Technology Law Group, L.L.C. - Fauquier County, Virginia

Technology Law Group, L.L.C.SM 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.

Suite 440 Washington, D.C. 20015

_________

202-895-1707 FACSIMILE 202-478-5074 EMAIL [email protected]

JESSICA A. YOUNGS, ESQ.

December 3, 2012

Via Email ([email protected])

Planning CommissionCounty of Fauquier c/o Wendy Wheatcraft, Preservation Planner 10 Hotel Street, 3rd Floor Warrenton, Virginia 20186

Re: Comments on Verizon Wireless’s Application for Telecommunication Special Exception – TWSE 13-MA-001 Verizon Wireless – Cobbler/Trible Property9572 Ivanhoe Lane, Delaplane, VA 20144 (PIN 6040-98-5704)

Opposition of Stephen Lofaro

To the Fauquier County Planning Commissioners:

This firm serves as telecommunications and litigation counsel to Stephen Lofaro. Mr. Lofaro owns and resides in a three story farmhouse which is located 357 feet from property on which Verizon proposes to build an 80-foot stealth (silo) telecommunication facility and associated compound for its wireless telecommunications equipment. Verizon is required to obtain a Special Exception to build this 80-foot silo and associated compound because this construction would otherwise violate Section 11-102.2 of the Fauquier County Telecommunications Ordinance which requires the silo to be located 1,000 feet or more from an adjoining property residential unit.1 However, Verizon’s

1 See Statement of Justification for Verizon Wireless, Request for Telecommunications Facility Consisting of an 80 foot Concealment Silo and Associated Equipment 9572 Ivanhoe Lane; Delaplane Virginia 20144, page 1, 3-4, attached as Exhibit A.

Technology Law Group, LLCSM

Planning CommissionCounty of Fauquier December 3, 2012

of 12

proposed silo and compound blatantly violate the Ordinance because they would be located a mere 357 feet across from Mr. Lofaro’s farmhouse, requiring him to live viewing at least 20 to 25 feet of the silo from his property and even more from the upper (bedroom) level of his home.

As demonstrated below, Verizon has plainly failed to meet it’s burden to: (a) provide consistent and verifiable data, thereby making its required prima facie case, that there is a substantial need for the proposed telecommunication facility; (b) if a substantial need exists, provide consistent and verifiable data demonstrating that the proposed site is the best available site; (c) demonstrate why the alternative site offered on the Lofaro property, which would not require a special exception and does not create any of the visibility and quality of life issues caused by the proposed site, has not been considered; and (d) demonstrate good cause as to why a special exception should be granted at the proposed location.

Mr. Lofaro respectfully requests that the Planning Commission thoughtfully review and consider all the information provided below before making its recommendation to the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors and that the Commission recommend that application be denied by the Board of Supervisors both because the applicant has failed to meet its burden of proof and because the available proof demonstrates that there is at least one location available that must be preferred to the proposed location under applicable ordinances, statutes and case law.

I. Applicable Law

a. Standard of Legal Review of Local Decisions

Under Section 704(a) of the Telecommunications Act, state and local governments regulate the placement and construction of wireless service towers. A threshold issue that local government authorities must consider is whether there are significant gaps, not just de minimis gaps, in service that necessitates the placement of additional wireless service towers. This determination is, among other things, required under 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Telecommunications Act.2

2 It is worthy of note that Mr. Condyles, through Atlantic Technology Consultants, has taken the position with the Federal Communications Commission that determinations as to the zoning and location of cell towers should be left to local organizations, like the Planning Commission, expressly because they are in a better position to ensure that proposed towers comply with local zoning ordinances. See Ex Parte Comments of Atlantic Technology Consultants to the Federal Communications Commission in WT Docket No. 08-165, CTIA Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance (“ATC Ex Parte”) at 3, attached as Exhibit B. In this



of 12

It is well established in the caselaw that, to justify the placement of a new cell tower in Virginia, the applicant must show “a legally cognizable deficit in coverage amounting to an effective absence of coverage, and that it lacks reasonable alternativesites to provide coverage.” 360° Commc’ns Co. of Charlottesville v. Bd. Of Sup’rs of Albemarle Cnty., 211 F.3d 79 at 87-88 (emphasis added). Indeed, the Albermarle Court concluded that even if the applicant had established “a prima facie case of an effective absence of coverage, to sustain its application over the denial by the local government authority, it also needed provide evidence to establish “a lack of reasonable alternative sites.”

The courts of Virginia have consistently upheld the decisions of local governments denying applications for new cell towers in the face of opposition from local residents based on their claims that the towers would damage the character of their neighborhood, especially where, as here, their neighborhood contained no significant commercial development and no commercial antenna towers. See City Council of the City of Virginia Beach v. Harrell, 236 Va. 99 (1988). Similarly, in New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, No. 10-2381 (4th Cir. Mar. 19, 2012). In upholding the denial of an application for a new cell tower that would be visible from local residences, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the local Board had acted properly in accepting the community argument that “facilities of this type do not belong in a residential community such as ours,” and would “disrupt the neighborhood and the country-like setting.” Id.

It is also important to keep in mind that, while the courts will not allow local governmental authorities to deny applications for new cell towers without basis, the Act also does not create an automatic right to approval. Thus, while a local Board’s decision cannot “have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services” in their entirety, the Act cannot be interpreted to “guarantee wireless service providers coverage free of small ‘dead spots.’” MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400F.3d 715, 733 (9th Cir. 2005). The effective prohibition provision of section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) applies only to “significant gaps” in service, and not de minimis gaps in service. See also Cellular Tel. Co. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, 197 F.3d 64, 0 (3d Cir. 1999) (applying significant gap standard); Omnipoint Holdings, Inc. v. City of Cranston, 586 F.3d 38, 48 (1st Cir. 2009) (same); VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc. v. St. Croix County, 342 F.3d 818, 83 n.7 (7th Cir. 2003) (same). The

context, it is ironic, indeed, that Mr. Condyles, through Atlantic Technology Consultants, is now recommending that this Planning Commission grant Verizon’s application despite material inconsistencies in that application, material violations of County ordinances and the wholesale failure to demonstrate either need or the absence of alternative locations that more fully meet siting guidelines and do not require a Special Exception.



of 12

burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the denial was tantamount to a “prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services” under 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). This burden has been found to be particularly heavy where, as here, the applicant “already provides some level of wireless service to the area.” See T-Mobile Northeast, LLC v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, No. 11-1060 (4th Cir. Mar. 1, 2012).3

In short, as the courts have concluded local governing bodies have the absolute right, and indeed the lawful obligation, to reject applications for cell towers where, as here: (i) there has been no showing of actual need, (ii) there has been no showing that preferable alternative sites do not exist, and (iii) the application does not and cannot meet local zoning requirements. Indeed, as Mr. Condyles argued in his ex parte presentation to the FCC, the FCC has ceded jurisdiction over cell tower siting issues to local jurisdictions expressly because they are in the best position to make these decisions in the public interest. ATC Ex Parte at 3, attached as Exhibit B.

b. Fauquier County Telecommunications Ordinance

The Fauquier County Telecommunications Ordinance seeks to “establish a hierarchy in the type, location and procedures for personal wireless facilities, telecommunications towers and facilities.” Section 11-101(1) (emphasis added). In addition, “the users of telecommunications towers and antennas should locate them, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impacts on the community are minimal” and “should configure them in a way that minimizes the adverse impacts and visibility of these facilities.” Section 11-101(5),(6) (emphasis added). The Fauquier County Telecommunications Ordinance goes on to state that an “order of preference for location, siting and design” should be maintained and that “the least preferred sittings are in open fields or areas, or on highly visible rooftops.” Section 11-101(7) (emphasis added).

Not only does the Fauquier County Telecommunications Ordinance explicitly state that a “hierarchy” should be maintained, but it goes on to lay out specific guidelines to meet these goals in order to minimize adverse impact on the community. For example, in Section 11-102.2(a)(2) requires that “the silo be located 1,000 feet or more from an adjoining property’s existing residential unit” (emphasis added). This requirement is presumably in place to minimize the visual, economic, and quality of life impacts on adjoining property owners who would be most severely impacted by the construction of a telecommunications silo and compound.

3 As explained herein and evidenced by Verizon’s own public coverage maps, there is little question that Verizon already provides some level of wireless service to most or all of the alleged gap area. See ExhibitC attached hereto.



of 12

To that end, the Fauquier County Telecommunications Ordinance also requires that the facility be “located downslope from ridgelines so that the top of the structure is below the ridgeline” and requires the silo to be “integrated as an accessory part of an existing farm complex, sited within 25 feet of an existing barn structure, and built with a design consistent with the dimensions, and aesthetics of silos in the farming community in the immediate vicinity, with the antennas fully screened within the silo. Sections 11-102.2(a)(4), (5). It also requires that all structures “be compatible with development in the vicinity with regards to the setting, color, lighting, topography, materials and architecture. In addition, the facility should be located in the interior of the property, and areas of existing vegetation, if applicable, shall be used to screen the facility.” Section 11-102.3(b)(2).

All of these provisions work in tandem to preserve the goal of an established hierarchy of preference for the location and siting of wireless facilities by minimizing adverse impact, including aesthetic, economic, and quality of life, on the community. The proposed site does not meet any of these provisions and is plainly at odds with the spirit and the intent of the Ordinance.

II. Argument

a. Verizon Fails to Make a Prima Facie Case that a Wireless Facility is Needed

As set forth above, the threshold determination under the applicable statutory language and applicable regulations and caselaw is whether Verizon has met its burden to make a prima facie showing that there is a lack of coverage, that this lack of coverage is more than just de minimis--i.e., that it impacts a large area and large number of individuals--and that it is necessary to construct the proposed facility in order to fill in this coverage gap.

The Statement of Certified Engineer included in Verizon’s application states in part that this particular site was selected in order to, “provide and improve wireless coverage along Interstate 66, Route 55 and US Highway 17, generally in the vicinity of Delaplane, Virginia” and to “enhance in-building coverage in the surrounding area.” The Statement goes on to claim that “Verizon’s proposed facility will resolve the need for adequate coverage in the area around the proposed site and also ensure adequate overlapping coverage between and among existing Verizon sites,” ultimately allowing “residents and commuters to experience better quality and diminish dropped calls.” Verizon argues that the propagation maps attached to the application and prepared by an RF engineer illustrate the improved coverage that will result with the addition of the new



of 12

telecommunications site. See Verizon Engineer Letter of Justification and Coverage Plots, attached as Exhibit D.

However, there are serious problems with the engineer’s Statement. Significantly, the propagation maps provided by the engineer do not show the same alleged coverage gaps that are depicted in the propagation maps that Verizon provides to the public on its website. See Verizon Wireless Website Coverage Plots, Exhibit C, and Verizon Engineer Letter of Justification and Coverage Plots, Exhibit D. Indeed, the propagation maps provided on the Verizon website show no gaps whatsoever, even at maximum zoom. In fact, the existing coverage shown by the ATC Report shows that Delaplane Virginia and Route 66 already have full 4G-LTE Coverage and 4G-LTE Extended Coverage in the alleged gap area and throughout nearly the entire area from Delaplane, Virginia through Marshall, Virginia. See ATC Report, attached as Exhibit E,p. 23. Moreover, the ATC Report fails to show a significant increase in service coverage with the location of the Cobbler site, nor does it provide any evidence of increased in building coverage in the few buildings located within its proposed coverage area. SeeATC Report, Exhibit E, p. 24. Although the new cell would allegedly improve coverage to a few areas between Delaplane and Marshall from 4G-LTE Extended Coverage to 4G-LTE Coverage, it fails to provide any service to alleged gap areas in coverage around Delaplane.

Moreover, the Verizon Wireless Website itself shows that Delaplane, Virginia, including the areas along Route 66, Route 55, and US Highway 17, currently have Verizon 4G LTE Coverage, or, at worst, Verizon 3G Coverage and full voice and messaging coverage. See Verizon Wireless Website Coverage Plots, attached as Exhibit C. Given that Verizon’s publicly available coverage maps show no significant gaps in service, and in fact show much better service coverage than what it shows on its engineer’s propagation maps, this leads one to wonder whether Verizon is being untruthful to the public via its website, or whether Verizon is being untruthful in the certified representations it has made to Fauquier County in its application to build a new wireless facility.

In addition, even if the Board were inclined to ignore all the troubling inconsistencies in the propagation maps that Verizon has provided to its various constituencies—which it should not—it cannot overlook the fact that Verizon has not provided any of the data supporting the calculation of the alleged gap, nor has it provided any of the data that would be required to calculate the new coverage contours at the proposed site that would allegedly fill this gap, nor has it provided any data that evidences an unacceptable level of dropped calls. Indeed, read most favorably to the applicant, the most the application evidences is a theoretical gap shown on a coverage map that is not supported by any underlying engineering data. Moreover, while the



of 12

Commission’s “independent”4 consultant states in his report that “an independent RF analysis has been performed”, remarkably, neither that analysis, nor any of the data that was allegedly used to support the alleged analysis, is provided. Further, the Consultant’s statement that he “agrees with the material submitted by the Applicant and finds justification with the application” cannot be credited as he offers no insight as to which “supporting material”—which notably does not include any data—is apparently garnering his support.

Verizon totally failed to meet its burden to prove either that there is a need for the proposed site or that the site would meet that need. In this context, it would be arbitrary in the extreme for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of, and for the Board of Supervisors to grant, Verizon’s Special Exception to build its wireless facility on the Cobbler site.

b. Verizon’s Proposed Facility Fails to Meet the Standards Set Forth under the Fauquier County Telecommunications Ordinance

Verizon is asking for a Special Exception in order to construct an 80-foot silo and associated compound to house its telecommunications equipment. Given the established hierarchy that the Fauquier County Telecommunications Ordinance establishes, a site that

4 Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. is one of several operating divisions of The Atlantic Group of Companies, Inc. Another of those divisions is Atlantic Tower Corporation. Apparently, Atlantic Tower Corporation provides consulting services to wireless operators, much like Verizon, who are seeking to locate new cell towers and need assistance in obtaining the approval of governmental organizations, like the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, in obtaining necessary approvals. The Atlantic Technology Consultants website describes the services provided by the Atlantic Tower Corporation as follows: “Atlantic Tower Corporation can help you navigate through the rough seas of regulations and federal requirements.” See www.atlantic-tower.com/tower.html, attached as Exhibit F. The consultant drafting the report, George N. Condyles, IV and his wife are the owners of Atlantic Technology Consultants and thus of Atlantic Tower Corporation. Mr. Condlyes worked as an engineer at Verizon, the applicant in this proceeding, from 1985 to 1996, which included a four year period following his founding of Atlantic Technology Corporation in 1992. See Mr. Condyles’ LinkedIn profile, attached as Exhibit G.Moreover, Mr. Condyles, through American Tower Corporation, is also the named registrant (in its name) of a tower located at 111 Polk Street in Montross, Virginia. See FCC Registered Cell Phone and Antenna Towers in Montross, Virginia, attached as Exhibit H, http://www.city-data.com/towers/cell-Montross-Virginia.html#ixzz2DqrvC8BT. These relationships are not disclosed in the ATC Consultant’s Report. These relationships are also not disclosed in the public documents evidencing the renewal of the consulting agreement this year. See Notice of Contract Renewal issued by the Fauquier County Government and Public Schools, Finance Division, Procurement Department Notice of Contract Renewal, issued on September 27, 2012, attached as Exhibit I. It is unknown to Mr. Lofaro at this time whether these relationships have been disclosed to relevant County officials, although such disclosure would appear to be required by, or at least consistent with, the County’s ethics guidelines. See generally the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors Code of Ethics, attached as Exhibit J.



of 12

would not require a special exception must be preferred over the proposed site that does require one. By the same token, it is beyond logical dispute that if a special exception is to be granted, the exception must be granted to the site that would be least intrusive to the established community versus one that would be much more intrusive especially where the less intrusive site would meet the claimed coverage needs at least equal to the more intrusive site.

Section 11-102.2(a)(2) of the Fauquier County Telecommunications Ordinance requires that a telecommunications silo be located “1,000 feet or more from an adjoining property’s residential unit” Verizon needs a special exception because its proposed silo would be 357 feet from Mr. Lofaro’s residence. See Verizon’s Statement of Justification, Exhibit A. Not only does this site violate an explicit regulation in the Ordinance, but it also violates the spirit of the Ordinance, which seeks to establish a hierarchy that “minimizes the adverse impacts and visibility of these facilities” and which declares “the least preferred sittings are in open fields or areas, or on highly visible rooftops.” Section 11-101(1), (6) & (7) (emphasis added). Notwithstanding the letter and clear spirit of the Ordinance, Verizon proposes to place the tower near the edge of the Trible property in an open field with direct visibility to adjacent properties.

As an initial matter, the Commission should be aware that the ATC Consultant, Mr. Condyles, misstates the Ordinance to which he purports to cite in the ATC Report. On page 6 of his report, Mr. Condyles purports to quote “Section 11-102.2.a.3” of the County’s Telecommunications Ordinance as saying: “Either (i) 1,000 feet or more from an adjoining property’s existing residential unit or (ii) 300 feet or more from an adjoining property’s existing residential unit, when the facility is centered and surrounded by preserved woodland with a minimum radius depth of 100 feet…” (emphasis added), Exhibit E. In fact, this is a material misstatement of the County’s Ordinance. The Ordinance, in fact, states that with regard to silos they must be located “1,000 feet or more from an adjoining property’s existing residential unit.” Section 11-102.2-1(a)(2). The ordinance also requires that all other facilities “shall be 300 feet or more from an adjoining property’s existing residential unit” and that “the facility shall be surrounded by wooded areas for at least 100 feet on all sides. For all provisions of this article, the terms “woodland” and “wooded areas” shall mean growth of deciduous or conifer trees at a minimum density of 80 wooden stems per acre of trees that measure at least four inches in diameter breast high (DBH) or four and one half feet.” Section 11-102.2-2(b)(3),(5). This material misstatement of the County’s Ordinance, raises serious concerns as to the accuracy of the ATC Report and the diligence with which it was conducted.5

5 Notably, even if Mr. Condyles had correctly cited the County’s Ordinance, Verizon would still be in violation of it. As Mr. Condyles own photographs show, there are no woodlands that would surround this silo and facilities, in fact, there are trees several hundred feet away from the facilities, but those trees provide no protection to adjacent residences visibility of the silo or its facilities. Moreover, as clearly seen



of 12

As Mr. Condyles acknowledges in the Consultant’s Report, the proposed silo is well less than 1000 feet from Mr. Lofaro’s residence. Moreover, it is apparent from the application and the Consultant’s Report, that the associated facilities are not and will not be surrounded by wooded areas, as defined, for at least 100 feet on all sides. No explanation is provided as to how this violation would be remedied or why it should be overlooked by the Commission.

Mr. Condyles also tries to minimize the impact of the silo by alleging, without apparent basis, that on the top 20’ will be visible from the Lofaro property (See ATCReport, p. 6, Exhibit E), In fact, as set forth in the Declaration of Stephen Lofaro, Mr.Lofaro would see the entire 80 foot silo from the portions of his property that face the Trible property, including from the access road to his property, from his front yard, his front stoop, and from all the facing windows of his residence.6 See Lofaro Declaration, p.1, Exhibit K.

Even more outrageous, perhaps, is Mr. Condyles, allegation that the silo “would have no negative impact to this property.” Much like the assertions in the Consultant’s Report described above, one searches in vein for even a scintilla of data, evidence or logical argumentation in support of this allegation. As an initial matter, Mr. Condyles has not suggested that he has any training, knowledge or experience in the real estate industry in Fauquier County, nor has he been nor could he be qualified as an expert appraiser. In fact, he does not even reside in the community. More to the point, in ex parte testimony provided to the FCC in an effort to limit federal jurisdiction over cell tower siting issues, Mr. Condyles described the location of cell towers in rural communities as “highly undesirable”:

Many rural communities are designed with scenic views of a naturally beautiful landscape, and the addition of a wireless communications facility within this view shed is highly undesirable, especially for the tourism industry.

in the ATC Report, the silo is, at best, to be located in an open field. See ATC Report, p. 15, Approximate location of proposed silo, Exhibit E.

6 Mr. Condyles own Report shows that the silo’s proposed location would be located in an open field—which is a location expressly disfavored by the zoning Ordinance—and which ensures that the entire silo will be clearly visible to Mr. Lofaro’s residence which is a mere 357 feet away. See ATC Report, p. 15, Approximate location of proposed silo, Exhibit E. Moreover, to Mr. Lofaro’s knowledge, Mr. Condyles was never on Mr. Lofaro’s property, nor was he inside his residence and thus, once again, there is no apparent factual basis for this aspect of Mr. Condyles’ claims.



of 12

See ATC Ex Parte, Exhibit B, at 3.

As Mr. Lofaro explains, the significant visibility of the tower from his property and the drive to his property will materially harm his quality of life and the quiet enjoyment of his property by depriving him of the ability to maintain the unobstructed beautiful views of nature he currently enjoys. As a long term resident of the community, Mr. Lofaro also believes that the construction of the silo would also materially damage the value of his property. The Commission should keep in mind that this loss in property value would not only result in an unfair and unjustified economic loss to Mr. Lofaro, but would result in a material and ongoing loss in tax revenues to Fauquier County as well as an unfair, discriminatory and punitive transfer of wealth from Mr. Lofaro and Fauquier County to Ms. Trible and to Verizon. Under the applicable statutory provisions, Fauquier County is obligated under Virginia case law to consider the substantial harm this would cause both to Mr. Lofaro and the community at large and to recommend against approval on this ground alone.

c. Verizon Has Better Site Alternatives Which Must be Considered

The hierarchy of considerations set forth in the Telecommunications Ordinance are plainly designed to direct the siting of new towers to properties that are the most appropriate in terms of coverage and need and that will have the least negative effect on the surrounding communities. As set forth herein, the proposed site is not only in direct conflict with the 1000 foot distance requirement, which it misses by nearly 700 feet, but it is clearly not the best site. Indeed, as the Board may be aware, several years ago, an application was prepared by T-Mobile for the location of a cell tower on the back portion of Mr. Lofaro’s property, far from any residence and out of the sight line of those residences and the access road. That application was withdrawn under circumstances that may justify a further inquiry by this Commission and/or the County attorney at an appropriate time if this application proceeds to the Board of Supervisors and beyond.

The wireless facility site set forth in the T-Mobile application is still available. Indeed, Mr. Lofaro has contacted Verizon on several occasions offering that site for the proposed tower and providing them with evidence that his property, in fact, would be a much more reasonable location for this facility. See Lofaro E-mails, attached as ExhibitL.

As Mr. Lofaro has explained in his communications with Verizon, the Lofaroproperty is at a substantially higher elevation than the currently-proposed site and would provide far better coverage of the proposed service area. The Lofaro site is much further away from all adjacent residences and is completely out of view; the proposed site is plainly visible to all three adjacent properties and would have a direct negative impact on



of 12

the value of the properties as well as the owner’s ability to enjoy the beauty of the surroundings and quality of life.

In addition, the Lofaro site would not require the construction of an expensive silo; yet, the proposed site would. Moreover, to the extent that Verizon would incur any additional road improvement or electrical line costs at the Lofaro site, Mr. Lofaro is prepared to make Verizon economically whole through a reduction in the lease fee. In fact, Mr. Lofaro provided Verizon with documents showing the exact location of his site, evidencing that the site on his property would not only avoid all the issues surrounding the proposed site, but also that it would allow Verizon to achieve better coverage of the proposed area.

Finally, given the need for a special exception at the proposed site and the strong opposition that will be offered—requiring several rounds of administrative and judicial proceedings requiring several years to address—the Lofaro site would be available for use by Verizon much sooner (even if the proposed site were approved) and at a far lower cost to Verizon.

In short, the benefits of Mr. Lofaro’s site over the proposed site are overwhelming and include:

(i) the Lofaro site is at a substantially higher elevation than the currently-proposedsite and would provide far better coverage of the proposed service area;

(ii) the Lofaro site is much further away from all adjacent residences and is completely out of view; the proposed site is closer to and plainly visible to all three adjacent residences;

(iii) the Lofaro site would not require a special exception, and even if it did, it would have a far lower economic, quality of life, and aesthetic impact on the community at large which would be in keeping with the hierarchy set forth in the Telecommunications Ordinance; the proposed site would blatantly violate the regulations and spirit of the Ordinance and have substantial adverse impact on all aspects of the community at large;

(iv) the Lofaro site would not require the construction of an expensive silo; the proposed site would; and

(v) given the need for a special exception at the proposed site and the strong opposition that will be offered—requiring several rounds of administrative and judicial proceedings requiring several years to address—the Lofaro site would be available for



of 12

use by Verizon much sooner (even if the proposed site were approved) and at a far lower cost to Verizon.

Thus, the Lofaro site is a win-win and is preferable to the proposed site on all relevant grounds.

Given the obvious advantages of the Lofaro site, it is disturbing that Verizon rejected Mr. Lofaro’s offer twice without substantive explanation, indeed admitting directly that “there are many sites that are usable within a search area.” (emphasis added). Fortunately for the citizens of Fauquier County, Verizon is not the final arbiter of where it cell towers may be located; that decision is left to the recommendation of this Planning Commission, to the decision of the Board of Supervisors and, ultimately to the review of the courts. Thus, the fact that Verizon is not willing to consider any alternative site is not a barrier to the Commission’s right to recommend against the proposed site and to recommend the placement of the cell tower/silo at the site on the Lofaro property that is far more consistent with all applicable ordinances.

Verizon has failed to meet the requirements for the approval of its Application based on both the facts it has provided and the applicable standard of legal review required under County ordinances and Virginia case law. As such, there is no basis in law or fact for the Commission to recommend approval of, and for the Board of Supervisors to grant, Verizon’s Special Exception to build its wireless facility on the Cobbler site. If the Commission concludes that additional coverage is needed, then the Commission should and indeed must, recommend that it be placed on the Lofaro (or some other) property which meets the requirements of County ordinances and Virginia law.

All communications regarding this matter should be directed to the undersigned.

Very truly yours, Technology Law Group, LLC

Jessica A. Youngs, Esq. Virginia State Bar #848643

Counsel to Stephen Lofaro

cc: Neil S. Ende (TVC) Encs.

EXHIBIT A

Verizon Wireless Statement of Justification

EXHIBIT B

Ex Parte Comments of Atlantic Technology Consultants to the Federal Communications Commission

(ATC Ex Parte)

- 1 -

October 10, 2008 To: Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission Office of the Secretary 445 12th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20554 From: George N. Condyles, IV-President & COO Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. (ATC) 10197 Maple Leaf Court Ashland, Virginia 23005 Re: WT Docket No. 08-165, CTIA Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify

Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance

Dear Secretary Dortch: As the chief executive of Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. or (ATC) I believe I could shed some light on the past history between local municipalities and the “Wireless Community” tower siting application process which the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) is seeking to change. ATC was established to provide professional consulting for local, state, and federal agencies requiring telecommunications services. Public Safety Radio System and Land Use consulting have been the two fields of endeavor that has dominated our efforts for over 18 years. Local governments in the process of making decisions for tower siting applications need an advocate (such as ATC) to help process technical reviews. A non-biased third party provides a sense of equality by representing the locality as well as citizens concerned about the environmental and historical impacts of their communities. ATC has consulted with over forty (40) localities throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia and various jurisdictions in the State of North Carolina, Maryland, Wisconsin, and various New England States. This also includes federal agencies as the National Park Service and Department of Energy.

- 2 -

During this course of time ATC has reviewed hundreds of these applications on behalf of counties, cities and various municipalities. We believe our comments are representative of the “how, what, and why” of municipal review. Background: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves the right of the local zoning authority over Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) deployment with certain limitations that prohibit unreasonable discrimination and actions that unjustly delay a WCF siting. This gives the “framework” of the importance of the WCF, but also the details of where and how this facility is deployed into a community. Local government provides planning, zoning, and an application system for such a facility. In addition, the local government system has an appeal process if the local response is not conducive to the applicant. A typical new tower application in any municipal Application Review Process should contain engineering drawings (Site Plan, Structural, Erosion and Landscaping), Zoning district compliance, setbacks compliance, potential collocation candidates, the Applicant’s collocation policy, landscape buffer/screening, the type of WCF being proposed (i.e. monopole, lattice self-support, guyed, camouflaged tower), structural tower drawings, FCC Bulletin OET-65 for RF exposure limitations compliance, grounding plan, security fence, appropriate signage, potential interference of radio frequencies, FAA review, FCC antenna site registration (if applicable), Phase I NEPA checklist & report to include the SHPO response, and supporting documentation such as photo simulations, network plan, and Radio Propagation coverage maps generated by a competent engineer employed by the wireless carrier and accountable to the FCC. A typical collocation application consists of engineering drawings reviewed for structural analysis of the existing structure/tower to withstand the structural loading of all appurtenances, existing and new, plus additional wind and ice loading which may require reinforcements/adjustments to the structure/tower, existing tower site conditions, and modifications to the site compound such as a fence expansion. If the proposed collocation requires an extension to the existing structure/tower that is considered a “Substantial increase in the size of the tower” as defined in the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, then the structure/tower should be reviewed under the consultation process as set forth under Subpart B of 36 CFR Part 800. Also, the additional height extension may require a new FAA study, FCC antenna site registration, RF exposure compliance, interference, and a grounding plan. If the requirements are written clearly, the applicant must provide this information to the local government review body. The local government review body is the “portal” agency that begins the process by collecting various state and federal requirements which the local citizen can review. If not, would the Federal Communications Commission keep an individual file on each WCF and give access on-line to each piece of data required by local, state and federal government in the review, construction and operation in perpetuity of such individual facility? With over 200,000+ communications towers nationwide, it would be an impossible task to retroactively establish such a data base.

- 3 -

Who would a local citizen call to receive information concerning environmental or historical review and considerations? The President of Verizon Wireless? No, they would go to their local municipal Planning and Zoning Office to receive this information. Local Government: In consideration of all the above-mentioned criteria for a tower siting, it is imperative that the local jurisdictions continue to have the right of local zoning authority over the wireless service providers as described in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Local government is the “boots on the ground” representative of the citizenry that must answer for the health and safety of the structure to the local population. Does it make sense for the wireless service provider industry to oversee itself? Without local jurisdiction oversight will they consistently comply with local, state, and federal regulations or will corners be cut to save money and time at the expense of safety? From ATC’s experience, local jurisdictions in Virginia and North Carolina have reasonable zoning ordinances and procedures that allow them to respond to a submitted application within an acceptable time period. For more than 85% of new tower applications, final action takes place within a 60-90 day time frame. The approximate 15% will typically be delayed due to incomplete information or possibly technical issues. Most municipalities only require administrator approval for collocation applications, which aids in streamlining the process. Typically, the reasons behind a delayed application is lack of information from the Applicant, non-compliance with local, state, or federal regulations, or overwhelming community opposition. Many rural communities are designed with scenic views of a naturally beautiful landscape, and the addition of a wireless communications facility within this view shed is highly undesirable, especially for the tourism industry. This is why many property owners place their property in a “Conservatory” status to protect the present, but also to have the vision of well managed assets for the community’s future. The majority of wireless service providers and/or tower developers are professional and their intent to do business in a particular jurisdiction is within compliance once the planning and zoning requirements are understood. Issues of local governments: There are a couple of issues that concern local governments and elected officials:

- 4 -

1. Who do they believe in reference to technical information requested and

provided?

a. The WCF Community is made of several parties: i. FCC Licensed Carrier (i.e. Verizon, AT&T US Cellular,

Sprint/Nextel etc.) Representatives from Network, Operations and legal counsel.

ii. Tower Owners/Developer: (i.e. Crown & American Tower, SBA, etc.)

1. Site Acquisition Consultant-Out Sourced 2. Radio Frequency Consultant- Out Sourced 3. Site Plan Engineer- Out Sourced 4. Environmental Consultant - Out Sourced 5. Photo Simulation Consultant- Out Sourced

b. Tower Construction General Contractors: Out Sourced i. The local building permit applicant.

1. This party must be complaint with local, state and federal building and OSHA Compliance.

2. Subcontractors for civil, electrical, structural, and specialty contractors.

The question is:

Who is accountable and responsible for the flow of information and the correct evaluation of questions posed by an elected official or citizen requesting explanation? The Wireless Carrier, Tower Developer/Owner, the attorney, or the consultants representing the Applicant?

2. Commitment for Future Co-locators:

Tower developers that submit applications to construct new towers do so without a solid commitment from a wireless service provider to collocate on the proposed tower. Local governments are wary about allowing tower developers to build new towers with the assumption that the new tower will automatically be sought out for collocation. Wireless service providers carefully design their network and the tower site may not be a good candidate to expand the provider’s network coverage. The concept of “build it and they will come” is not a good business plan. There are plenty of alternative local exchange companies that went bankrupt as a result of this methodology. Another issue involves 2nd and 3rd party contractors employed by the wireless service providers to perform the real estate search and negotiations, as well as the local zoning application process that can often lead to inconsistencies and confusion with the Application and the true intent of the Applicant (the

- 5 -

wireless service provider). Therefore, from the perspective of this consultant any delays in the tower application process are self-inflicted by the wireless service provider industry. In conclusion, it is ATC’s position that local jurisdictions should retain the current review process by retaining the right of local zoning authority over WCF sitings. Time restraints or local zoning ordinance limitations being imposed upon the local government bodies will impede the exercise of review and citizen input in a free speech society. For reasons stated in this document, the local zoning authority should be entitled to review each tower application on an individual case basis and let statutory local law prevail. ATC appreciates the opportunity to comment on this petition and is pleased to provide additional information and input if requested. Respectfully, George N. Condyles, IV President & Chief Operating Officer

EXHIBIT C

Verizon Wireless Website Coverage Plots

11/30/12 7:19 AMVerizon Wireless Coverage Map | Verizon Wireless

Page 1 of 1http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/CoverageLocatorController

Contact A Sales Associate

Map Legend

Mapped Coverage4G Data Coverage

Mapped Location9572 Ivanhoe LnDelaplane, VA 20144-2167

Verizon4G LTE*

Verizon4G LTEExtended**

Extended4G LTE***

Verizon3G

Extended3G

Canada/Mexico3G

NoService

VZWStore

These Coverage Locator depictions apply to the following calling plans: Share Everything, Nationwide Calling Plans, Mobile Broadband and Prepaid.* Access the 4G LTE network within the Coverage Area.** Access the 4G LTE network within the Verizon Extended Coverage Area; certain conditions may cause your service to connect to 3G in this Area.*** Access the 4G LTE network within the Extended Coverage Area; Some of the Coverage Areas include networks run by other carriers, thecoverage depicted is based on their information and public sources and we cannot ensure its accuracy




Map Legend



Verizon4G LTE*


Extended4G LTE***

Verizon3G

Extended3G

Canada/Mexico3G

NoService

VZWStore





Map Legend

Mapped CoverageData Coverage


3G DataCoverage

1X DataCoverage

Extended3G DataCoverage

Extended1X DataCoverage

Canada/Mexico3G DataCoverage

Canada/Mexico1X DataCoverage

NoService

VZWStore

These Coverage Locator depictions apply to the following calling plans: Share Everything, Nationwide Calling Plans, Mobile Broadband and Prepaid.Data roaming charges apply in Canada and Mexico coverage areas.If you have a Nationwide Calling Plan: Picture/Video Messaging, Mobile Web and Mobile Email works in both the Enhanced Services and ExtendedEnhanced Services coverage area; Push to Talk, VZ Navigator and Family Locator work in only the Enhanced Services coverage area.These Coverage Locator maps depict predicted and approximate wireless coverage The coverage areas shown do not guarantee service availability




Map Legend

Mapped CoverageVoice and Messaging


DigitalCoverage

ExtendedDigitalCoverage

NoCoverage

VZWStore

These Coverage Locator depictions apply to the following calling plans: Share Everything, Nationwide Calling Plans, Mobile Broadband and Prepaid.Voice roaming charges will apply in the Canada and Mexico coverage areas unless you subscribe to the Share Everything or Nationwide PlusCanada/Mexico Plan.These Coverage Locator maps depict predicted and approximate wireless coverage. The coverage areas shown do not guarantee service availability,and may include locations with limited or no coverage Even within a coverage area there are many factors including customer’s equipment terrain

EXHIBIT D

Verizon Wireless Engineer Letter of Justification and Coverage Plots

EXHIBIT E

Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. (“ATC”) Report

EXHIBIT F

The Atlantic Group of Companies, Inc.

Operating Division: Atlantic Tower Corporation

www.atlantic-tower.com/tower.html

About Us

The Atlantic Group was founded in 1990 during the advent of public safety wireless networks. As time and technology have evolved, The Atlantic Group has grownto provide focused services to governments and government agencies to upgrade public safety radio systems, implement E-911, plan for the placement ofcommercial towers, deploy geographical information (GIS), design and construct public safety towers, provide lease management of public towers and tanks, andfacilitate marine communications. The Atlantic Group is comprised of four divisions:

Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc.Radio Frequency & E-911 Engineering and Consulting

Atlantic Tower CorporationTower Construction and Maintenance

Atlantic Property, Inc.Tower and Water Tank Leasing

Atlantic Marine Communications, Inc.Maritime Communications, Custom NAV Stations and Electronics

Copyright - ©2012 - The Atlantic Group of Companies, Inc. Website Development -3V Design Media

The Atlantic Group - Municipal Wired and Wireless Communications Con... http://www.atlantic-tower.com/about.html

1 of 1 12/2/2012 7:41 PM

Tower Division

Public safety, Defense, and Municipal communications require tower infrastructure. Local, State, and Federal agencies must conform to the same requirements as aprivate tower owner. Atlantic Tower Corporation can help you navigate through the rough seas of regulations and federal requirements. Public Safety and Defensemust have 100% reliable towers, grounding, UPS, and generators. Let ATC achieve this for you.

Scope of Services

Tower InspectionsMaintenanceLine and Antenna InstallationLighting Installation and RepairTower erection/demolitionUPSGenerator SetsEquipment SheltersLighting ProtectionStructural Analysis

Copyright - ©2012 - The Atlantic Group of Companies, Inc. Website Development -3V Design Media

The Atlantic Group - Municipal Wired and Wireless Communications Con... http://www.atlantic-tower.com/tower.html

1 of 1 12/2/2012 7:41 PM

EXHIBIT G

George N. Condyles, IV

Founder & President:The Atlantic Group of Companies, Inc.

LinkedIn Profile

12/1/12 8:23 AMGeorge N. Condyles, IV | LinkedIn

Page 1 of 3http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=20756711&authType=NAME_SEA…2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2_*2&pvs=ps&trk=pp_profile_name_link

Summary

Set Goals and Objectives+Work Smart+Technical Proficiency = Successful Results

Think of other people's feelings + sense of humor + endure the same hardships as others = Team

Give God glory in all that you do, say, and think.

Love one another as God loved you!!!!!

Lead by example.

Experience

Founder & PresidentThe Atlantic Group of Companies, Inc.January 1992 – Present (21 years) Virginia

Communications consulting for Public Safety, Strategic Military and Homeland SecurityThis position is associated with:

1 Honor or Award

Communications EngineerVerizonPublic Company; 10,001+ employees; VZ; Information Technology and Services industrySeptember 1985 – June 1996 (10 years 10 months)

Various wire and wireless projects

Project EngineerKellogg Brown and Root pty ltdCivil Engineering industryApril 1984 – September 1985 (1 year 6 months)

Project Engineer for Petro-chemical division at DuPont Spruance Plant, Richmond, Virginia.

Captain- Engineer OfficerUS Army Corps of EngineersGovernment Agency; 10,001+ employees; Military industryJune 1980 – May 1984 (4 years) Germany

Combat Engineer Platoon Leader, Heavy Equipment Platoon Leader, Headquarters Company Executive Officer12th Engineer Battalion (Combat/Mech) 8th Infantry Division, 5th US Corps, United States Army -Europe

Honors and Awards

Defender of Freedom Leader Award

Virtual Technolgy Officer - Top-Tier technology expert with 21+ Yrs Exp. Click now to retain for Q1.

www.linkedin.com/pub/george-n-condyles-iv/6/b4b/b9b Contact Info

3rd

144connections

George N. Condyles, IVFounder & President: The Atlantic Group ofCompanies, Inc.Mechanicsville, Virginia Wireless

Current Founder & President at The Atlantic Group ofCompanies, Inc.

Previous Verizon, Kellogg Brown and Root pty ltd, USArmy Corps of Engineers

Education Executive Development at Wharton School,University of Pennsylvania

Connect Send InMail

e



3

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

FRG: 237th Engineer Company -Sapper- VAARNGMarch 2006 | The Atlantic Group of Companies, Inc.

Support of Families of military members deployed to Iraq.

Organizations

Society of American Military Engineers

American Society of Civil Engineers

Certifications

Broadcast EngineerFederal Communications Commision

Languages

German and Greek

Education

Wharton School, University of PennsylvaniaExecutive Development1996 – 1997

University of RichmondOrganizational Leadership1991 – 1992

Virginia Military InstituteBachelor's of Science, Civil Engineering1976 – 1980

Additional Information

Company Website

Government Sector Communications (Public Safety and Strategic)

Boy Scouts of America

Virginia Military InstituteJoin

Skills & Expertise Endorsements

Mobile Devices

Start-ups

Strategic Leadership

Product Development

Telecommunications

Marketing Strategy

Customer Service

Sales Management

Websites:

Interests:

Groups andAssociations:



● job inquiries ● expertise requests● business deals ● reference requests● getting back in touch

Personal Information

November 26

Contact George N. for:

Send a message to George N. Condyles, IV

Send InMail

LinkedIn Corporation © 2012

Get introduced through a connection

Birthday:

EXHIBIT H

FCC Registered Cell Phone and Antenna Towers in Montross, Virginia

EXHIBIT I

Notice of Contract RenewalIssued by the Fauquier County Government and Public

Schools,Finance Division,

Procurement Department Notice of Contract Renewal, Issued September 27, 2012

Contract #09-10smc, Radio Engineering Consulting Services

Renewed, 9/27/12, with no price adjustment 1

FAUQUIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS FINANCE DEPARTMENT, PROCUREMENT DIVISION

320 Hospital Drive Ste. 23 Warrenton, Virginia 20186

Phone: (540) 422-8348 Fax: (540) 422-8355

NOTICE OF CONTRACT RENEWAL 1. DATE: September 27, 2012 2. COMMODITY NAME: Radio Engineering Consulting Services 3. CONTRACT NUMBER: 09-10smc

4. SUPERCEDES: 13-05tmc 5. CONTRACT PERIOD: November 12, 2012 through November 12, 2013 6. RENEWAL OPTIONS: One (1) additional one-year renewals remaining 7. CONTRACTOR: Atlantic Technology Consultants, Incorporated

(V/N 641090) 6260 Pine Slash Road Mechanicsville, VA 23116

PH (804) 550-7490 FX (804) 550-7493 8. TERMS: Net 45 9. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan R. Monaco, CPPO, CPPB PH (540) 422-8348 NOTICE TO ALL FAUQUIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SCHOOL USING DEPARTMENTS: This contract is the result of a competitive bid program and its use must follow the FCG&PS Procurement Policy/Procedures for the purchase of the commodity listed herein. Please see the reverse side of this notice for further instructions regarding this contract.



INSTRUCTIONS

1. Orders: All Using Departments must order services listed by issuing a Purchase Orders per the Procurement Procedures Manual, after following the instructions below. An extra copy of the Procedures Manual can be obtained by calling Procurement at (540) 422-8350 or 8351.

2. All correspondence and documents (to include invoices) shall reference the

contract number, applicable purchase order number and any project reference number the Using Department may identify.

3. Approval of Consultant’s invoice is the responsibility of the Using

Department. 4. Any complaint as to quality of services or violation of contract provisions by

the Consultant shall be reported to the Procurement Division for handling with the Consultant. All complaints must be submitted in writing and can be forwarded to Procurement via fax, e-mail or courier.

5. Renewals: As stated on the face of this notice, one (1) one-year renewals

remain on this contract. The decision as to whether to renew these services will be made by the contract officer, with input requested from the Using Departments, approximately sixty days in advance of the expiration date of the contract term.

6. Price Adjustments: Contract prices shall remain firm for the award year.

Prices may be negotiated only at the time of renewal. All price increases must be approved by the contract officer. Contract users will be sent notification of contract change from the Procurement office as official notification of such changes, if approved.



November 5, 2009

Susan R. Monaco, CPPB Fauquier County Government and Public Schools Procurement Division 320 Hospital Drive, Ste 23 Warrenton, VA 20186

RE: Requested fees, RFP# 09-10SM Radio Engineering Consulting Services

Ms. Monaco,

The following are fees for our services:

--New Tower Application: $3,500.00, includes attending: 3 unspecified meetings, including but not limited to Staff, Planning Commission, Balloon Test, Board of Supervisors, Architectural Review Board, etc. as appropriate. Any meetings beyond three will be billed at our hourly rate of $150.00.

--Non-SE Site Plan Cases: $2,400.00; any meetings will be billed at the hourly rate of $150.00.

--The above fees are all inclusive for the review of New Tower and Non-SE site plan cases, except as noted.

--For all other services, a current Fee Schedule is attached.

Thank you,

Harriet Condyles, VP & CEO Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc.

TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING

TOWER SERVICES

MARINE RADIO SERVICES

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

10197 MAPLE LEAF COURT ASHLAND, VIRGINIA 23005-8136

804.550.7490 FAX 804.550.7493

WWW.ATLANTICGROUP.US.COM



Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Atlantic Tower Corporation

Fee Schedule

Title Rate Professional

Principal Engineer $150.00 Electrical Engineer $120.00 Structural Engineer $120.00 Sr. RF Engineer $150.00 RF Technician $100.00 Project Manager $125.00 Asst. Project Manager $95.00 Accountant $95.00 Administrative Manager $70.00

Specialist Site Planner $85.00 Communication Technician $65.00 Telco OSP Technician $65.00 CAD Operator I $65.00 CAD Operator II $55.00 Topographic Mapping Specialist $55.00 Computer Tech./Programmer $55.00 Logistics/Inventory Manager $55.00 Historian $80.00

Trade Construction Manager/Crew Foreman $100.00 Sr. Tower Technician/Crew $95.00 Jr. Tower Technician/Crew $85.00 Electrician/Grounding Technician $95.00 Draftsman(CAD) $85.00 Word Processor $40.00 Photographer $35.00 Laborer $45.00

Reimbursables Automobile Mileage $0.50/mi Service Vehicle Mileage $0.50/mi Equipment Rental Cost + 10% Copying (Blue Prints/Drawings) Cost + 10% Material (Radio) Cost + 10% Lodging Cost Per Diem (Meals) $45.00/day

01-01-09

EXHIBIT J

Fauquier County Code of Ethics

RESOLUTION

A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A CODE OF ETHICS FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE FAUQUIER COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND FOR THE MEMBERS OF ALL

BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

WHEREAS, the citizens and businesses of Fauquier County are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government which has earned the public's full confidence; and

WHEREAS, in keeping with Fauquier County's commitment to excellence, all public officials, both elected and appointed, must comply with both the letter and spirit of the laws and policies affecting the operation of government; and

WHEREAS, all public officials, both elected and appointed, are required to be impartial and fair in their judgment and actions and ensure that public office is used for the public good; and

WHEREAS, the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors has determined that the adoption of a Code of Ethics for its members and the members of all Board-appointed boards, committees and commissions will assist in achieving these ends; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED by the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors this 5th day of January 2004, That the following Code of Ethics is hereby adopted:

FAUQUIER COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

CODE OF ETHICS

Preamble

The citizens and businesses of Fauquier County, Virginia, are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government, which has earned the public’s full confidence for integrity. In keeping with the County of Fauquier’s Commitment to Excellence, the effective functioning of democratic government therefore requires that public officials, both elected and appointed, comply with both the letter and spirit of the laws and policies affecting the operations of government; that public officials be independent, impartial and fair in their judgment and actions; that public office be used for the public good, not for personal gain; and that public deliberations and processes be conducted openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility.

To this end, the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors has adopted this Code of Ethics for members of the Board and of the County’s boards, commissions and committees to assure public confidence in the integrity of local government and its effective and fair operation.

1. Act in the Public Interest

Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, members will work for the common good of the people of Fauquier County and not for any private or personal interest, and they will assure fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims, and transactions coming before the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors, boards, commissions, and committees.

2. Comply with the Law

Members shall comply with the laws of the nation, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the County of Fauquier in the performance of their public duties. These laws include, but are not limited to: the United States and Virginia constitutions; the Code of the County of Fauquier; laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures, employer responsibilities, and open processes of government; and County ordinances and policies.

3. Conduct of Members

The professional and personal conduct of members must be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Members shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of the Board of Supervisors, boards, commissions, and committees, the staff or public.

4. Respect for Process

Members shall perform their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the Board of Supervisors and boards, committees, and commissions governing the deliberation of public policy issues, meaningful involvement of the public, and implementation of policy decisions of the Board of Supervisors by County staff.

5. Conduct of Public Meetings

Members shall prepare themselves for public issues; listen courteously and attentively to all public discussions before the body; and focus on the business at hand. They shall refrain from interrupting other speakers; making personal comments not germane to the business of the body; or otherwise interfering with the orderly conduct of meetings.

6. Decisions Based on Merit

Members shall base their decisions on the merits and substance of the matter at hand, rather than on unrelated considerations.

7. Communication

Members shall publicly share substantive information that is relevant to a matter under consideration by the Board of Supervisors or boards, committees and commissions, which they may have received from sources outside of the public decision-making process.

8. Conflict of Interest

In order to assure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the common good, members shall not use their official positions to influence government decisions in which they have a material financial interest, or where they have an organizational responsibility or personal relationship that may give the appearance of a conflict of interest.

In accordance with the law, members shall disclose investments, interests in real property, sources of income, and gifts; and they shall abstain from participating in deliberations and decision-making where conflicts may exist.

9. Gifts and Favors

Members shall not take any special advantage of services or opportunities for personal gain, by virtue of their public office, which are not available to the public in general. They shall refrain from accepting any gifts, favors or promises of future benefits which might compromise their independence of judgment or action or give the appearance of being compromised.

10. Confidential Information

Members shall respect the confidentiality of information concerning the property, personnel or affairs of the County. They shall neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization, nor use such information to advance their personal, financial or other private interests.

11. Use of Public Resources

Members shall not use public resources that are not available to the public in general, such as County staff time, equipment, supplies or facilities, for private gain or personal purposes.

12. Representation of Private Interests

In keeping with their role as stewards of the public interest, members of the Board shall not appear on behalf of the private interests of third parties before the Board of Supervisors or any board, committee, commission or proceeding of the County, nor shall members of boards, committees or commissions appear before their own bodies or before the Board of Supervisors on behalf of the private interests of third parties on matters related to the areas of service of their bodies.

13. Advocacy

Members shall represent the official policies or positions of the Board of Supervisors, boards, commissions or committees to the best of their ability when designated as delegates for this purpose. When presenting their individual opinions and positions, members shall explicitly state they do not represent their body or Fauquier County, nor will they allow the inference that they do.

14. Policy Role of Members

The Board of Supervisors determines the policies of the County with the advice, information and analysis provided by the public, boards, commissions, and committees, and County staff. The Board of Supervisors delegates authority for the administration of the County to the County Administrator.

Members therefore shall not interfere with the administrative functions of the County or the professional duties of County staff; nor shall they impair the ability of staff to implement Board policy decisions.

15. Independence of Board and Commissions

Because of the value of the independent advice of boards, committees and commissions to the public decision-making process, members of the Board of Supervisors shall refrain from using their positions to unduly influence the deliberations or outcomes of board, committee or commission proceedings.

16. Positive Work Place Environment

Members shall support the maintenance of a positive and constructive work place environment for County employees and for citizens and businesses dealing with the County. Members shall recognize their special role in dealings with County employees and in no way create the perception of inappropriate direction to staff.

17. Implementation

As an expression of the standards of conduct for members expected by the County, the Fauquier County Code of Ethics is intended to be self-enforcing. It therefore becomes most effective when members are thoroughly familiar with it and embrace its provisions.

For this reason, ethical standards shall be included in the regular orientations for candidates for the Board of Supervisors, applicants to boards, committees and commissions, and newly elected and appointed officials. Members entering office shall sign a statement affirming they have read and understood the Fauquier County Code of Ethics. In addition, the Board of Supervisors, boards, committees and commissions, shall annually review the Code of Ethics and the Board of Supervisors shall consider recommendations from boards, committees and commissions to update it as necessary.

18. Compliance and Enforcement

The Fauquier County Code of Ethics expresses standards of ethical conduct expected of members of the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors, boards, committees and commissions. Members themselves have the primary responsibility to assure that ethical standards are understood and met, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of government.

The chairs of boards, committees and commissions and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors have the additional responsibility to intervene when actions of members that appear to be in violation of the Code of Ethics are brought to their attention.

The Board of Supervisors may impose sanctions on members whose conduct does not comply with the County’s ethical standards, such as reprimand, formal censure, loss of seniority or committee assignment, or budget restriction. Where allowed by law, the Board of Supervisors also may remove members of Board-appointed boards, committees and commissions from office.

A violation of this Code of Ethics shall not be considered a basis for challenging the validity of a Board of Supervisors, board, committee or commission decision.

Model of Excellence Fauquier County Board of Supervisors, Boards, Committees and Commissions

MEMBER STATEMENT

As a member of the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors, or of a Fauquier County board, committee or commission, I agree to uphold the Code of Ethics for elected and appointed officials adopted by the County and conduct myself by the following model of excellence. I will:

� Recognize the worth of individual members and appreciate their individual talents, perspectives and contributions;

� Help create an atmosphere of respect and civility where individual members, County staff and the public are free to express their ideas and work to their full potential;

� Conduct my personal and public affairs with honesty, integrity, fairness and respect for others;

� Respect the dignity and privacy of individuals and organizations;

� Keep the common good as my highest purpose and focus on achieving constructive solutions for the public benefit;

� Avoid and discourage conduct which is divisive or harmful to the best interests of Fauquier County;

� Treat all people with whom I interact in the manner I wish to be treated;

I affirm that I have read and understand the Fauquier County Code of Ethics.

Signature:

Date:

Name (printed):

Office:

Exhibit K

Declaration of Stephen Lofaro

EXHIBIT L

Lofaro E-mail Correspondence with Verizon Wireless

From: Neil Ende <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 15:22:02 -0500 To: Frank Stearns <[email protected]> Cc: Craig Dingwall <[email protected]> Conversation: Verizon Wireless Fauquier County site Subject: Re: Verizon Wireless Fauquier County site

Frank:

Per your request, attached are several maps, including a topo map, showing the location and elevation of each of the sites.

As you will see, the Lofaro site is at a substantially higher elevation than the currently-proposed site and would provide far better coverage of the proposed service area. The Lofaro site is much further away from all adjacent residences and is completely out of view; the proposed site is plainly visible to all three adjacent properties. The Lofaro site would not require a special exception; the proposed site would. The proposed site would not require the construction of an expensive silo; the proposed site would. Moreover, to the extent that Verizon would incur any additional road improvement or electrical line costs at the Lofaro site, Mr. Lofaro is prepared to make Verizon economically whole through a reduction in the lease fee.

Finally, given the need for a special exception at the proposed site and the strong opposition that will be offered—requiring several rounds of administrative and judicial proceedings requiring several years to address—the Lofaro site would be available for use by Verizon much sooner (even if the proposed site were approved) and at a far lower cost to Verizon.

Thus as we see it, the Lofaro site is a win-win and is preferable to the proposed site on all relevant grounds.

Mr. Lofaro is prepared to move forward with a lease agreement and construction immediately.

Please let me know ASAP if Verizon is interested in commencing discussions regarding the lease of the Lofaro site. If it is not, please state all reasons why the Lofaro site is not being considered.

Thank you.

Best. . . .

Technology Law Group 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 440

Washington, DC 20015 202.895.1707 (Office) 202.256.0120 (Cell) 202.573.9119 (google voice) 202.478.5074 (Facsimile) [email protected]: tlgdc Linkedin: linkedin.com/in/neilendetwitter: TechLawGroup about.me: about.me/NeilSEndeFacebook: TechnologyLawGroup YouTube: TechnologyLawGroup

Join the NEW Telecom Law Center on LinkedIn

Please check out our newly redesigned and feature rich website at www.tlgdc.com and our new telecommunications and technology blog (blog.tlgdc.com). Our interconnected web and blog sites allow you to subscribe to our free newsletters and to the TLG NewsFinder(SM) service, and will provide substantive articles and news feeds containing time-sensitive updates on critical events in the telecom and technology industries. We encourage you to join the web's first interactive telecommunications and technology "blog" community by commenting on telecommunications and technology issues.

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE/CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any attachments may contain confidential information and may be ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND/OR constitute ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT and should not be shared with third parties. This message is intended exclusively for the named recipient(s) as identified in the "To" line. If you are not a named recipient and have received this message and attachments, do not read the contents and do not share them with any third party. We ask that you notify the sender of the erroneous delivery immediately by reply email and that you promptly delete this message and all attachments from your system.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

From: Frank Stearns <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:37:55 -0500 To: Neil Ende <[email protected]> Subject: Verizon Wireless Fauquier County site

�� !�� " �� "�� "��#��$��

��%� ��&��'� ��(��)�'� ��*�+�,-.�/�� '��'��'��#0��,-.12�31-45�1,67,2813�5�31-45�141�41943�5�� :�� "��------ End of Forwarded Message

Maps (As Sent to Stearns).pdf229K View Download

___ From: Neil Ende <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:09:21 -0500 To: Frank Stearns <[email protected]> Cc: Craig Dingwall <[email protected]>, Steven Lofaro <[email protected]> Conversation: Email from Steven Lofaro Subject: Email from Steven Lofaro

Frank:

Steve is unavailable due to his wife’s serious illness. He asked us to send you the following email in his absence.

---------------------

Frank:

As you know, I am the owner of the property directly adjacent to the property in which you are proposing to place the cell tower. That cell tower (silo) would be in the direct line of sight of my house and, as such, would have a direct negative impact on the value of my property as well as on my ability to enjoy the beauty of the surroundings and on my quality of life. As you may also be aware, my wife if currently fighting a difficult battle with cancer, and I have very serious concerns regarding the effect that the location of the tower will have on her health, both as a matter of the stress it will create on her as well as the effects of the radiation that will be added to her environment.

In an effort to avoid a long and expensive battle over this issue, the other week I reached out to you in good faith to offer an alternative site for the tower on my property (the “Lofaro site”). Documents showing the exact location of that site were sent to you at that time. Those documents evidenced that the site on my property would not only avoid all the issues surrounding the proposed site, but also that it would allow Verizon to achieve better coverage of the proposed area. In short, the benefits of my site over the proposed site are overwhelming and include:

(i) the Lofaro site is at a substantially higher elevation than the currently-proposed site and would provide far better coverage of the proposed service area;

(ii) the Lofaro site is much further away from all adjacent residences and is completely out of view; the proposed site is closer to and plainly visible to all three adjacent residences;

(iii) the Lofaro site would not require a special exception; the proposed site would;

(iv) the proposed site would not require the construction of an expensive silo; the proposed site would; and

(v) given the need for a special exception at the proposed site and the strong opposition that will be offered—requiring several rounds of administrative and judicial proceedings requiring several years to address—the Lofaro site would be available for use by Verizon much sooner (even if the proposed site were approved) and at a far lower cost to Verizon.

In addition, as a further sign of my good faith and to take any possible economic concern with the Lofaro site out of play, I offered to to make Verizon economically whole through a reduction in the lease fee the extent that Verizon would incur any additional road improvement or electrical line costs at the Lofaro site.

Given the obvious advantages of the Lofaro site, I was very disturbed that you rejected my offer without substantive explanation of any kind.

I repeated my offer regarding the Lofaro site directly to you at the public meeting held last week. Once again, you rejected that offer without substantive explanation of any kind.

My offer stands. I am prepared to proceed immediately with the execution of a lease agreement and to allow construction to proceed on my site as soon as Verizon is ready. Please let me know ASAP if Verizon is interested in commencing discussions regarding the lease of the Lofaro site. If it is not, please state all reasons why the Lofaro site is not being considered.

Steven Lofaro

---------------------

Best. . . .

Technology Law Group 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 202.895.1707 (Office) 202.256.0120 (Cell) 202.573.9119 (google voice) 202.478.5074 (Facsimile) [email protected]: tlgdc Linkedin: linkedin.com/in/neilendetwitter: TechLawGroup

about.me: about.me/NeilSEndeFacebook: TechnologyLawGroup YouTube: TechnologyLawGroup

Join the NEW Telecom Law Center on LinkedIn

Please check out our newly redesigned and feature rich website at www.tlgdc.com and our new telecommunications and technology blog (blog.tlgdc.com). Our interconnected web and blog sites allow you to subscribe to our free newsletters and to the TLG NewsFinder(SM) service, and will provide substantive articles and news feeds containing time-sensitive updates on critical events in the telecom and technology industries. We encourage you to join the web's first interactive telecommunications and technology "blog" community by commenting on telecommunications and technology issues.

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE/CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any attachments may contain confidential information and may be ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND/OR constitute ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT and should not be shared with third parties. This message is intended exclusively for the named recipient(s) as identified in the "To" line. If you are not a named recipient and have received this message and attachments, do not read the contents and do not share them with any third party. We ask that you notify the sender of the erroneous delivery immediately by reply email and that you promptly delete this message and all attachments from your system.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

------ End of Forwarded Message

From: Frank Stearns <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:35:12 -0500 To: Neil Ende <[email protected]> Cc: Craig Dingwall <[email protected]>, Steven Lofaro <[email protected]>, Stephanie Petway <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Email from Steven Lofaro

;�� "� �� "�� "��0�� ""��"�� " �� #��$�� "�� <� �� <�� =�� <��/%��#�� ""��"��" �� .-�� <��>��'�� &�� !�� .--�� "� � � ��<��>��?-�� " �� '�� /0�$��0�� "��"�� "� ��

��"� �� 0�� "�� 3��"��5�� 0�� #��$��&�� #��$��&�� %� ��&��'� ��(��)�'� ��*�+�,-.�/�� '��'��'��#0��,-.12�31-45�1,67,2813�5�31-45�141�41943�5�� :�� "�

MILLENNIUM ENGINEERING, P.C. 508 Ferncastle Drive

Downingtown, Pennsylvania 19335 Cell: 610-220-3820 Fax: 610-458-8612 www.millenniumengineering.net Email: [email protected] November 12, 2012 Attn: Stephanie M. Petway, Zoning Project Manager Network Building & Consulting, LLC 7380 Coca Cola Drive, Suite 106 Hanover, MD 21076 Re: RF Safety FCC Compliance of Proposed Communications Facility Site Name: Cobbler, Proposed 80’ Concrete Silo 9572 Ivanhoe Lane, Delaplane, VA 20144 (Fauquier County)

Dear Ms. Petway, I have performed a complete analysis to provide an independent determination and certification that the proposed Verizon Wireless communications facility at the above referenced property will comply with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exposure limits and guidelines for human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Code of Federal Regulation 47 CFR 1.1307 and 1.1310). As a registered professional engineer I am under the jurisdiction of the State Registration Boards in which I am licensed to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and to issue all public statements in an objective and truthful manner. The proposed communications facility consists of a proposed 80’ concrete silo. The proposed Verizon Wireless antenna configuration from the information furnished to me consists of (1) 700 MHz (LTE) antenna (Antel BXA-70080/8CF or equivalent), (2) 850 MHz (cellular) antennas (Antel LPA-70080/8CF or equivalent), (1) 1900 MHz (PCS) antenna (A: Antel BXA-171085/12CF, B/G: Antel BXA-171063/12CF or equivalent) and (1) 2100 MHz (AWS-LTE) antenna (A: Antel BXA-171085/12CF, B/G: Antel BXA-171063/12CF or equivalent) on each of three faces (total of 15 antennas) spaced with azimuths of 355/115/210 degrees on the horizontal plane with a centerline of 73’ above ground level. Transmitting from these antennas will be (1) 700 MHz (LTE) wideband channel, up to (8) 850 MHz (cellular) CDMA channels, up to (10) 1900 MHz (PCS) CDMA channels and (1) 2100 MHz (AWS-LTE) wideband channel per face. The proposed Verizon Wireless antennas will be pipe-mounted on the top of the proposed concrete silo behind a proposed fiberglass dome. The following assumptions are made for reasonable upper limit radiofrequency operating parameters for the proposed facility due to Verizon Wireless antennas alone to account for all licensed frequency bands:

� (1) 700 MHz (LTE) transmit antenna (BXA-70080/8CF) per face at 0-10 degrees mechanical downtilt � (1) 850 MHz (cellular) transmit antenna (LPA-70080/8CF) per face at 0-10 degrees mechanical downtilt � (1) 1900 MHz (PCS) transmit antenna (BXA-171085/12CF or BXA-171063/12CF) per face at 0-10

degrees mechanical downtilt � (1) 2100 MHz (AWS-LTE) transmit antenna (BXA-171085/12CF or BXA-171063/12CF) per face at 0-10

degrees mechanical downtilt � (1) 700 MHz (LTE) wideband channel/face at 40W max power/channel before cable loss/antenna gain

Page 1 of 10

� (8) 850 MHz (cellular) CDMA channels/face at 20W max power/channel before cable loss/antenna gain � (10) 1900 MHz (PCS) CDMA channels/face at 16W max power/channel before cable loss/antenna gain � (1) 2100 MHz (AWS-LTE) wideband channel/face at 40W max power/channel before cable loss/antenna

gain � The facility would be at or near full capacity during busy hour

Using the far-field power density equations from FCC Bulletin OET 65, the power density at any given distance from the antennas is equal to 0.360(ERP)/R2 where R is the distance to the point at which the exposure is being calculated. The given equation is a conversion of the OET 65 power density equation for calculating power density given the distance in feet and the result in metric units (�W/cm2). This calculated power density assumes the location is in the main beam of the vertical pattern of the antenna. After making an adjustment for the reduction in power density due to the vertical pattern of the transmit antenna, the calculated ground level power density is below 2 �W/cm2 at any distance from the antenna system of Verizon Wireless. This calculation uses parameters greater than what they have defined as their typical operating parameters for this facility. The “A Block”, “B Block” and “Upper C Block” 700 MHz (LTE) transmit frequencies (728-734, 734-740, 746-757 MHz), which Verizon Wireless is licensed by the FCC to operate, have an uncontrolled/general population maximum permissible exposure (MPE) FCC limit of 485 �W/cm2. The “B Band” 850 MHz (cellular) transmit frequencies (880-894 MHz), which Verizon Wireless is also licensed by the FCC to operate, have an uncontrolled/general population MPE FCC limit of 587 �W/cm2. The “C3/C4 Block” and “D Block” 1900 MHz (PCS) transmit frequencies (1975-1985, 1945-1950 MHz), which Verizon Wireless is also licensed by the FCC to operate, have an uncontrolled/general population MPE FCC limit of 1000 �W/cm2 or 1 mW/cm2. The “A Block” and “B Block” 2100 MHz (AWS-LTE) transmit frequencies (2110-2120, 2120-2130 MHz), which Verizon Wireless is also licensed by the FCC to operate, have an uncontrolled/general population MPE FCC limit of 1000 �W/cm2 or 1 mW/cm2. Therefore, the exposure at ground level at any distance from the structure would be substantially below 1 % of the FCC exposure limits due to Verizon Wireless antennas alone. The extremely low ground exposure levels are due to the elevated positions of the antennas on the structure and the low power which these systems operate. See Figures 1 and 2 in back of this report which discuss the relationship between height, proximity or distance, and orientation to level of electromagnetic field exposure. In order to corroborate our calculations, we modeled the ground level around the base of the proposed structure with our software modeling tool which is also included at the end of this report. The model was set to the 1997 FCC occupational exposure limit standard with 100 % uptime and using the “near/far spatial average model”. The model uses green to represent exposure below 4 % occupational maximum permissible exposure (MPE), blue between 4 % and 20 % occupational MPE, yellow between 20 % and 100 % occupational MPE, and red to represent any areas above 100 % occupational MPE. The antennas were modeled with respect to ground level. As shown from our plot, no areas of the ground level around the base of the proposed structure have the potential to exceed 20 % occupational maximum permissible exposure (MPE) due to the mounting locations and the low power which these radio systems operate. Therefore, no further exposure access controls are warranted or recommended at this time. The predictive model demonstrates that the ground level exposure cannot approach the uncontrolled general population exposure limits under all upper limit conditions. Any other areas of the structure including the interior will remain hundreds of times below the general population exposure limits due to the reduction in field strength from building materials and the path loss of the radio frequency signal. From the standpoint of RF exposure, the presence of Verizon Wireless would not preclude the future addition of other tenants or licensees including emergency or other municipal services which benefit the public from collocation on this structure. There is a substantial margin of safety to allow for the addition of transmit antennas of other communications services. Keep in mind that continuous exposure at 100 % of standard is

Page 2 of 10

considered by the scientific community as just as safe as 1 % of standard since the exposure limits themselves contain a large margin of safety. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which is an association under the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA), established exposure limits or guidelines in 1998 similar to the FCC limits. The ICNIRP is a formally recognized non-government organization in non-ionizing radiation for the World Health Organization and the International Labour Office. While the ICNIRP has no jurisdiction over FCC licensees, the composite ground level exposure of the proposed facility will be below 1 % of the ICNIRP exposure limits. In summary, the proposed communications facility will comply with all applicable exposure limits and guidelines adopted by the FCC governing human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (FCC Bulletin OET 65). Federal law (FCC Rule Title 47 CFR 1.1307 and 1.1310) sets the national standard for compliance with electromagnetic field safety. The FCC exposure limits are 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). Thus, there is full compliance with the standards of the IRPA, FCC, IEEE, ANSI, and NCRP. General Information on Electromagnetic Field Safety

Verizon Wireless facilities transmit and receive low power electromagnetic fields (EMF) between base station antennas and handheld portable cell phones. The radiofrequency energy from these facilities and devices is non-ionizing electromagnetic energy. Non-ionizing, unlike X-Rays or other forms of potentially harmful energy in the microwave region, is not cumulative over time nor can the energy change the chemical makeup of atoms (e.g. strip electrons from ions). “Non-ionizing” simply means that the energy is not strong enough to break ionic bonds. Safe levels of electromagnetic fields were determined by numerous worldwide organizations, such the International Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, a worldwide multi-disciplinary team of researchers and scientists studying the effects of non-ionizing radiofrequency energy such as that emitted by base stations or cell phones. The FCC did not arbitrarily establish their own standards, but adopted the recommendations of all leading organizations that set standards and research the subject such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). When Verizon Wireless is located on an antenna structure such as a self-supporting lattice type tower, monopole, guyed tower, watertank, etc. the antennas are typically 10 meters or more above ground level (10 meters = 32.81 feet). With the relatively low power and elevated positions of the antennas on the structure with respect to ground level, the maximum ground level exposure can rarely approach 1 % of the applicable FCC exposure limit regardless of how many sets of antennas are collocated on the structure. For this reason, the FCC considers the facilities “categorically excluded” from routine evaluation at antenna heights above 10 meters (or above 32.81 feet). Categorical exclusion exempts a site from routine on-site evaluation. However, the facility is not excluded from compliance with the federal exposure limits and guidelines. The types of facilities used by Verizon Wireless typically elevated on antenna structures (away from access to close proximity, i.e. greater than 10 meters or 32.81 feet) simply cannot generate ground level exposure levels that approach the limits under any circumstances. From a regulatory perspective, the FCC has sole jurisdiction over the regulation of electromagnetic fields from all facilities and devices. The FCC has established guidelines and limits over emissions and exposure to protect the general public. These limits are conservative and I am not aware of any evidence to date which suggests that the guidelines should be more restrictive. The FCC also has certain criteria that trigger when an environmental

Page 3 of 10

evaluation must be performed. The criteria are based on distance from the antennas (accessibility) and transmit power levels. The proposed facility is well below the criteria to trigger any type of routine environmental evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS: 1) The proposed communications facility will comply with electromagnetic field safety standards by a substantial margin (well below 1 %) in all publicly accessible areas. This includes the interior of the proposed structure, the base of the proposed structure and any areas in proximity to the proposed structure. 2) Verizon Wireless takes appropriate measures to ensure that all telecommunications facilities (including this proposed facility) comply with applicable exposure limits and guidelines adopted by the FCC governing human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (FCC Bulletin OET 65). 3) In cases where such compliance exists, the subject of electromagnetic field safety is preempted. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that: “No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC’s] regulations concerning such emissions.” Telecommunications Act of 1996, § 332[c][7][B][iv]. Respectfully,

Paul Dugan, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer Virginia License Number 036239

Page 4 of 10

FIGURE 1: Diagram of Electromagnetic Field Strength as a Function of Distance and Antenna Orientation

The above diagram illustrates the conceptual relationship of distance and orientation to directional panel antennas used in wireless communications. At the base of the structure (x = 0), the distance R is a minimum when the angle of the direction of propagation � is a maximum. As one moves away from the antenna structure, the horizontal distance X increases as well as the distance R to the antennas while the angle below the horizon decreases. For this reason, electromagnetic fields from these facilities remain fairly uniform up to a few hundred feet and continue to taper off with distance. As noted in the report, the electromagnetic fields from these types of facilities are hundreds of times below safety standards at any distance from the antenna structure, making them essentially indistinguishable relative to other sources of electromagnetic fields in the environment due to the elevated heights of the antennas and the relatively low power at which these systems operate.

R

X

Angle below horizon, �

Directional Panel Antenna

Main direction of signal propagation is directed

on the horizon at antenna height

Wireless Communications

Antenna Structure

Ground Level

Page 5 of 10

% General Population MPE vs. Distance

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 40 80 120

160

200

240

280

320

360

400

440

480

520

560

600

640

680

720

760

800

840

880

920

960

1000

Distance (ft)

% G

ener

al P

op

ula

tio

n

Max

imu

m P

erm

issi

ble

Exp

osu

re (

MP

E)

VZW MPE Contribution FCC Limit

FIGURE 2: Graph of MPE Contribution vs. Distance

The above graph represents the contribution of Verizon Wireless to the composite electromagnetic field exposure level at any distance from the base of the structure. The contribution of Verizon Wireless will remain well under 1% of the FCC general population maximum permissible exposure (MPE) at any distance as shown.

Page 6 of 10

• • • • •

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

PREDICTION ANALYSIS – COBBLER (with respect to ground level)

NPROPOSEDVZW

ALPHA FACE

PROPOSEDVZW

BETA FACE

PROPOSEDVZW

GAMMA FACE

Page 7 of 10

PREDICTION ANALYSIS – COBBLER (with respect to ground level)

Statistical Summary%MPE SQ. FT %SQ. FT.

4900 100.00 % of total ROOF Area

0 -4 4900 100.00 % of Selected Area

5 - 20 0 0.00 % of Selected Area

21 - 100 0 0.00 % of Selected Area

> 100 0 0.00 % of Selected Area

Roof Area 4900 sq. ft.Max %MPE 0.2 %Min %MPE 0.0 %

Using Near/Far Spatial Avg ModelWith FCC 1997 Occupational Standard

MPE = Maximum Permissible Exposure

Page 8 of 10

DECLARATION OF ENGINEER

Paul Dugan, P.E., declares and states that he is a graduate telecommunications consulting engineer (BSE/ME Widener University 1984/1988), whose qualifications are a matter of record with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). His firm, Millennium Engineering, P.C., has been retained by Verizon Wireless to perform power density measurements or calculations for an existing or proposed communications facility and analyze the data for compliance with FCC exposure limits and guidelines for human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Mr. Dugan also states that the calculations or measurements made in the evaluation were made by himself or his technical associates under his direct supervision, and the summary letter certification of FCC compliance associated with the foregoing document was made or prepared by him personally. Mr. Dugan is a registered professional engineer in the Jurisdictions of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, New York, Connecticut, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico with 28 years of engineering experience. Mr. Dugan is also an active member of the Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers, the National Council of Examiners for Engineering, the National Society of Professionals Engineers, the Pennsylvania Society of Professional Engineers, and the Radio Club of America. Mr. Dugan further states that all facts and statements contained herein are true and accurate to the best of his own knowledge, except where stated to be in information or belief, and, as to those facts, he believes them to be true. He believes under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct. ______________________________ Paul Dugan, P.E. Executed this the 12th day of November, 2012.

Page 9 of 10

PAUL ALLEN DUGAN, P.E. 508 Ferncastle Drive

Downingtown, Pennsylvania 19335

Cell: 610-220-3820 Fax: 610-458-8612

Email: [email protected] Web Page: www.millenniumengineering.net

EDUCATION: Widener University, Chester, Pennsylvania

Master of Business Administration, July 1991 Master of Science, Electrical Engineering, December 1988

Bachelor of Science, Electrical Engineering, May 1984

PROFESSIONAL Registered Professional Engineer in the following jurisdictions: ASSOCIATIONS:

Pennsylvania, License Number PE-045711-E New Jersey, License Number GE41731 Maryland, License Number 24211 Delaware, License Number 11797 Virginia, License Number 36239 Connecticut, License Number 22566 New York, License Number 079144 District of Columbia, License Number PE-900355 Puerto Rico, License Number 18946

Full member of The Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers (www.afcce.org) January 1999 to Present Elected to serve on the Board of Directors for 2006-2007

Full member of The National Society of Professional Engineers (www.nspe.org) and the Pennsylvania Society of Professional Engineers (www.pspe.org) June 2003 to Present Currently serving as State Director on the Board of Directors of the Valley Forge Chapter and the South East Region Vice-Chair for the “Professional Engineers in Private Practice” Executive Committee Actively participate in Chester County ARES/RACES (CCAR www.w3eoc.org) which prepares and provides emergency backup communications for Chester County Department of Emergency Services, March 2005 to Present Full member of The National Council of Examiners for Engineering (www.ncees.org) May 2001 to Present Full Member of The Radio Club of America (www.radio-club-of-america.org) December 2003 to present

PROFESSIONAL Millennium Engineering, P.C., Phoenixville, Pennsylvania EXPERIENCE: Position: President, August 1999 to Present (www.millenniumengineering.net)

Verizon Wireless, Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania Position: Cellular RF System Design/Performance Engineer, April 1990 to August 1999

Communications Test Design, Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania Position: Electrical Engineer, May 1984 to April 1990

Page 10 of 10

Technology Law Group, L.L.C. - Fauquier County, Virginia

Documents

Transcript of Technology Law Group, L.L.C. - Fauquier County, Virginia