shown below), but this is optional.
When building a workbook file for import, Add the Tower info first, then the Antenna data.
All rows above the first marker line 'Start...' will be ignored, no matter how many there are.
This area is for you use for documentation.
-- End of help comments.
You can place as much text here as you wish
as long as you don't place it below the Start Tower Definition row below the blue line.
You may insert more rows using the Insert menu.
Should you need additional lines to document your project, simply insert additional rows by highlighting
the row number adjacent to the blue line below and then clicking on the Insert menu and selecting rows.
StartTowerDefinition
Starting Ht Ending Ht Tower Ht
0
200
180
StartAntennaData
It is advisable to provide an ID (col 1) for all antennas
(MHz)
Trans
Trans
Coax
Coax
ID
Name
Freq
Power
Count
Len
Type
TMO A1 GSM
1900
28.2
6
110 7/8 LDF
TMO B1 GSM
1900
28.2
6
110 7/8 LDF
TMO C1 GSM
1900
28.2
6
110 7/8 LDF
Other
Loss
Input
Power
1.46
1.46
1.46
Calc
Power
Mfg
85.23154
85.23154
85.23154
Model
(ft)
X
(ft)
Z
0
0
0
Not used
Y
87
87
87
Type
(ft)
Aper
Not used
dBd
Gain
6
18.8
6
18.8
6
18.8
Not used
BWdth
Theta
66;0
66;0
66;0
ON
flag
ON•
OFF
OFF
Map, Settings, Antenna, and Symbol Data Table .. Exported from workbook -> RoofView 4.15.xls
Done on 1/12/2011 at 11:40:01 PM.
Use this format to prepare other data sets for the RoofView workbook file.
You may use as many rows in this TOP header as you wish.
The critical point are the cells in COLUMN ONE that read 'Start...' (eg. StartMapDefinition)
If used, these (4) headers are required to be spelled exactly, as one word (eg. StartMapDefinition)
The very next row will be considered the start of that data block.
The first row of the data block can be a header (as shown below), but this is optional.
When building a text file for import, Add the Map info first, then the Antenna data, followed by the symbol data.
All rows above the first marker line 'Start...' will be ignored, no matter how many there are.
This area is for you use for documentation.
End of help comments.
You can place as much text here as you wish as long as you don't place it below
the Start Map Definition row below the blue line.
You may insert more rows using the Insert menu.
Should you need additional lines to document your project, simply insert additional rows
by highlighting the row number adjacent to the blue line below and then clicking on the Insert menu
and selecting rows.
StartMapDefinition
Roof Max YRoof Max XMap Max YMap Max XY Offset X Offset Number of envelope
Areas
70
70
90
90
10
10
1 $U$141:$CL$210
$U$141:$CL$210
StartSettingsData
Standard Method Uptime
Scale FactorLow Thr Low Color Mid Thr Mid Color Hi Thr
Hi Color Over Color Ap Ht Mult Ap Ht Method
3
2
3
1
20
1
50
2
100
2
3
1.5
1
StartAntennaData
It is advisable to provide an ID (ant 1) for all antennas
(MHz)
Trans
Trans
Coax
Coax
Other
Input
Calc
(ft)
(ft)
ID
Name
Freq
Power
Count
Len
Type
Loss
Power
Power
Mfg
Model
X
Y
TMO A1 GSM
1900
28.2
6
110 7/8 LDF
1.46
85.23154
40
TMO B1 GSM
1900
28.2
6
110 7/8 LDF
1.46
85.23154
44
TMO C1 GSM
1900
28.2
6
110 7/8 LDF
1.46
85.23154
36
StartSymbolData
Sym
Map MarkerRoof X
Roof Y
Map Label Description ( notes for this table only )
Sym
5
35 AC Unit
Sample symbols
Sym
14
5 Roof Access
Sym
45
5 AC Unit
Sym
45
20 Ladder
List Of Areas
$U$141:$CL$210
(ft)
Z
40
33
34
Type
87 VC
87 VC
87 VC
(ft)
Aper
dBd
Gain
6
6
6
BWdth
Pt Dir
18.8 66;8
18.8 66;128
18.8 66;248
Uptime
Profile
ON
flag
ON•
ON•
ON•
Site No. 4BN1137D
Appendix C
Modeling Graphics
Note: RF EME for other carriers is
not evaluated as part of the elevation
plan.
T-Mobile Antennas
Sector A
0o
Sector B
120o
Sector C
240o
ANTENNA PLAN
SCALE: 1 in = 20 ft
Exposure control areas: Individuals
accessing the tower should understand the
three exposure control areas and the actions
necessary to control their exposure to
radiofrequency energy (refer to the map to
identify the three exposure control areas).
Blue: The Blue Exposure Control Area
represents areas on the tower where the
power density is emitted below the FCC’s
uncontrolled and the occupational MPE.
Individuals may work freely within the blue
exposure control areas on the tower.
Yellow: The Yellow Exposure Control Area
represents areas associated with the tower
where the calculated power density is greater
than the uncontrolled MPE but less than the
FCC’s occupational MPE. At the level of the
antenna face, this area is found from more
than 3 ft but less than 11 ft in front of the face
of the antennas. Occupational exposure in
these areas should be limited to less than 30
minutes unless proper personal protective
equipment is utilized by qualified individuals
with proper safety training. Access by the
general public should not be allowed.
Red: The Red Exposure Control Area
represents areas associated with the tower
where the calculated power density exceeds
the recommended FCC occupational MPE.
At the level of the antenna face, this area is
found within 3 ft in front of the face of the
antennas. Occupational exposure in these
areas should be limited to brief incursions by
qualified individuals with proper safety
training. Generally, other individuals should
be restricted from entering this area until
they have contacted T-Mobile who will turn
off their transmitter using OSHA approved
lockout/tagout procedures.
ELEVATION VIEW
Power density is greater than the FCC’s uncontrolled MPE,
but less than the FCC’s occupational MPE
Power density is greater than the FCC’s occupational MPE
PLAN DEVELOPED BY EBI CONSULTING BASED UPON BASE PLAN
PREPARED BY PRO TERRA DESIGN GROUP, LLC DATED 12-16-10
RF/EME Safety Plan
Facility Operator: T-Mobile USA
Site Name: Crown Castle Site 806042
Site Number: 4BN1137D
Report Date: 1-6-11
Site No. 4BN1137D
Appendix D
Compliance/Signage Plan
Description
Posting Instructions
Sign A: Blue 8-1/2” x 11”
Used to notify individuals they
are entering an area where the
power density emitted from
transmit antennas is within the
FCC’s MPE limit for the general
public.
Securely post at all first points of
access to the antennas (at both
compound access gates) in a
manner conspicuous to all
individuals entering thereon.
Denote Site ID Number on Sign
in Permanent Marker.
Sign B: Yellow 8-1/2” x 11”
Used for horizontal and vertical
setbacks from RF EME exposures
to caution individuals that they
are entering an area where the
power density emitted from
transmit antennas may exceed
the FCC’s MPE limit for the
general public, but is less than the
occupational exposure limit.
Securely post at the base of the
tower in a manner conspicuous
to all individuals entering thereon.
Denote Site ID Number and
Distance “9” (from Plan View) on
Sign in Permanent Marker.
Sign F: Red 8-1/2” x 11”
Used for vertical setbacks from
RF EME exposures to warn
individuals that they are entering
an area where the power density
emitted from transmit antennas
may exceed the FCC’s MPE limit
for occupational exposure.
Securely mount 48 inches above
grade at the base of the tower at
the location identified on the
plan, in a manner conspicuous to
all individuals entering thereon.
Denote Site ID Number and
Distance “79” (from Plan View)
Inscribed on Sign in Permanent
Marker.
“9”
“79”
W
W
W
SCALE: 1 in = 10 ft
EQUIPMENT COMPOUND PLAN VIEW
RF/EME Safety Plan
PLAN DEVELOPED BY EBI CONSULTING BASED UPON BASE PLAN
PREPARED BY PRO TERRA DESIGN GROUP, LLC DATED 12-16-10
Facility Operator: T-Mobile USA
Site Number: 4BN1137D
Report Date: 1-6-11
Site No. 4BN1137D
Appendix E
Site Photographs
1.
Site overview
4.
Signage 2 and 3on access gate
2.
Access gate
5.
AT&T equipment shelter and access gate
to inside compound equipment and
existing signage
3.
Signage 1 on access gate
6.
Existing signage detail
7.
Verizon equipment shelter
10.
Antennas detail_2
8.
Existing signage at the base of the tower
11.
Antennas zoom with AT&T antennas (2-22) at the bottom
9.
Antennas detail_1
12.
Antennas overview, from top to bottom:
Verizon, Metro PCS and AT&T
13.
Other antenna (total 3, 1-1-1) at the top,
with the 12 Verizon antennas
15.
Metro PCS equipment
14.
GPS antennas inside compound
16.
Inactive equipment (Sprint)
Site No. 4BN1137D
Appendix F
Site Plan with Monitoring Locations
♦5.0450
♦4.9300
♦0.0420
♦5.2050
♦0.1500
♦0.0795
♦6.0500
♦0.3770
Metro PCS equipment
♦1.6145
♦0.4090
♦5.6910
♦4.3940
♦4.5115
♦2.2990
AT&T equipment shelter
Verizon equipment shelter
♦4.0205
♦4.8690
♦4.5105
♦4.4325
♦4.9215
Spatially-Averaged Measurements
♦
Other Carrier Antennas
Site Plan with Monitoring Results
Facility Operator: AT&T Mobility
LEGEND
T-Mobile Antennas
♦4.8865
% FCC General Public Limit
Access gate
AT&T Site Number: 4BN1137D
Site Visit Date: 12-06-11
Site No. 4BN1137D
Appendix G
Site Survey Data
Surveyor Name
Site No. 4BN1137D
Patricia Briea
Site Visit Date
1-6-11
Site Information
Middlesex County
Crown Castle Site 806042
34 Albert Ray Drive
Ashland, Massachusetts 01721
Site Coordinates (NAD83):
42.273599; -71.451551
MONITOR INFORMATION
PROBE INFORMATION
Monitor Model #
NBM520
Probe Model #
EA5091
Monitor Serial #
B-0496
Probe Serial #
01040
Calibration Date
11-29-10
Calibration Date
11-29-10
Next Recommended
Calibration Date
11-29-12
Next Recommended
Calibration Date
11-29-12
CLIMATE INFORMATION
Temperature (oF)
31 oF
Sunny/Overcast/Cloudy
Sunny
Windy/Mild Breeze/No Wind
No wind
Next Recommended
Rainy/Drizzle/Foggy/Snowy
Other Noteworthy weather factors that
might influence readings (Lightning)
Type of facility:
Proposed T-Mobile Site (no T-Mobile equipment or antennas
currently present onsite) : Monopole/collocation tower
Client Contact Information:
Julia Carr (401) 241-0129; John Markus Pinard (508) 667-0363
Property Owner and Contact Number
Crown Castle 1-877-486-9377
M-RFSC Name
Who manages Access (e.g. security,
landlord, no one)
No one
How is access managed? (locks, sign-in,
etc)
Gate appears locked, but it is not. The existing lock
does not connect to the inside part of the gate, so if
you lift the metal bar inside and push, the gate opens.
Ease of access, in general (e.g. ease of
breaching any access physical controls)
Easy
EXHIBIT 10
Structural Analysis
The enclosed is a summary letter of the Analysis. The Applicant will submit the entire
report as part of the Building Permit process.
EXHIBIT 11
FCC Licenses
EXHIBIT 12
Antenna Specification Sheet
Technical Data Sheet
APX16DWV-16DWVS-C
Product Description
A combination of two X-Polarized antennas in a single
radome, this pair of variable tilt antennas provides
exceptional suppression of all upper sidelobes at all downtilt
angles. It also features a wide downtilt range. This antenna
is optimized for performance across the entire frequency
band (1710-2200 MHz).
Features/Benefits
•Variable electrical downtilt - provides enhanced precision in controlling intercell interference. The tilt is infield
adjustable 0-10 deg.
•High Suppression of all Upper Sidelobes (Typically <-20dB).
•Gain tracking – difference between AWS UL (1710-1755 MHz) and DL (2110-2155 MHz) <1dB.
•Two X-Polarised panels in a single radome.
•Azimuth horizontal beamwidth difference <4deg between AWS UL (1710-1755 MHz) and DL (2110-2155
MHz).
•Low profile for low visual impact.
•Dual polarization; Broadband design.
Technical Features
Frequency Band
3G/UMTS (Single, Broad, Dual and Triple-Band)
Horizontal Pattern
Directional
Antenna Type
Panel Dual Polarized - Side by Side
Electrical Down Tilt Option
Variable
Gain, dBi (dBd)
18.4 (16.3)
Frequency Range, MHz
1710-2200
Connector Type
(4) 7-16 DIN Female
Connector Location
Bottom
Mount Type
Downtilt
Electrical Downtilt, deg
0-10, 0-10
Horizontal Beamwidth, deg
65
Mounting Hardware
APM40-2
Rated Wind Speed, km/h (mph)
160 (100)
VSWR
< 1.5:1
RFS The Clear Choice ™
APX16DWV-16DWVS-C
Please visit us on the internet at http://www.rfsworld.com
All Information contained in the present datasheet is subject to confirmation at time of ordering.
Print Date: 24.02.2009
Radio Frequency Systems
Technical Data Sheet
APX16DWV-16DWVS-C
Vertical Beamwidth, deg
5.9 to 7.7
1st Upper Sidelobe Suppression, dB
> 18 (typically > 20)
Upper Sidelobe Suppression, dB
> 18 all (typically > 20)
Polarization
Dual pol +/-45°
Front-To-Back Ratio, dB
>26 (typically 28)
Maximum Power Input, W
300
Isolation between Ports, dB
> 30
Lightning Protection
Direct Ground
3rd Order IMP @ 2 x 43 dBm, dBc
> 150 (155 Typical)
Impedance, Ohms
50
Overall Length, m (ft)
1.42 (4.6)
Mounting Hardware Weight, kg (lb)
3.4 (7.5)
Dimensions - HxWxD, mm (in)
1420 x 337 x 80 (55.9 x 13.3 x 3.15)
Weight w/o Mtg Hardware, kg (lb)
18.5 (40.7)
Radiating Element Material
Brass
Radome Color
Light Grey RAL7035
Radome Material
Fiberglass
Mounting Hardware Material
Diecasted Aluminum
Reflector Material
Aluminum
Max Wind Loading Area, m² (ft²)
0.64 (6.6)
Survival Wind Speed, km/h (mph)
200 (125)
Maximum Thrust @ Rated Wind, N (lbf)
787 (177)
Front Thrust @ Rated Wind, N (lbf)
787 (177)
Packing Dimensions, HxWxD, mm (in)
1550 x 420 x 210 (61 x 16.5 x 8.3)
Notes
For additional mounting information please click "External Document Link" below.
RFS The Clear Choice ™
APX16DWV-16DWVS-C
Please visit us on the internet at http://www.rfsworld.com
All Information contained in the present datasheet is subject to confirmation at time of ordering.
Print Date: 24.02.2009
Radio Frequency Systems
EXHIBIT 13
Assessors Map
EXHIBIT 14
Site Plan
EXHIBIT 15
Towair Report
TOWAIR Determination Results
A routine check of the coordinates, heights, and structure type you provided indicates that this
structure does not require registration.
*** NOTICE ***
TOWAIR's findings are not definitive or binding, and we cannot guarantee that the data in TOWAIR
are fully current and accurate. In some instances, TOWAIR may yield results that differ from
application of the criteria set out in 47 C.F.R. Section 17.7 and 14 C.F.R. Section 77.13. A positive
finding by TOWAIR recommending notification should be given considerable weight. On the other
hand, a finding by TOWAIR recommending either for or against notification is not conclusive. It is
the responsibility of each ASR participant to exercise due diligence to determine if it must
coordinate its structure with the FAA. TOWAIR is only one tool designed to assist ASR participants
in exercising this due diligence, and further investigation may be necessary to determine if FAA
coordination is appropriate.
DETERMINATION Results
PASS SLOPE(25:1): NO FAA REQ-HELIPORT 6397.75 MTRS (6.39780 KM) AWAY
Type C/R Latitude Longitude
HELI C
42-1724.00N
071-2236.00W
Name
Address
Lowest
Elevation
(m)
NATICK ARMY MIDDLESEX 43.6
LABORATORIES NATICK,
MA
Runway Length
(m)
36.600000000000001
Your Specifications
NAD83 Coordinates
Latitude
42-16-25.3 north
Longitude
071-27-05.5 west
Measurements (Meters)
Overall Structure Height (AGL)
30.5
Support Structure Height (AGL)
NaN
Site Elevation (AMSL)
97.5
Structure Type
TOWER - Free standing or Guyed Structure used for Communications Purposes
EXHIBIT 16
MA Historical Commission Compliance
Nationwide Programmatic Agreement
Co-location Criteria Verification Form
Site Name: BOS ASHLAND 959026
Business Unit Number: 806042
App ID: 110665
Site Address: ALBERT RAY DRIVE FOUNTAIN AND GREEN STREETS, ASHLAND, MA
01721, MIDDLESEX County
Carrier Name: T-Mobile [EZ App]
Customer Site ID: 4BN1137D
Tower was built on or before 3/16/01?
Yes
No
Criteria for Programmatic Agreement Eligibility for Towers Built on or before March 16, 2001
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
The mounting of the antenna will result in a substantial increase in the
size of the tower1.
The tower has been found by the FCC to have an adverse or potentially
adverse effect that has not been resolved through an MOA or other
mechanism.
The tower is the subject of a pending environmental review or
proceeding before the FCC involving compliance with Section 106 of
the NHPA.
The tower owner has received written or electronic notice from the
FCC that the FCC is in receipt of a complaint from a member of the
public, a SHPO or the Council that the co-location has an adverse effect
on one or more historic properties.
Criteria for Programmatic Agreement Eligibility for Towers Built after March 16, 2001
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
No Section 106 review (SHPO review) or any associated environmental
(NEPA) review required by the FCC has been completed for this tower.
The mounting of the antenna will result in a substantial increase in the
size of the tower.1
The tower is the subject of a pending environmental review or
proceeding before the FCC involving compliance with Section 106 of
the NHPA.
The tower owner has received written or electronic notice from the
FCC that the FCC is in receipt of a complaint from a member of the
public, a SHPO or the Council that the co-location has an adverse effect
on one or more historic properties.
Approval is based upon a centerline of
.
If any of the above answers are “YES,” consultation with the SHPO is required prior to placement of
the antenna on the tower.
Julie Aker (Tower Owner Representative)
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
A COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE CARRIER AND TO THE
CROWN CASTLE REGULATORY DEPARTMENT.
1
Substantial increase in size of the tower” means: 1) an increase in the tower height of more than 10% or by the height of one
antenna array with a separation distance from the nearest existing array not to exceed 20 feet, whichever is greater; 2) the
installation of more than 4 new equipment cabinets or more than 1 new equipment building; 3) the addition of an appurtenance
that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than 20 feet or more than the width of the tower at the level of the
appurtenance, whichever is greater; or 4) the mounting of the antenna would involve excavation outside the current boundaries
of the site and any access or utility easements currently related to the site.
EXHIBIT 17
MA Department of Health Policy
EXHIBIT 18
Redacted Lease

T-Mobile Application for Special Permits

Transcription

Similar documents

get protected! - Pine Cellular

college official`s report curry college

- Saurashtra University

T-Mobile

application for parts and service account

Our Donation Philosophy. Our Policy for Financial and In

SCENERA RESEARCH LAUNCHES NEW WEBSITE

Gujarat Skill Development Mission 16/1, Udyog Bhavan

DEVI AHILYA VISHWAVIDYALAYA, INDORE

ARGUS OFFERS A TOUCH OF CLASS