The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About18-01 Comments (2)Re: Tower Projects Subject: Re: Tower Projects Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:18:48 -0400 From: Eric Lawrence <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us> To: Kamal Doshi <kdoshi@sharedtowers.com> CC: msmith@greenwayeng.com, aestes@rohnnet.com Hello Kamal. In response to your two inquires: 1. A condition was placed on each approved CUP application stating that "In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, then the CUP will be deemed invalid." Therefore, if you anticipate a failure to comply with this condition, it may be appropriate for you to re -apply for a CUP and have the condition modified, and the time frame extended. 2. The Hunting Ridge tower CUP approval enabled the construction of a 195 foot telecommunication tower. Therefore, you'll need to keep the tower under 195 -feet tall. Feel free to contact me with questions. -Eric Kamal Doshi wrote: > Hello Eric: > Just a quick update and a request: > - The cell companies have all slowed down as they all are having trouble raising funds after problems at MCI Worldcom, Quest and others. I cannot get any feedback out of Triton (partly because of their emotional attachment to competing sites). Shentel who likes my sites is unable to commit to any specific dates because of its budget constraints. If you have had any other inquiries for Route 522 corridor please let me know. For the time being, I am going ahead with Hunting Ridge (the first tower in the series) and Cross Junction after that. Others will probably wait for more interest level. I may need to come back to you for extensions of time on zoning approvals. Please let me know how that is to be handled. > - Regarding Hunting Ridge, we have approval for 195' tower. Our plan was to install a lightening rod of 4 feet and stay within the 199' guideline. The tower manufacturer Rohn has informed me that their towers are built in standard sections in 4' increments, thus the nearest available height to our requirement is 196' and they can ship a shorter lightening rod of 3' thus still maintaining 1991. I know this is different from the original plan but only by a small degree (1 foot) and I wanted to get your input on whether this would be acceptable. The other alternative is to build the tower shorter by four foot, which is also OK by me, but could give reason for a uncooperative future carrier to demand a new tower. > Kamal > cc: Alan Estes, Rohn (please wait till I receive feedback on this from Mr. Lawrence at Frederick County) > Mark Smith, Greenway Engineering. Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 540.665.5651 1 of 2 9/25/2002 11:19 AM Consultant Education Specialist February 23, 2002 Mr. Kamal Poshi Shared "rowers-, Inc. 6501 Sandy Knoll Court McClean, VA 22101 Dear Mr. Doshi: P.O. Box 3106 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Telephone: ('540) 6Q2-4939 5 It was very nice meeting you the other night at our Frederick County Planning Commission meeting. I did truly appreciate your gentlemanly approach to my questions regarding the Revised Conditional Use Permit # 18-01 Cross Junction Tower. As I indicated to you, I am a new member of the FCPC and had not been involved in the initial proceedings regarding your request to place a lattice -type telecommunications facility on property ID Number 18-A-18. I did, however, go out to the site on Tuesday morning in preparation for Wednesday night's meeting, and had an opportunity to meet two members of Mrs. Collins' family. As you know, she is the property owner adjacent to the land on which you are proposing to erect your tower. They are rural residents of Frederick County, and they expressed very deep concerns regarding this proposed tower, mostly in reference to "quality of life" issues. Without having a map, I could not determine what was meant by my Review notes, `The applicant has attempted to place the facility in the middle of the site (property under common ownership), maximizing the structural setback."It appears to me to be very close to Mrs. Collins property, the road, and a small village. Would you please clarify this point for me? I am a lifelong_ resident of the Winchester/Frederick County area, residing in my present home for forty years. When my husband and I built our home, it was "out in the country." I enjoyed the sounds of nature such as birds, crickets, and frogs. Now, the tractor trailer sounds of 81 roar through my backyard. Many of the surrounding wetlands have been filled in, so I don't hear the frogs anymore. As a result of all this manmade noise, I could have withdrawn from this turmoil into the peace and silence of my home. However, I chose to adapt to my natural environment by placing stone shaped speakers into my flower gardens allowing tranquil music to float upon the breeze.. This does not drowned out the truck noise completely, but I'm working on it! This past summer, I had a -small pond installed at the back of my yard, and then in the fall friends stocked it with nine -frogs. With great delight, I'm anticipating_ that I will hear the "Spring Peepers" this year. The purpose of the above information is to ask one simple question. As you pursue your quest to installu. communication tower in what is now a very rural area of Frederick County, are you willing to work with the local residents of that small community, such as Mrs. Collins, on " quality of life issues"? This could be something as simple as adding additional landscaping such as planting lots of trees to screen the view of the base of your tower from Mrs. Collins' deck. I am well aware of the fact that the residents of The Summit want this tower, but it is not in their backyard. I am well aware the battle cry of growth, but every person needs to have a game plan, to keep a positive attitude, and to practices the art of conversation, which includes listening. This will results in the whole team winning the game. On a personal note, as an environmentalist, has the field of Telecommunications addressed the issue of towers being in the pathway of migratory birds? This has been a serious problem facing our nation as thousands of these birds have been killed over the last decade as more and more of these towers have been erected. Has there been a device invented which can be added to these towers as a warning signal to these transitory birds, and if so, will your tower have such an apparatus? If you have any information on this topic, I wish you would please share it with me. I have taken the liberty of including a copy of my poem, I Don't Hear the Frogs Ani I wrote this poem as part of an Earth Day celebration in the spring of `95, but the message is still clear today which is asking all of us to be good stewards of God's creation. Looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. �.... 4t Patricia W. GochenourPlanning Commissioner: Red Bud District: Frederick County cc: Gina A. Forrester, Supervisor Red Bud District Sid A. Reyes, Supervisor Gainesboro District Richard C. Shickle. Chairman- At Large George J. Kriz, Planning Commissioner: Gainesboro District Charles E. Triplett, Planning Commissioner: Gainesboro District Jearlden Collins, Land Owner Evan Wyatt, Director of Planning/ Frederick County I DON'T HEAR THE FROGS-ANYMORE My garden--of-Eden is where The -Shawnee walked, There the great elk roamed and Washington rode. The rainy still come and the winds still blow, but I don't hear the frogs anymore. Oh, my Wonderful Creator, Ah -Powerful, -Great _Spirit, do you hear the cries of Mother Earth? She is seeking stewards and counsel to help her return to prior glory and worth. My gardewa-Eden is where in -the spring the daylight lingers and robins sing, Where butterflies dance and tulips nod, l ut I don't hear the frogs anymore. A springt}me -chorus -is smgmg -off-key tie frog section I no longer see, The choir loft pond has disappeared, because untuned man --didn't listen or hear. Some mea-we,attenVtmg-to-erg Viod'-slaws as they build their empires of stone. But noer how foolish or thoughtless this seems ror dness and right stand not alone. For east o the gardi$f Eden, TIe placeshe-Cherubim flaming sword turns to guard the way to the tree- of lid again. The winds will blow the dust of time into the Hands of God, and all will hear, "I must ftin anew". -asHe_kn -upon the sod. Patsy Wheeler: Goch)Aour April 19'5 7 CROSS JUNCTION COMMUNICATIONS FACILIT"-( DA IE: 09/18/01 /IPPROXT IMATE PARCEL 18-A-38 SCALE-. I"= 500' LOCATION N 39019/01.1"' GREENWAY ENGINEERING W 78-17'37.4- 151 WINDY HILL UkNE Engineers WINCHESTER, V.4, 22602 Surveyors TELEPHONE: (540) 662-4!85 FAX: (540) 722-9528 LF i oundet:in 1971 www-.greenwayeng.com GRUNWAY ENGINEERING 151 WindyWinchester, HiLane Winchesfer, Virr ginia 22602 Founded in 1971 January 23, 2002 Frederick County Department of Planning and Zoning 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Attn: Eric Lawrence Re: Cross Junction Communications Tower — Height Increase We are requesting an amendment to an original Conditional Use Permit that was approved on January 23, 2002 for the Cross Junction Communications Tower. The approved height of this tower is 195 feet. We are requesting an increase in height to 260 feet to improve cellular coverage provided by this tower. Winchester Regional Airport has provided its comments on this height increase. All other Agencies comments remain unaffected, as the nature of their concerns would not be affected by this height increase. We have also obtained and attached a letter certified by the Tower Manufacturers Professional Engineer indicating that the tower can be built with a safety stress point to reduce its fall zone. The attached sketch indicates that the height increase will require additional setback waivers. We request your approval of the height increase through the Frederick County Planning Commission and the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as the proposed structure will not affect the safety of the adjoining neighbors as we commit to designing stress points for the tower to fall within the landlord's properties. The original application is attached with height related matters updated. Thank you for your assistance with this project. Call with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Green a `_ngi�eerirtg _�— Mark D. Smith, P.E., S. President Enclosures I.nplr'r1.�J fi Engineers Surveyors File #3162/-N1DS/dls Telephone 540-6624185 E X 540-722.9525 Y✓itic"7.gF22^L4 ay en Q.COP? MN)P Industries, Inc. January 2, 2002 Shared Towers, LLC 6501 Sandy Knoll Court McLean, VA 22101 Attn: Kamal Doshi Reference: 250' SSV Tower Frederick County, Virginia World Headquarters 6718 W. Plank Rd. Peoria, IL 61604 USA PH: 309-697-4400 FAX 309-697-5612 The referenced tower will be designed to meet the specified loading requirements in accordance with ANSYF A/EIA-222-F Standards for a 70 MPH basic wind speed, no ice. The 70 MPH basic wind speed is assumed constant up to 33' above ground level and is escalated to an effective wind speed of approximately 98 MPH at the top of the tower. In the event an extreme wind speed were to occur, failure would not be expected to occur the instant the design wind speed was exceeded. All tower members will be designed to support a minimum of 1.25 times their design load without permanent deformation. This would be equivalent to an effective wind speed of 82 MPH at the base of the tower and escalate to 110 MPH at the top of the tower. Based on customer specifications, the tower may be designed with heavier members than required by analysis in the lower portion of the structure. Therefore, in the unlikely case of failure, the point at which such failure would occur would be in the upper portion of the tower, allowing the upper portion to fold over the lower portion, limiting the area affected by the failure. Please contact us at your convenience should you have further questions concerning the safety of tower structures or other aspects of tower design. Please reference this letter with any forthcoming purchase orders where local requirement ned fall radius. Sincer TI'RaYI AzourirL ing Adrr;WtI&r cc: Al Esq Ken Cordrey SYfarecl Towers, LLC 6501 Sandy Knoll Court, McLean, VA 22101 (703)-893-1571 Fax 253-423-3800 January 28, 2002 Mr. Eric P. Lawrence County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Lawrence: Map of Cellular Towers in the County and Update I have enclosed a map showing locations of cell towers in the county. You will recall that we had agreed to provide such a map per discussion with Mr. Harrington Smith at January 23rd meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Greenway Engineering has submitted on January 25th: e An amendment to the application for Cross Junction tower to raise it to 260' to allow placement of Shentel and other carriers at very good heights of 260', 250', 240', 230' respectively. A new application to move Hunting Ridge tower approximately 1100' South. This moves the tower closer to Route 522 and at a meeting hosted by planning department SunCom/Triton had agreed that this location would work better for them. Shentel has agreed to go on this tower at either location. As this move allows the tower to be away from the landowners' driveway, they have agreed to allow lattice structure, so we are requesting permission for that change also. Upon approval, we will withdraw the approved CUP for the original location. I understand that these will be heard by the Planning Commission and later submitted to the Board of Supervisors for action. Sincerely Kamal Doshi Encl: Cc: Members of the Board of Supervisors, with enclosed map. Mark Smith, Greenway Engineering NI EGETVEL) JAN 2 0 2002 `)T nF PI ANNINr,/n VR MA Frees r`C - County, VA -� Ts Towers Red dots -Triton/SBA proposed Yellow Triangles- Crown Green Triangles- Shentel Pink Triangles- Shared Towers k�. , joectrasite i. US 522.__ F Reynold's Store a Cross Junction North Gainsboro g Ridge �.�,..v ;t Blue Triangles -Other US 5U WNTW n,. American Tower- 7 WUSQ Rouge 3 0 �I Alf br LIS 11 i e. _iRcute 7 ellular One i 1 US 50 S 52.., Compiled by Shared Towers January' 4, 2002 703-628-2654 Source: FCC and company records. Excludes power poles and antennas on buildings and tanks not registered with FCC. •Z.�.�z I &WMN&•AMMMar:4K• Computer simulations showing the visual differences between an open 3 legged lattice tower (above) and a standard solid (18" tip diameter) monopole (below) NE,E=. SPRINGS Ah "Lattice towers allow the sky to been seen" ---Kamal Doshi, Shared Towers LLC Camera to target distance: 1760 ft. 50 mm lens Computer simulation showing the visual differences between a standard solid galvanized monopole (left) and an open 3 legged lattice tower (right). Note: Both structures shown here support 3 cell carriers and are apV. W^11riiateiy � 9-' gall exclusive of a 5' lightening rod. Shared Towers LLC. Cross Junction Telecom Site a Computer simulations showing the v lattice tower (above) and a standar(: w -,MFA""- ORI' Z'4� I I I I I" I [•l 0 M Ka 1:4640111 M40 It: Computer simulations showing the visual differences between an open 3 legged lattice tower (above) and a standard solid (18" tip diameter) monopole (below) Designed to meet the letter and spirit of County rules Provide solution from Wi ester to WV Border Designo Route maxim m 522 coloc tion Place sites i trees Shared Towers Hunting Ridge North Gainsboro Cross Junction Reynolds Store Take tl�e existing towers on Route 2 into account - Virginia family owned small business - Focused on Frederick County, Jefferson County, Berkeley County - Prior experience with larger tower company - Tower sites designed with advice of MLJ (Radio Frequency Engineers) and Greenway Engineering (Professional Engineers) - Emergency services given antenna space of sites - Each site has interested tenant - Addressed all comments of county officials, airport, private air field owner, state regulators, and landlords - Planning Commission has approved the sites. -- _ a-- - t-- - Proposed Cell Tower Locations Frederick County, Virginia CUPg20-01 Shared Towers ilix \ } - V, In CU PN02-02 Triton Towe a CUP1E78-07 SI Age: r i O Cell Tower Location SO Proposed f Cell Tower Sites i Roads Primary a � /V Secondary Fti v.: Tertiary Parcels v i a � v t REENWU ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill lane 1A mchester, Virginia 22602 1 Founded in 1971 January 17, 2002 Mr. Sidney Reyes 350 Redland Road Cross Junction, VA 22625 Dear Mr. Reyes: Cross Junction Communication Tower - Update We have made considerable progress towards raising the height of the Cross Junction tower per our earlier discussion for improved coverage. • Airport We have requested Winchester Regional Airport for their comments on increasing the height. Their comments are required by the Planning Department for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) amendment process. Our consultants provided analysis indicating that new height will not affect the airport. The airport will be providing their comments as soon as they obtain confirmation from their independent consultants. • Historical Preservation We have performed study of a larger area for historical structures and submitted it to State Historical Preservation Officer for their review. We hope to receive their approval as no preservation eligible properties were affected. This approval is necessary for construction but not required by the Planning Department CUP process. • Setbacks Greenway Engineering has prepared a new exhibit showing the tower location and the needed setback waivers with the increased height. We have also received a letter from the tower manufacturer signed by a licensed professional engineer indicating that they can design the structure to have deliberate stress point so that the tower would fall within the property and the waivers will not affect safety of neighbors. • Planning The Deputy Director of Planning, Mr. Lawrence, advised us that the increase in height would require a hearing with the Planning Commission before it could be considered by the Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, we request approval of the tower at the currently proposed height. We are committed to designing the structure for a height increase to 250'. We will bring the CUP amendment request for the height increase as soon as we can process it through the Planning Department and Planning Commission. We have also attached a letter from Shentel indicating their interest in the towers at the currently proposed heights. Mark Smith, P.E, L.S. Kamal Doshi Greenway Engineering Shared Towers, LLC Enclosure Cc: Mr. Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Planning Department'G'"'s i EI Engineers Surveyors ANINIINGInI NIFI OW File #3162/MDS/KD/dls Telephone 540-662-4135 FAX 540-722-9523 wwwgreenwayeng.com . � SHENiEL SHENANDOAH PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS P.o, Box 280 Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0280 • (540) 984-3000 January 16, 2002 Mr. Kamal Doshi Shared Towers, LLC 6501 Sandy Knoll Court McLean, VA 22101 Re: Shared Towers Sites — Route 522 Frederick County Dear Kamal: Shenandoah Personal Communications Company (Shentel) is interested in leasing space on the facilities you are developing along State Route 522 north from Winchester, through Frederick County, toward Berkeley Springs, West Virginia. This interest is conditioned on Shentel receiving the top spot on the sites at the currently proposed height and Shared Towers agreeing to lease terms comparable to leases already in place with Shentel. We plan to include your sites in our second quarter budget request for the installation to coincide with your development. As soon as we receive approval we will submit formal applications. Please keep us advised as to your progress along this Route. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. LLG/dp cc: Mr_ William L. Pirtle Mr. Neil Fadely Sincerely yours, Leonard Greisz Project Manager A SUBSIDIARY OF SHENANDOAH TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY WE MUST SERVE WELL TO PROSPER - WE MUST PROSPER TO SERVE WELL GREENWAY 151 HlI La ENGINEERING n y i ne Winchester, Virginia 22602 Founded in 19,1 January 17, 2002 Mr. Sidney Reyes 350 Redland Road Cross Junction, VA 22625 Dear Mr. Reyes: Cross Junction Communication Tower - Update We have made considerable progress towards raising the height of the Cross Junction tower per our earlier discussion for improved coverage. • Airport We have requested Winchester Regional Airport for their comments on increasing the height. Their comments are required by the Planning Department for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) amendment process. Our consultants provided analysis indicating that new height will not affect the airport. The airport will be providing their comments as soon as they obtain confirmation from their independent consultants. • Historical Preservation We have performed study of a larger area for historical structures and submitted it to State Historical Preservation Officer for their review. We hope to receive their approval as no preservation eligible properties were affected. This approval is necessary for construction but not required by the Planning Department CUP process. • Setbacks Greenway Engineering has prepared a new exhibit showing the tower location and the needed setback waivers with the increased height. We have also received a letter from the tower manufacturer signed by a licensed professional engineer indicating that they can design the structure to have deliberate stress point so that the tower would fall within the property and the waivers will not affect safety of neighbors. • Plannine The Deputy Director of Planning, Mr. Lawrence, advised us that the increase in height would require a hearing with the Planning Commission before it could be considered by the Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, we request approval of the tower at the currently proposed height. We are committed to designing the structure for a height increase to 250'. We will bring the CUP amendment request for the height increase as soon as we can process it through the Planning Department and Planning Commission. We have also attached a letter from Shentel indicating their interest in the towers at the currently proposed heights. Sincer Mark Smith, P.E, L.S. Kamal Doshi Greenway Engineering Shared Towers, LLC Enclosure Cc: Mr. Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Planning Department Engineers Surveyors File #3162/MDS/KD/dls Telephone 540-662-4135 FAX 540-722-9523 www.greenwayeng.com JAN 2, 2 '.00Z - _- f,�: P1 wn mnvnpvpp no" -- VSFIENrEL SHENANDOAH PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kamal Doshi. Shared Towers, LLC 6501 Sandy Knoll Court McLean, VA 22101 Re: Shared Towers Sites — Route 522 Frederick County Dear Kamal: P.O. Box 280 • Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0280 • (540) 984-3000 January 16, 2002 Shenandoah Personal Communications Company (Shentel) is interested in leasing space on the facilities you are developing along State Route 522 north from Winchester, through Frederick County, toward Berkeley Springs, West Virginia. This interest is conditioned on Shentel receiving the top spot on the sites at the currently proposed height and Shared Towers agreeing to lease terms comparable to leases already in place with Shentel. We plan to include your sites in our second quarter budget request for the installation to coincide with your development. As soon as we receive approval we will submit formal applications. Please keep as advised as to your progress along this Route. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. LLG/dp cc_ Mr. William L. Pirtle Mr. Neil Fadely Sincerely yours, Leonard Greisz Project Manager A SUBSIDIARY OF SHENANDOAH TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY WE MUST SERVE WELL TO PROSPER • WE MUST PROSPER TO SERVE WELL NOV-15-2001 03:M6 PM Shared Tourers 70362826Z54 1 233 423 3890 P.01 ShA. A Towers, LLC 6301 Sandy Knoll Court, McLean, VA 32101 {71D3 -893-i '1 Fax 233-423-3804 e-mail: kdoshi*a,sharedtowers.corn November 15, 2001 Mr. Mark R. Cheran, Planner County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 2260 i Via &N,540 -665-h395 Dear Mr. Cheran; We am happy to assist County emergency communications- services (potice fire, ambulance) by allowing duan to attach up to two omni antennas on each of our proposed towers. Like all other tenants, when they need the s ee. they will need to enter into a lease document (however, the rent will be waived) Sincerely, Shared Towers, LLC Kamal Doshi Managing Member Cc- Mark Smith, Greenway Engineering 540-722-9528 SEP -18-2001 07:40 AM Shared Towers 7036282654 1 253 423 3800 F_03 iota rRcsults uI•,.VOAIttp5.,wtbja&lwfcc.gov,111S'fontl RESULTS A routine check of the coordinates, heights, and structure type you provided indicates whether this structure does or does not require registration. Any "fail slope" result means that your structure requir+esFAA notification and FCC registration. If all results are "pass slope", this means that the structure does not require registration, based on the information you provided. WARNING: Because the airport database we use is updated periodically, it does not tape into account the most recent airport construction, nor does it include proposed airports. You stili must register with the FCC if your structure is located near one of these airports or if the FAA specifically asks you to register - even if you "pass slope" in all instances. Note: Use your Browser's print function to print your Tow -Air results. THE INITIAL INFORMATION ENTERED: Iwo 39`1910.9 78'1737.7 60.7 •.59.7 '298. ?01.E ;Structure does not require registration. There are no airports within S kilotreters(5 miles) of the coordinates :you provided. VA'all el 6,- lot'] ,- 1of1 y1112601 9-00 PN Existing toweres cannot provide coverage from Hunting Ridge to Timber Ridge 3 � a � , ,•i S ectra Om s 182" SSS � A ,i Revno`ld"s Stor f ' wt, ` ,Cross Ju time A. A h i Berkeley oa RAD Centers 170' A ERP 47 Slope 3.1 Al j Shared Towers Sites In Zoning Access Factor 10 Frederick County, VA Signal Legend Red 0 -87 Good Coverage Purple -87 -90 Acceptable Coverage------- Blue -90 -93 Poor Coverage Green -93 -99 Calls Drop A LFrequency 1950 MHz Omni DB906 Antenna i I!, ft Jeffersor I / tin Rid a 195' Hunting Ridge 39-16-07.2 78-13-28.3 195' Pole Ground 921' Cross Juction 39-19-10.2 78-17-37.7 195' Pole Ground 975' Reynolds Store 39-22-28.5 78-17-39.7 195' Pole Ground 1130' Crown 140' Pole Crown 39-12-53.37 78-12-15 195' SS Ground 940' Spectrasite-Omps 39-24-49.5 78-19-41.7 182' SS Ground 1383 Crown 195' SSCrown 39-14-37.9 78-11-49 140' Pole Ground 1190' e h aQ 0 2.5 } 5 ` milEs A. The Proposed Sites Complete The Coverage Gaps c s` Berkeley RAD Centers 170' 00 A ERP 47 S pectra-Om s 182'S F S , Slope 3.1 s° \ I � Shared Towers Sites In Zoning Access Factor 10 Frederick County, VA Signal Legend Red 0 -87 Good Coverage lilt,'l.+;� Purple -87 -90 Acceptable Coverages---- it ' Blue -90 -93 Poor Covera Re Hold's Store 195 e �" a �� - g ►� `moi Green -93 -99 Calls Drop LFrequency 1950 MHz Omni DB906 Antenna LA f � 0 A AW Cross Juction 195''3 as fir ° • �% A Jeffersor p'. f i ,r Ff�/ ., , ' reaeroc Huntira Rid a 195° P A� t/ �A`ke Hunting Ridge 39-16-07 2 78-13-28.3 195' Pole Ground 921' •x��= - 9h�y / Cross Juction 39-19-10.2 78-17-37 7 195' Pole Ground 975' ayS Reynolds Store 39-22-28 5 78-17-39.7 195' Pole Ground 1130' t, Crown 140' F'ole -12- Crown ` 39 53.37 78\12-15 195' SS Ground 940' Spectrasite-Omps 39-24-49.5 78-19-41.7 182' SS Ground 1383 rown 195' SS Crown 39-14-37.9 78-11-49 140' Pole Ground 1190' �... 0 25 a 5 mils W Du rLi -Jt, it Viemuncq rcl Proposed Hwy 522 Network Expansion Hwy 522 Network with Shared Tower's proposed site 944D ting ,verage loss Hwy 522 Network with Shared Tower's proposed site 946D Hwy 522 using Shared Towers' 946D replacing 947 erage loss Existing SunCom Coverage along Hwy 522 SunCom Coverage using Shared Towers' proposed locations and the Crown Tower of Coverage loss SunCorn Coverage using Shared Towers' proposed sites. Hwy 522 Proposed SunCom ATT Network 119 BM 629 98C See 117 98D 0 e� 335-29 . G� e 116 105 ,0, 220 324-629- 1 See 129 166 103 t 2 pts. 129 u� See 122C o, �4e V168 69 a 61 2pts 2pts 166 c 12 2 B 10 135 1 , 767 16 e j C)n p 13 o See 66 1638 63 n 3 2 N 1 e Chapman 16� h Lane 9 r— 135 �S6 O 2 pts. 56 Sl 8 7 131 163C �6 6 151 -7, 5 4 134 g 15 13B Rom\°ho C% 7 13E BZ/Ck�ond 13F 13G 15C 16,17 2 Pts. NOW 13H 29 w o� K COUNTY 11 )rn Hill