Anexo

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 9:00 AM City Hall Council Chambers 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES of April 15, 2015 Meeting NEW BUSINESS Applicant #V-15-08 1255 College Park Drive. Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless has applied to the Board of Adjustment for a variance from the requirements of Article 4 § 4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to maximum permitted building height in order to allow construction of a 158 foot telecommunications tower and associated facilities. Subject property is zoned M (Manufacturing Zone). The Tax Parcel is ED-05-067.00- 02-12.06-000. The owner of record is Bay Developers Inc. Applicant #V-15-09 615 Ridgely Street. Clara Ridgley Properties LLC has applied to the Board of Adjustment for a variance from the requirements of Article 4 § 4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to maximum permitted building height and minimum required setbacks in order to allow construction of a 125 foot telecommunications tower and associated facilities. Subject property is zoned IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone). The Tax Parcel is ED-05-076.08-01-01.00-000. The owner of record is Clara Ridgley Properties LLC. ADJOURN 29 Del.C. § 10004(e)(2) THE AGENDA ITEMS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES April 15, 2015 A Regular Meeting of the City of Dover Board of Adjustment was held on Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 9:00 A.M. with Chairman Sheth presiding. Members present were Mr. Hufnal, Colonel Ericson, Mr. Keller, Mr. Senato, and Chairman Sheth. Staff members present were Mrs. Townshend, Mrs. Purnell, Mr. Cook and City Solicitor Nick Rodriguez. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Hufnal moved to approve the agenda as submitted, seconded by Mr. Senato and unanimously carried 5-0. APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2015 Mr. Keller moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 18, 2015 with the necessary correction, seconded by Mr. Hufnal and unanimously carried 5-0. OPENING REMARKS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Mrs. Townshend, Director of Planning and Community Development stated that the meeting would be conducted in accordance with the agenda. There is one item (new application) on the agenda under New Business. The application file will be read, and the floor will be opened for questions of the applicant by the Board and for public testimony. If the Board needs to consult the City Solicitor they will adjourn to discuss legal matters. If the applicant must leave, they can contact the Planning Office at 736-7196 to learn of the Board’s decision. A formal notice of the decision will be mailed to the applicants. Approved variances expire after one year if the approved project has not commenced. All public notice for the new application on the agenda today was completed in accordance with code requirements. The meeting agenda was posted in accordance with Freedom of Information Act requirements. NEW BUSINESS Applicant #V-15-07 74 Laurel Drive. Thomas Bugbee and Sherrill Brekke have applied to the Board of Adjustment for a variance from the requirements of Article 5 § 11.211 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to new residential construction within the flood hazard area. They have specifically requested to build to the six (6) foot contour. Subject property is zoned R-10 (One Family Residence Zone). The Tax Parcel is ED-05-077.14-01-32.00-000. The owners of record are Thomas J. Bugbee and Sherrill L. Brekke. Variance #V-14-05 was approved by the Board of Adjustment at its meeting of March 19, 2014. The variance expired because construction did not commence. Mrs. Ann Marie Townshend Exhibits for the record: Staff Report and plans submitted by the

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2015 applicant. The legal notice was published in the Delaware State News on April 5, 2015, and the public was notified in accordance with the regulations. Mrs. Townshend gave a brief overview of the application. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any member present who had a conflict of interest and there was none. Representative: Mr. Thomas Bugbee & Sherrill Brekke Mr. Thomas Bugbee and Ms. Sherrill Brekke were sworn in by Mr. Rodriguez. Responding to Chairman Sheth’s question whether there were any changes since the last time, Mr. Bugbee stated no. They did not complete everything necessary in order to start construction which included selling their current house. They have a builder and the process took longer than anticipated. Responding to Mr. Keller’s question whether there was a projected start date and if the construction would start this year, Mr. Bugbee stated that he did not have a projected start date, but the project would start this year. They are still in the process of selling their home. They had their home up for sale, but it did not sell. It was taken off the market and they had plans to rent the home. Upon going to CNB Bank they were not able to get that type of financing and therefore had to put the home back up for sale through a realtor. The delay is due to the applicant’s principal home not being sold. Mr. Keller questioned Exhibit D that was included in the packet if the request was to allow the construction to take place back to the 6 foot contour line, Mrs. Townshend concurred. Mr. Keller questioned the variance application exhibit, which cites as though there is a Step 2 to reduce the 25 foot yard setback. He recalled that there were questions regarding the front yard setback as well as the width of the roadway, and that the 25 foot yard setback was not an issue with the allowance of the house being allowed to be built farther from the roadway. While included in the packet, the application does not relate to the 25 foot yard setback issue. Mrs. Townshend stated that these are the materials that had been submitted with previous applications. There are Deed Restrictions with a 35 foot yard setback, but that was relaxed to allow the 25 foot yard setback. The proposed construction would not encroach into the 25 foot yard setback. It is truly the flood plain issue that is being reviewed by the Board. Mr. Keller also stated that on Exhibit B that was submitted by Scott Engineering and using their scale it appears that this is a projected possible site for the dwelling itself, that it is at the 25 foot line and not encroaching closer than that, Mrs. Townshend concurred. 2

CITY OF DOVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2015 Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any member present who had a conflict of interest with the case and there was none. Chairman Sheth opened a public hearing and after seeing no one wishing to speak closed the public hearing. Chairman Sheth questioned if there was any additional correspondence for the record. There was none. Chairman Sheth asked if there were any questions. Colonel Ericson moved to approve application V-15-07 based upon all of the previous reasons that have been presented and in light of the applicant delay to reapprove the variance to include Staff recommendations and Advisory Comments in full to the applicant. Mr. Senato seconded the motion and unanimously carried 5-0. Mr. Senato moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Keller and unanimously carried 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:18 A.M. Sincerely, Maretta Savage-Purnell Secretary 3

City of Dover Board of Adjustment June 17, 2015 V-15-08 Location: 1255 College Park Drive Applicant/Owner: Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless Bay Developers Inc. (Owner) Tax Parcel: ED-05-067.00-02-12.06-000 Application Date: May 13, 2015 Present Zoning: M (Manufacturing Zone) Present Use: Vacant Lot Proposed Use: Telecommunications monopole and associated facilities Reviewed By: Bill Cook, Planner I Variance Type: Area Variance Variances Requested: Allow a structure to exceed the maximum height of 35 feet. Allow for an additional 123 feet in height. Project Description The applicant is requesting an area variance from the requirements of Article 4 § 4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations pertaining to the maximum permitted building height in the M (Manufacturing Zone). Specifically they are requesting a variance to exceed the maximum height requirement by 123 feet in order to allow construction of a 158 foot telecommunications tower and associated facilities. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use The 1.05 acre property is located at 1255 College Park Drive and is currently vacant. College Park Drive is a dead-end street that extends approximately 1,600 feet from College Road, located between the railroad tracks and McKee Road in a small industrial park known as “College

V-15-08 1255 College Park Drive Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 7 Business Park.” The subject property and five adjacent commercial and light industrial properties are zoned M (Manufacturing Zone). Along the northeast property line the subject property abuts the railroad right of way. Along the southeast (rear) property line the property abuts property zoned CPO (Commercial Professional Office). The properties south on College Park Drive, and across the street are zoned M. Properties closer to the intersection of College Park Drive and College Road are zoned CPO (Commercial Professional Office) and IO (Institutional/Office Zone). A Zoning Map exhibit (Exhibit B) prepared by staff is found in the Appendix of this report showing the subject property location and surrounding zoning. Code Citations Bulk and parking regulations, Article 4 § 4.16 for M (Manufacturing Zone) are as follows: For All Permitted Uses: M (Manufacturing) Lot area ½ acre Lot width (ft.) 100 Lot depth (ft.) 150 Front yard (ft.) 40 Side yard (ft.) 20 Rear yard (ft.) 20 Side or rear yard which adjoins a 50 residential zone (ft.) Off-street parking space: Per 800 sq. ft. of floor area 1 Per employee, per largest working shift (if greater than the requirement under the floor 1 area calculation) Maximum permitted: Building height Stories 2 Feet 35 Floor area ratio 0.5

V-15-08 1255 College Park Drive Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 7 Applicant’s Proposed Project The applicant has submitted eight (8) pages illustrating the proposed plans for the site, found in Exhibit C attached. References are made to the sheet numbers on the plans. The overall site plan, shown on Sheet Z-1 identifies the monopole and compound location placed in the right rear corner of the property relative to the street. The compound is accessed via a driveway proposed to connect with the cul-de-sac and wrap around the left side of the property and across the rear. An elevation view of the compound and monopole height to scale is shown on Sheet Z-3. The other sheets are available to the Board as general information. Any Site Development Plan will be subject to procedures specified in Zoning Ordinance Article 10 §2, and Code Interpretation Memo #4 of January 26, 1999 relating to telecommunications antennae. Exceptional Practical Difficulties Tests Zoning Ordinance Article 9 §2 dictates the specific powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment with regard to granting variances. Specifically, the Board must determine: 2.1 Variance – The board shall have the authority to authorize variances from provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that are not contrary to public interest where the board determines that a literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in undue hardship or exceptional practical difficulties to the applicant. In granting variances, the board shall determine that the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done. 2.11 Area Variance. A variance shall be considered an area variance if it relates to bulk standards, signage regulations, and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that address lot layout, buffers, and dimensions. In considering a request for an area variance, the board shall evaluate the following criteria and document them in their findings of fact: (a) the nature of the zone in which the property lies; (b) the character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein; (c) whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses; and (d) whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

V-15-08 1255 College Park Drive Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 7 Review of Application As part of the application, the applicant was asked to summarize how the requested variance relates to the criteria. 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies. Applicant Responses: “The subject property is typical of other properties in the Manufacturing Zoning District.” Staff Response: The M (Manufacturing Zone) permits manufacturing, processing, and handling of materials, laboratories, storage, contractors yards and public utilities uses. Nearby businesses include a medical lab, electrical supply company, and businesses that serve other businesses. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Responses: “The subject property is wooded and unimproved. The subject property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac road in a small industrial park, adjacent to railroad tracks and high tension wires.” Staff Response: Staff concurs with applicant response. The surrounding businesses are as noted in response #1. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. Applicant Responses: “The construction of a 158' monopole would not adversely affect neighboring properties and users, because the subject property is within a small industrial park in the Manufacturing Zoning District and adjacent to a railroad line and high tension wires. The proposed monopole will benefit neighboring properties and users, by improving telecommunications service.” Staff Response: The additional 123 feet in height would not impact surrounding uses. The location and distance away from College Road and location near the railroad corridor may lessen the noticeability of the structure. The proposed location as noted on the plans (Exhibit C: Sheet Z-1) at the rear of the site behind existing trees and vegetation provides some degree of visual screening of the compound structures from selected neighboring

V-15-08 1255 College Park Drive Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 7 properties, but it would be visible to others since the adjoining properties are grassy and cleared where they meet the corner of the subject property. 4. Whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Applicant Responses: “The imposition of a 35' height restriction would result in exceptional practical difficulty to Verizon Wireless. Verizon would not be able to satisfy its service objectives and fill significant gaps in coverage and/or capacity if unable to construct a 158' telecommunications monopole at the subject property. A 35' tall monopole would not provide adequate coverage or even have the ability to communicate with the rest of the Applicant's telecommunications network. Telecommunications uses are permitted as utility uses in the Manufacturing Zoning District.” Staff Response: A Code Interpretation Memo of January 26, 1999 considers telecommunications antennae and associated compounds as public utility uses, and the use is permitted in all zones. Such antennae are considered as a “building” and subject to height requirements for the zone. Staff cannot comment on the issue of service capacity, but notes that the proposed site is less than one mile from North DuPont Highway frontage near DSU, Dover International Speedway, and Dover Mall, all sites where large gatherings occur which likely increase demand for service. Height requirements in other zones vary, but a variance for height would likely be required in most cases unless the lot was very large. The denial of a variance may create degradation in service for Verizon Wireless customers in the area, which could be an exceptional practical difficulty if the company were unable to do adequate business in the area. The applicant has stated that an antenna at the 35 foot height limit is technically unfeasible at providing service.

V-15-08 1255 College Park Drive Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 7 Variance Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the area variance for reasons as follows: • The applicant has demonstrated exceptional practical difficulty as a monopole that complied with the 35 foot height maximum would reduce the effectiveness of services provided and the monopole is needed to provide adequate services. • The placement of a monopole and associated compound is in keeping with the surrounding mix of commercial and industrial uses. • The placement of a monopole and associated compound is in keeping with the permitted uses of the M zone as public utility infrastructure, and in keeping with past practice and code interpretation. Advisory Comments: ● Improvements to the property are subject to Conditional Use Site Development Plan approval processes and appropriate permits from the City of Dover Planning Department and other agencies. ● Variances become null and void if work has not commenced within one (1) year of the date the variance was granted. At present there is no provision for extension of variance approvals.

V-15-08 1255 College Park Drive Board of Adjustment Report APPENDIX/ATTACHMENTS GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages A Board of Adjustment Application 1 (Applicant) B Zoning Exhibit Map 1 (Staff) C Site Plans: “DOV- Silver Lake” 8 (Applicant) Pages cited in Report: “Z-1”, and “Z-3”

City of Dover Application No.: V-15-08 Department of Planning & Inspections Dela IO ar e w S ta te Univer sity RG-5 M R-20 RG- ish ol M St ish 5 oe St St so on d Ja Site n St m R ay M RG-2 St CPO IO Co nw ell IO l C ra d ne ol le Mi R ge ROS Ct ge le ol Pa r C To p k R-20 RM- D az r r R-20 ar bo 1 Cir Sc st ou gh Rd in er l Wes R-20 lP Dr tm R-20 pa CPO O R-8 CPO RG-5 R-20 eC t nit za Ta n IO M CPO M cK n RG-2 ee Rd Pi IPM R-10 O IO ak R-10 D Re r Me dO R-10 R-10 R-7 r ion ak Dr Ave Rd A nn Application #: V-15-08 Address: 1255 College Park Dr Legend Parcel ID: ED-05-067.00-02-12.06-000 Subject Property Variance Type: Area Variance Subject Parcel Zoning: M Zoning Owners: Bay Developers Inc. Date: 6/9/2015 Dover Parcels Kent County Parcels « 0 375 750 1,500 Feet

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a 5175 CAMPUS DRIVE PLYMOUTH MEETING, PENNSYLVANIA 19462 advantage engineers SITE NAME: DOV-SILVER LAKE 7 SCHEDULE OF REVISIONS 6 NEW BUILD 5 4 1255 COLLEGE PARK DRIVE 3 2 DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 1 05-12-15 ISSUED FOR ZONING 0 05-08-15 ISSUED FOR 90% REVIEW (ZDs) REV. DATE DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES NO. DRAWN BY: EV CHECKED BY: JP SCALE: NOTED JOB NO: M130533.00 SITE INFORMATION DRAWING TITLE: SITE NAME: DOV-SILVER LAKE N SITE ADDRESS: 1255 COLLEGE PARK DRIVE DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 TITLE JURISDICTION: CITY OF DOVER SHEET KENT COUNTY, DELAWARE ZONING: M - MANUFACTURING DISTRICT APN: 2-05-06700-02-1206-000 DRAWING SHEET: PARCEL SIZE / COMPOUND SIZE: 43,560 S.F. / 1,600 S.F. T-1 SITE COORDINATES: N 39° 10' 51" (NAD 83) W 75° 33' 09" (NAD 83) GROUND ELEVATION: 44.0' (NAVD 88) STRUCTURE TYPE: MONOPOLE STRUCTURE HEIGHT: 158'-0"± AGL (TOP OF LIGHTNING ROD) SHEET INDEX SHEET NUMBER: ANTENNA RAD CENTER: 150'-0"± AGL LANDLORD NAME: BAY DEVELOPERS, INC. DRAWING DRAWING TITLE 1 LANDLORD ADDRESS: 200 WESTON DRIVE DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 SITE SHEET T-1 TITLE SHEET SITE INFORMATION: APPLICANT: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A Z-1 SITE PLAN VERIZON WIRELESS 5175 CAMPUS DRIVE Z-2 COMPOUND PLAN PLYMOUTH MEETING, PENNSYLVANIA 19462 Z-3 ELEVATION Z-4 SHELTER, FOUNDATION DETAILS & NOTES Z-5 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS CODE ANALYSIS Z-6 GENERATOR & DETAILS 1255 COLLEGE PARK DRIVE Z-7 ANTENNA PLAN & DETAILS DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 BUILDING CODE: IBC 2012 ELECTRICAL CODE: NEC 2011 FIRE SAFETY CODE: IFC 2012 AREA MAP PROJECT CONTACT INFO USE GROUP: U (UTILITY) DOVER, DELAWARE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: IIB SCALE: 1" = 2000'-0" VERIZON WIRELESS ENGINEER: TARA GOSNELL VERIZON WIRELESS RF ENGINEER: LELAND BROWN DIRECTIONS: VERIZON WIRELESS OPERATIONS MANAGER: BRAD WUNDERLY PROJECT DESCRIPTION HEADING FROM 5175 CAMPUS DRIVE: DEPART CAMPUS DRIVE TOWARD BUTLER PIKE. TURN LEFT ONTO COLD POINT HILL ROAD. KEEP STRAIGHT ONTO BUTLER PIKE. TURN RIGHT ONTO PLYMOUTH ROAD. TAKE RAMP LEFT FOR I-476 SOUTH TOWARD VALLEY VERIZON WIRELESS REAL ESTATE CONTACT: JOHN HERRIOTT 1. NEW EQUIPMENT SHELTER, GENERATOR AND MONOPOLE TO BE INSTALLED IN PROPOSED LEASE AREA. FORGE / CHESTER. TAKE RAMP RIGHT FOR I-95 SOUTH TOWARD CHESTER. AT EXIT 11, TAKE RAMP RIGHT FOR I-495 SOUTH TOWARD BALTIMORE / PORT OF WILMINGTON. KEEP VERIZON WIRELESS AE CONTACT: JASON PERTUIT 2. NEW ANTENNAS AND NEW ANTENNA PLATFORM TO BE INSTALLED ON THE STRAIGHT ONTO I-95 S / US-202 SOUTH. AT EXIT 4A, TAKE RAMP RIGHT FOR SR-7 SOUTH / No. 18181 5/12/15 NEW 150'-0" MONOPOLE. SR-1 SOUTH TOWARD DOVER / BEACHES. BEAR RIGHT ONTO US-13 SOUTH / SR-1 SOUTH / 3. TWO (2) HYBRID CABLES TO BE INSTALLED ON THE INTERIOR OF THE NEW SOUTH DUPONT HIGHWAY. KEEP STRAIGHT ONTO SR-1 SOUTH. AT EXIT 104, TAKE RAMP POWER CONTACT: CITY OF DOVER MONOPOLE AND ALONG NEW ICE BRIDGE. RIGHT FOR SCARBOROUGH RD. TOWARD NORTH DOVER. BEAR LEFT ONTO SR-15 / MCKEE ROAD. TURN LEFT ONTO COLLEGE ROAD. TURN LEFT ONTO COLLEGE PARK DRIVE. SITE IS 4. NEW ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO BE INSTALLED TO SHELTER. TELCO CONTACT: VERIZON ON THE RIGHT AT 1255 COLLEGE PARK DRIVE. 5. NEW TELEPHONE SERVICE TO BE INSTALLED TO SHELTER. ANDREW M. MILLER, P.E. DELAWARE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE # 18181

BULK REQUIREMENTS CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a ZONING DISTRICT: M - MANUFACTURING DISTRICT DESCRIPTION REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED COLLEGE PARK DRIVE MIN. LOT AREA: 0.5 ACRES 1 ACRE NO CHANGE N (60' WIDE) MIN. LOT WIDTH: 100 FT 157.76± FT NO CHANGE MIN. LOT DEPTH: 150 FT 220.00± FT NO CHANGE MIN. FRONT YARD: 40 FT N/A 155± FT 5175 CAMPUS DRIVE MIN. REAR YARD: 20 FT N/A 32± FT PLYMOUTH MEETING, MIN. SIDE YARD: 20 FT N/A 25± FT N49°09'00"E 61.29' PENNSYLVANIA 19462 MIN. BUFFER TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY: 50 FT ** 115± FT NO CHANGE MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT: 35 FT 0 FT * 158 FT * VARIANCE REQUESTED (TOP OF LIGHTING ROD) R= 25.00' ** D= 18.69' GENERAL NOTES N49°09'00"E 75.99' advantage engineers R= 50.00' D= 115.92' SCHEDULE OF REVISIONS 7 6 5 4 262 220.00' 3 .64 ' 2 N.O.F. ESVEE PROPERTIES, LLC 1 05-12-15 ISSUED FOR ZONING ED-05-067.00-01-12.05-000 (KNOWN AS LOT E) "E 0 05-08-15 ISSUED FOR 90% REVIEW (ZDs) N40°51'00"W ZONED: M '1 1 REV. DATE DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES NO. °0 0 N ED-0 R R EA .O.F. DRAWN BY: EV S23 5-0 L 76.0 EAST CHECKED BY: JP A SCALE: NOTED ZON 8-01-4 TE AG JOB NO: M130533.00 ED: 5.0 E TND 0-000 NT DRAWING TITLE: .R D EL SITE PLAN DRAWING SHEET: Z-1 SHEET NUMBER: M DISTRICT 2 COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL S49°09'00"W 157.76' OFFICE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DISTRICT SITE INFORMATION: 1255 COLLEGE PARK DRIVE N.O.F. N.O.F. CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS ASSOC. STOLTZFUS MAST, LLC DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 ED-05-067.00-01-12.09-000 ED-05-067.00-02-12.00-000 (KNOWN AS LOT B2) (KNOWN AS LOT B1) ZONED: CPO ZONED: CPO 1 SITE PLAN Z-1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" No. 18181 5/12/15 Know what's below. Call before you dig. ANDREW M. MILLER, P.E. DELAWARE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE # 18181

GENERAL NOTES CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a 5175 CAMPUS DRIVE PLYMOUTH MEETING, PENNSYLVANIA 19462 N advantage engineers SCHEDULE OF REVISIONS 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 05-12-15 ISSUED FOR ZONING 0 05-08-15 ISSUED FOR 90% REVIEW (ZDs) REV. DATE DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES NO. DRAWN BY: EV CHECKED BY: JP SCALE: NOTED JOB NO: M130533.00 DRAWING TITLE: COMPOUND PLAN DRAWING SHEET: Z-2 SHEET NUMBER: 3 SITE INFORMATION: 1255 COLLEGE PARK DRIVE DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 1 COMPOUND PLAN Z-2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" No. 18181 5/12/15 Know what's below. Call before you dig. ANDREW M. MILLER, P.E. DELAWARE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE # 18181

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a 5175 CAMPUS DRIVE PLYMOUTH MEETING, PENNSYLVANIA 19462 advantage engineers SCHEDULE OF REVISIONS 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 05-12-15 ISSUED FOR ZONING 0 05-08-15 ISSUED FOR 90% REVIEW (ZDs) REV. DATE DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES NO. DRAWN BY: EV CHECKED BY: JP SCALE: NOTED JOB NO: M130533.00 DRAWING TITLE: ELEVATION DRAWING SHEET: Z-3 SHEET NUMBER: 4 SITE INFORMATION: 1255 COLLEGE PARK DRIVE DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 1 ELEVATION Z-3 SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" No. 18181 5/12/15 ANDREW M. MILLER, P.E. DELAWARE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE # 18181

FOUNDATION NOTES: 1. DESIGN INFORMATION AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a 2. EARTHWORK 5175 CAMPUS DRIVE PLYMOUTH MEETING, PENNSYLVANIA 19462 6 SECTION Z-4 NTS 3. CONCRETE advantage engineers 1 SHELTER ELEVATION Z-4 NTS (FRONT VIEW) 2 SHELTER ELEVATION Z-4 NTS (REAR VIEW) SCHEDULE OF REVISIONS 7 6 5 7 SECTION 4 Z-4 NTS 3 2 1 05-12-15 ISSUED FOR ZONING 0 05-08-15 ISSUED FOR 90% REVIEW (ZDs) REV. DATE DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES NO. DRAWN BY: EV CHECKED BY: JP SCALE: NOTED JOB NO: M130533.00 3 SHELTER ELEVATION DRAWING TITLE: NTS Z-4 (RIGHT SIDE VIEW) 4 SHELTER ELEVATION SHELTER, NTS Z-4 (LEFT SIDE VIEW) FOUNDATION 8 TIE DOWN PLATE DETAIL Z-4 DETAILS & NOTES 7 6 10 Z-4 Z-4 Z-4 DRAWING SHEET: Z-4 SHEET NUMBER: SITE INFORMATION: 9 CONCRETE STOOP DETAIL Z-4 NTS 1255 COLLEGE PARK DRIVE DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 9 Z-4 10 PAD SECTION Z-4 NTS (TYP ALL SIDES) No. 18181 5/12/15 ANDREW M. MILLER, P.E. 5 FOUNDATION PLAN DELAWARE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE # 18181 Z-4 NTS

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a 5175 CAMPUS DRIVE PLYMOUTH MEETING, PENNSYLVANIA 19462 advantage engineers 2 Z-5 SCHEDULE OF REVISIONS 7 6 5 4 4 Z-5 3 2 1 05-12-15 ISSUED FOR ZONING 0 05-08-15 ISSUED FOR 90% REVIEW (ZDs) REV. DATE DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES NO. DRAWN BY: EV CHECKED BY: JP SCALE: NOTED JOB NO: M130533.00 DRAWING TITLE: 1 Z-5 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 3 Z-5 DRAWING SHEET: Z-5 SHEET NUMBER: SITE INFORMATION: 1255 COLLEGE PARK DRIVE DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 5 Z-5 No. 18181 5/12/15 6 Z-5 ANDREW M. MILLER, P.E. DELAWARE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE # 18181

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a 5175 CAMPUS DRIVE PLYMOUTH MEETING, PENNSYLVANIA 19462 HIGH VOLTAGE STUB-UP AREA advantage engineers LOW VOLTAGE STUB-UP AREA SCHEDULE OF REVISIONS 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 05-12-15 ISSUED FOR ZONING 0 05-08-15 ISSUED FOR 90% REVIEW (ZDs) REV. DATE DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES NO. DRAWN BY: EV CHECKED BY: JP SCALE: NOTED JOB NO: M130533.00 DRAWING TITLE: GENERATOR & DETAILS DRAWING SHEET: Z-6 2 SHEET NUMBER: Z-6 SITE INFORMATION: 1 Z-6 1255 COLLEGE PARK DRIVE DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 4 Z-6 No. 18181 5 Z-6 5/12/15 4 CONCRETE PAD SECTION 5 CONCRETE PAD SECTION Z-6 NTS Z-6 NTS 6 Z-6 3 ANDREW M. MILLER, P.E. Z-6 DELAWARE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE # 18181

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a 5175 CAMPUS DRIVE PLYMOUTH MEETING, PENNSYLVANIA 19462 advantage engineers N SCHEDULE OF REVISIONS 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 05-12-15 ISSUED FOR ZONING 0 05-08-15 ISSUED FOR 90% REVIEW (ZDs) REV. DATE DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES NO. DRAWN BY: EV CHECKED BY: JP SCALE: NOTED JOB NO: M130533.00 DRAWING TITLE: ANTENNA PLAN & DETAILS DRAWING SHEET: Z-7 SHEET NUMBER: SITE INFORMATION: 1 Z-7 1255 COLLEGE PARK DRIVE DOVER, DELAWARE 19904 2 3 Z-7 Z-7 No. 18181 5/12/15 ANDREW M. MILLER, P.E. DELAWARE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE # 18181

City of Dover Board of Adjustment June 17, 2015 V-15-09 Location: 615 Ridgely Street Applicant/Owner: Clara Ridgely Properties LLC Tax Parcel: ED-05-076.08-01-11.01-000, ED-05-076.08-01-01.00-000 Application Date: May 7, 2015 Present Zoning: IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) Present Use: Warehouse Proposed Use: Telecommunications monopole and associated facilities Reviewed By: Bill Cook, Planner I Variance Type: Area Variance Variances Requested: Allow a 17 foot reduction in the side yard setback to permit construction 23 feet from the property line. Allow a structure to exceed the maximum height of 23 feet to allow for an additional 102 feet in height. 1 Project Description The applicant is requesting an area variance from the requirements of Article 4 § 4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance Zoning Bulk and Parking Regulations pertaining to the maximum permitted building height and minimum side yard setback in the IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing 1 The applicant submission noted the proposed monopole as approximately 3 feet in diameter. The distance from the monopole to the nearest side property line was shown on plans as measured from the center of the tower. According to code the distance between the property line and the monopole should be measured from the edge of the structure, not the center. For purposes of this report, staff calculated the requested variances based on the measure of the outside edge of the monopole to the nearest side property line, which is 20 feet.

V-15-09 615 Ridgely Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 2 of 9 Zone). Specifically they are requesting a variance for a 20 foot reduction in the side yard setback requirements in order to place the monopole a minimum of 20 feet from the nearest property line. They are also requesting a variance to exceed the maximum height requirement by 105 feet in order to allow construction of a 125 foot telecommunications tower and associated facilities at the selected location on the site. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use The monopole and compound are primarily located on a 28.50 acre site located north of the terminus of Ridgely Street and addressed as 615/631 Ridgely Street. The subject parcel primarily contains a large warehouse, with access to it from Clara Street Extended. The proposed location of the monopole and facility compound is at a corner of the property located furthest south, where it meets the eastern property line of the property addressed as 200 Weston Drive (Parcel ED-05-076.08-01-11.01-000) and the northern property line of the property addressed as 100 Ridgely Street (Parcel ED-05-076.08-01-01.01-000). Note that the proposed compound crosses the property line and a portion is located on 200 Weston Drive. At present the properties have common ownership interests. Immediate surrounding properties are zoned IPM, and M (Manufacturing Zone) and consist of commercial and industrial uses. 100 Ridgely Street is vacant land. 200 Weston Drive is planned as a self-storage facility (S-14-21 approved by the Planning Commision at its meeting of November 17, 2014) and also includes an existing monopole tower (approx. 80 feet tall) and compound. The subject property borders the grounds of William Henry Middle School located to the west. A Zoning Map exhibit (Exhibit B) prepared by staff is found in the Appendix of this Report showing the subject property location and surrounding zoning.

V-15-09 615 Ridgely Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 3 of 9 Code Citations Bulk and parking regulations, Article 4 § 4.16 for IPM (Industrial Park Manufacturing Zone) are as follows: For All Permitted Uses: IPM (Conventional Planned) REQUIRED REQUESTED Lot area 2½ acres 2½ acres Lot width (ft.) 200 200 Lot depth (ft.) 300 300 Front yard (ft.) 60 60 Side yard (ft.) 40 20 Rear yard (ft.) 40 40 Side or rear yard which adjoins a 100 100 residential zone (ft.) Off-street parking space: Per 800 sq. ft. of floor area 1 1 Per employee, per largest working shift (if greater than the requirement under the floor 1 1 area calculation) Maximum permitted: Building height Stories No limit No limit Equal to distance Feet to nearest lot line 125 (20) Floor area ratio 0.5 0.5 Applicant’s Proposed Project The applicant has submitted three (3) pages illustrating the proposed plans for the site, found in Exhibit B attached. References are made to the sheet numbers printed on the lower right corners on the plans. The overall site plan, shown on Sheet Z-1 identifies the location of the proposed tower and compound and the relationship to the subject property and surrounding properties.

V-15-09 615 Ridgely Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 4 of 9 Sheet Z-2 shows a more detailed plan of the compound layout and an elevation view of the compound and monopole. From this view, it can be noted that a portion of the proposed compound site crosses the property line with the adjacent 200 Weston Drive property. At present the two properties have common ownership interests. Access to the compound is planned via 200 Weston Drive also. Any Site Development Plan will be subject to procedures specified in Zoning Ordinance Article 10 §2. Exceptional Practical Difficulties Tests Zoning Ordinance Article 9 §2 dictates the specific powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment with regard to granting variances. Specifically the Board must determine: 2.1 Variance – The board shall have the authority to authorize variances from provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that are not contrary to public interest where the board determines that a literal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would result in undue hardship or exceptional practical difficulties to the applicant. In granting variances, the board shall determine that the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done. 2.11 Area Variance. A variance shall be considered an area variance if it relates to bulk standards, signage regulations, and other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that address lot layout, buffers, and dimensions. In considering a request for an area variance, the board shall evaluate the following criteria and document them in their findings of fact: (a) the nature of the zone in which the property lies; (b) the character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein; (c) whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses; and (d) whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Review of Application As part of the application, the applicant was asked to summarize how the requested variance relates to the criteria. 1. The nature of the zone in which the property lies. Applicant Responses: “The subject property lies with the IPM (“Industrial Park Manufacturing - Conventional Planned”) zone. This zone permits a wide variety of significant industrial, manufacturing, commercial and agricultural uses. Commercial telecommunications towers are permitted in the IPM zone subject (unless a variance is needed) only to administrative site plan approval, thus the proposed installation is consistent with the nature of the zone.” Staff Response:

V-15-09 615 Ridgely Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 5 of 9 Staff concurs with the applicant’s description. 2. The character of the immediate vicinity and the contained uses therein. Applicant Responses: “The subject property is located in the middle of an industrial park to the north of Division Street (Route 8). The park contains a variety of uses, including large warehousing to the north and smaller uses around the area of the proposed installation. A new storage facility has been approved to the north of our installation on a parcel controlled by our landlord. The property to the west has a variety of educational uses, the property to the south (beyond the boundaries of the park) contain a mix of commercial and storage uses, the property to the east, on the opposite side of active railroad tracks, contains industrial property with residential behind that, and, to the north, are a series of larger industrial uses. While there is a tower located on an adjacent parcel, that structure is unavailable for further colocation. The existing enclosure is at capacity and thus cannot accommodate an additional equipment shed. The enclosure cannot be expanded as it is bounded to the south and east by existing drainage facilities, wetlands and their associated buffers, it is immediately adjacent to the access drive for the property, and it is boxed in to the west by the existing utilities that serve the tower and associated equipment (as well as other easements serving this and other properties). The addition of a second monopole in this area would not be out of character with the Industrial park zoning (and development) that surrounds this parcel.” Staff Response: Staff concurs with applicant’s description of surrounding properties and uses. The area of wetlands noted is found in the southeastern corner of the property adjacent and parallel to the railroad right-of-way. Previous Code interpretation has considered telecommunications antennae and facilities as public utility uses, which is among the permitted uses in IPM and would therefore be in character. 3. Whether, if the restriction upon the applicant’s property were removed, such removal would seriously affect neighboring properties and uses. Applicant Responses: “The applicant believes that the granting of this application would have no adverse impact on surrounding properties or uses. As the Board is likely aware, these installations take up minimal space. In this instance, the proposed installation is located at the middle of a developed (and developing) industrial park setting with a similar structure nearby. As the attached aerial photographs show, the area is decidedly nonresidential in the vicinity of this proposed tower, with a number of buildings and other structures existing (or proposed) for the area. The addition of this monopole, roughly 3 feet in diameter (with a five foot lightning rod at the top) will not be out of character with the area nor will it detract from the uses that currently are located in this area. In addition, this installation

V-15-09 615 Ridgely Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 6 of 9 will serve to improve the quality of Verizon Wireless’s coverage in this area by assisting in resolving current capacity shortfalls that exist in this heavily travelled area of Dover.” Staff Response: Staff does not believe the granting of a variance would impact neighboring properties. A similar type of facility is located adjacent to the subject site. The applicant additionally provided an Electromagnetic Exposure Analysis, Exhibit C (attached) stating that the facility will be well below established radio frequency exposure thresholds and is of no concern from a health perspective. The analysis also states that the facility would not preclude co-location of other types of services on the site. 4. Whether, if the restriction is not removed, the restriction would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in his efforts to make normal improvements in the character of that use of the property that is a permitted use under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Applicant Responses: “The application is being pursued due to existing capacity concerns within Verizon Wireless’s network. As the proliferation of wireless technology has increased (cell phones, smart phones, IPADs, IPODS, etc.), so has the demand for connectivity. As families acquire more of these devices, and homes and business move to increased wireless technology, the ability of wireless service providers to provide reliable service is negatively impacted. These usage concerns, which result not only from cell phone calls but the increased use of text messaging, email and downloading capabilities provided by and expected from today’s smartphones, have now risen to the extent that there is a substantial gap in both in-vehicle and in-building coverage in this area of Dover. The radio frequency spectrum licensed to Verizon Wireless in this area by the FCC is exhausted. To handle these issues, new sites are necessary to provide additional capacity for new and existing customers. Verizon Wireless has investigated whether the existing tower on the adjacent property could accommodate our facilities and determined that it simply will not for two reasons. The available height on this tower for Verizon Wireless (80 feet +/-) is insufficient to provide the necessary offloading for this area such that the facility could not serve its intended purpose. In addition, and as discussed above, even if the appropriate height were available, there is no ability to expand the existing compound to accommodate the required equipment shelter for Verizon Wireless’s equipment. The particular variance in this application, of course, relates to the height of the structure and its placement in proximity to the side property line (such structures, of course, are permitted in the IPM District). The tower, at 125 feet, would otherwise be required to be 125 from this property line. The location was chosen for two reasons. First, it is proximate to the existing tower in order to keep like structures in the same area. More importantly, the placement of the tower to the side of the property preserves the ability

V-15-09 615 Ridgely Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 7 of 9 (and utility) of the remaining parcel. As the aerial photograph of the site shows, it is largely paved and ready for development. Placement of the tower to the side of the property avoids conflicts with buildings, drive aisle, parking spaces and other aspects of future development of the parcel. Moreover, the side of the property chosen is adjacent to a parcel that is owned by the principals who own the subject parcel such that the parcel “most” impact is under common ownership.” Staff Response: A Code Interpretation Memo of January 26, 1999 considers telecommunications antennae and associated compounds as public utility uses, and the use is permitted in all zones. Such antennae are considered as a “building” and subject to height requirements for the zone. Staff cannot comment on the issue of service capacity, but notes that the proposed site is on the west side of town, a short distance from commercial/industrial employment centers, and that new residential development has taken place in the past decade in areas near the western city limits. The denial of a variance may create degradation in service for Verizon Wireless customers in the area, which could be an exceptional practical difficulty if the company were unable to maintain adequate service in the area to meet demand. Staff notes that while there are other interior locations on the property where a monopole and compound could be sited without requiring variances, the desire to locate the tower adjacent to an existing one is a compatible arrangement as described by the applicant. Staff concurs that an interior placement could potentially constrain further use of the property.

V-15-09 615 Ridgely Street Board of Adjustment Report Page 8 of 9 Variance Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the area variance for reasons as follows: • The placement of a monopole and associated compound is in keeping with the surrounding mix of commercial and industrial uses. • The placement of a monopole and associated compound is in keeping with the permitted uses of the IPM zone as public utility infrastructure, and in keeping with past practice and code interpretation. • The applicant has demonstrated exceptional practical difficulty as existing adjacent facilities are at capacity and the new monopole is needed to provide adequate services. • The applicant has demonstrated exceptional practical difficulty with regard to the location of the compound on the subject property, and that the proposed location is the most effective at avoiding conflicts found elsewhere on the property. Advisory Comments: ● Staff recommends rearrangement of the compound or shifting the location to the east by approximately five (5) feet so that the compound is completely located on one parcel and does not straddle the property line with 200 Weston Drive. ● Improvements to the property are subject to Site Development Plan approval processes and appropriate permits from the City of Dover Planning Department and other agencies. ● Any proposed Site Development Plan would be evaluated by the Planning Department and other agencies regarding impacts of the encroachment onto 200 Weston Drive and the approved Site Development Plan for that property. ● Variances become null and void if work has not commenced within one (1) year of the date the variance was granted. At present there is no provision for extension of variance approval.

V-15-08 615 Ridgely Street Board of Adjustment Report APPENDIX/ATTACHMENTS GUIDE TO ATTACHMENTS Exhibit Description/Author # Pages A Board of Adjustment Application 1 B Zoning Exhibit Map 1 (Staff) C Site Plans: “DOV- Carol Pear” 3 (Applicant) Pages cited in Report: “Z-1”, and “Z-2” D Electromagnetic Exposure Analysis 6 (Applicant) E Radiofrequency Design of Proposed 7 Communication Facility (Applicant)

City of Dover Application No.: V-15-09 Department of Planning & Inspections R- R- R-8 IO R- R- CPO 8 8 Ave w R-8 8 8 Colu mbia R- R- Lake ie 8 Fairv 8 ood R-8 R- R- Caro R- 8 8 w Av R- Pl R-8 RG-1 R- 8 er R-8 M R- 8 l St Gov e at Dr 8 t Wha tco 8 am S RG-1 Willi n o rs RG-1 ROS Ave IO C-3 rS IPM M Pea a St t Clar IO ROS IO C-3 IO CPO New Ext St Clara St r Ct Eige R-8 M Mary RG-1 RG-1 R-8 C- 2A en IO Cec Que il St M Rd C-3 bury RG-2 IO Site St Sauls Rid C- y 2A gel n St IO St Fulto o Kirkw Carver Rd CPO M t St RG-5 Wes t to C-3 od S C- Wes C-3 M RG- 1A n Dr ion St t C-2A Divis 1 Afton C C- C-2A C- RG-1 2A 2A C-3 For rest Ave Fores t St d St Ree Gibbs Dr RG-1 IO C- Bedford St RG-1 RG-1 C-2A Bertrand Dr SC-2 2A RG-1 Lincoln St IO RG- RG- Davis Cir R-8 C-3 C-2 Reese St 1 IO 1 Application #: V-15-09 Address: 615 Ridgley Street Parcel ID: ED-05-076.08-01-11.01-000 Legend ED-05-076.08-01-01.00-000 Variance Type: Area Variance Subject Property Subject Parcel Zoning: IPM Owners: Clara Ridgley Properties LLC Zoning Date: 6/9/2015 Dover Parcels « 0 375 750 1,500 Feet

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a PROJECT INFORMATION SITE NAME: DOV CAROL PEAR VICINITY MAP APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES AND STANDARDS DIRECTIONS: DRAWING INDEX REV LOCATION MAP T-1 TITLE SHEET 1 Z-1 SITE PLAN 1 Z-2 COMPOUND LAYOUT AND ELEVATION VIEW 1 PROJECT LOCATION NOT TO SCALE CONTACT INFORMATION THIS DRAWING AND ALL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS AUTHORIZED FOR USE ONLY BY THE PARTY FOR WHOM THE WORK WAS CONTRACTED OR TO WHOM IT IS CERTIFIED. THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE COPIED, REUSED, DISCLOSED, DISTRIBUTED OR RELIED UPON FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF MASER CONSULTING, P.A CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS SITE NAME: Consulting, Municipal & Environmental Engineers Planners Surveyors Landscape Architects DOV CAROL PEAR New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Virginia Customer Loyalty through Client Satisfaction 2000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 100 5175 CAMPUS DRIVE Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 856-797-0412 PLYMOUTH MEETING, PA 19462

PROJECT NOTES BULK STANDARDS FOR IPM - INDUSTRIAL PARK MANUFACTURING DISTRICT LEGEND DESCRIPTION REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED REMARKS SITE PLAN GRAPHIC SCALE 100 0 50 100 200 ( IN FEET ) SCALE: 1" = 100' FOR 24"X36" DRAWINGS (DO NOT SCALE 11"X17" DRAWINGS) CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS SITE NAME: Consulting, Municipal & Environmental Engineers Planners Surveyors Landscape Architects DOV CAROL PEAR New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Virginia Customer Loyalty through Client Satisfaction 2000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 100 5175 CAMPUS DRIVE Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 856-797-0412 PLYMOUTH MEETING, PA 19462

________________________________________________________________________ PO Box 165 Fairview Village, PA 19409 Phone: 610.304.2024 Fax: 610.584.5387 info@dBmEng.com May 5, 2015 James Rodgers Site Acquisition Verizon Wireless 5175 Campus Drive Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Subject: Electromagnetic Exposure Analysis “CAROL PEAR” 615 Ridgley Street Dove, DE 19904 Latitude: N 39º 09’ 43.4” Longitude: W 75º 32’ 15.0” Mr. Rodgers: I have received and executed your request that I perform an independent evaluation and certification of the anticipated radio-frequency exposure levels for the Verizon Wireless telecommunications facility proposed at the above referenced coordinates. The intention of this study is to verify compliance with Federal Communications Commission (hereafter “FCC”) guidelines for human exposure limits to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields as per FCC Code of Federal Regulation 47 CFR 1.1307 and 1.1310. As a registered Professional Engineer, I am bound by a code of ethics to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. All statements and calculations offered herein are made in an objective and truthful manner pursuant to that code. Summary of Findings The maximum exposure to radio-frequency emissions from the proposed Verizon Wireless facility will be far below FCC exposure limits. Using upper limit assumptions for the Verizon Wireless equipment configuration, the cumulative radio-frequency exposure levels would be at least two-hundred (200) times less than the FCC limits at all locations of public access. The following chart (Figure-1) specifically illustrates anticipated exposure levels for a variety of scenarios. All exposure limits have been calculated using the methods prescribed in FCC Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Bulletin 65 “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Fields”. These upper-limit conditions include maximum traffic loading, significant subscriber growth, six degrees of main beam down- tilt, and 100% constructive interference from ground reflection. Additionally, signal attenuation due to environmental clutter such as buildings, trees, and roadways has been ignored which will overestimate actual power densities. Also worth mentioning is the fact that the FCC exposure limits already include a significant margin of safety. Continuous

exposure at 100% of FCC limit is considered by the scientific community to be just as safe as continuous exposure at 1% of FCC limit. Cumulative % of FCC limit Maximum Power Density W/cm2 % of FCC Limit (micro-watts per square centimeter ) Height Horizontal Above Distance from Ground across all bands Facility (Ft.) (Ft.) 150 700 850 1900 2100 2600 150 700 850 1900 2100 2600 MHz MHz MHz MHz MHz MHz MHz MHz MHz MHz MHz MHz 0 6 N/A < 0.6 N/A < 0.6 < 0.6 N/A N/A < 0.12 N/A < 0.06 < 0.06 N/A < 0.24 100 6 N/A < 1.2 N/A < 1.2 < 1.2 N/A N/A < 0.26 N/A < 0.12 < 0.12 N/A < 0.5 200 6 N/A < 0.6 N/A < 0.6 < 0.6 N/A N/A < 0.11 N/A < 0.06 < 0.06 N/A < 0.23 1320 (1/4 mi.) 6 N/A < 0.1 N/A < 0.1 < 0.1 N/A N/A < 0.02 N/A < 0.01 < 0.01 N/A < 0.04 FCC Exposure Limits 300 467 567 1000 1000 1000 for General W/cm2 W/cm2 W/cm2 W/cm2 W/cm2 W/cm2 Population Figure-1 – calculated exposure levels near the proposed telecommunications facility Applicability of the National Telecommunications Act of 1996 This Act 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 (Federal Communications) Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions”. As indicated above, this proposed facility will be in full compliance with the FCC’s emissions standards and as such is beyond regulation in that regard. ________________________________________________________________________ PO Box 165 Fairview Village, PA 19409 Phone: 610.304.2024 Fax: 610.584.5387 info@dBmEng.com Page 2 of 6

Technical Parameters of Consideration The above calculations were based on the equipment configuration information furnished by representatives of Verizon Wireless. Specifically for this installation, Verizon Wireless plans to install up to twelve (12) panel style antennas arranged in three sectors with azimuths evenly spaced in the horizontal plane. The antenna centerline height is planned at 120’ above ground level. Transmitting through these antennas will be two (2) LTE radios in the 700 MHz band (per sector) at a maximum of 600 watts ERP (effective radiated power) per radio, two (2) LTE radios in the 1900 MHz band (per sector) at a maximum of 600 watts ERP (effective radiated power) per radio and two (2) LTE radios in the 2100 MHz band (per sector) at a maximum of 600 watts ERP (effective radiated power) per radio. Co-location of Other Wireless Providers In an attempt to halt the proliferation of telecommunications structures and preserve as much of their natural landscape as possible many municipalities have adopted telecommunications ordinances that specifically require new structures to accommodate additional wireless providers from a structural standpoint. From the standpoint of radio-frequency exposure, the installation of the proposed Verizon Wireless equipment would in no way preclude the use of this facility by other providers. Background Information In 1985, the FCC first adopted guidelines to be used for evaluating human exposure to RF emissions. The FCC revised and updated these guidelines on August 1, 1996, as a result of a rule-making proceeding initiated in 1993. The new guidelines incorporate limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) in terms of electric and magnetic field strength and power density for transmitters operating at frequencies between 300 kHz and 100 GHz. The FCC's MPE 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 were developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., (IEEE) and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines. Limits for localized absorption are based on recommendations of both ANSI/IEEE and NCRP. The FCC's limits, and the NCRP and ANSI/IEEE limits on which they are based, are derived from exposure criteria quantified in terms of specific absorption rate (SAR). The basis for these limits is a whole-body averaged SAR threshold level of 4 watts per kilogram (4 W/kg), as averaged over the entire mass of the body, above which expert organizations have determined that potentially hazardous exposures may occur. The MPE limits are derived by incorporating safety factors that lead, in some cases, to limits that are more conservative than the limits originally adopted by the FCC in 1985. Where ________________________________________________________________________ PO Box 165 Fairview Village, PA 19409 Phone: 610.304.2024 Fax: 610.584.5387 info@dBmEng.com Page 3 of 6

more conservative limits exist, they do not arise from a fundamental change in the RF safety criteria for whole-body averaged SAR, but from a precautionary desire to protect subgroups of the general population who, potentially, may be more at risk. The FCC exposure limits are also based on data showing that the human body absorbs RF energy at some frequencies more efficiently than at others. The most restrictive limits occur in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where whole-body absorption of RF energy by human beings is most efficient. At other frequencies, whole-body absorption is less efficient, and consequently, the MPE limits are less restrictive. MPE limits are defined in terms of power density (units of milliwatts per centimeter squared: mW/cm2), electric field strength (units of volts per meter: V/m) and magnetic field strength (units of amperes per meter: A/m). The far-field of a transmitting antenna is where the electric field vector (E), the magnetic field vector (H), and the direction of propagation can be considered to be all mutually orthogonal ("plane-wave" conditions). Occupational / controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general population/uncontrolled limits, as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means. General population / uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public would always be considered under this category when exposure is not employment-related, for example, in the case of a telecommunications tower that exposes persons in a nearby residential area. In the case of this study, the general population exposure limits have been applied as they are the more conservative set of standards. ________________________________________________________________________ PO Box 165 Fairview Village, PA 19409 Phone: 610.304.2024 Fax: 610.584.5387 info@dBmEng.com Page 4 of 6

Additional Remarks The radio-frequency emission levels from Verizon Wireless and other PCS and Cellular communications base stations are similar to that of other two-way communications systems like those used by police, fire and ambulance personnel. In contrast, commercial broadcast systems like television and radio often transmit at power levels ten times greater or more than the systems discussed above. The biological effects on humans of non-ionizing radio-frequency exposure have been studied extensively now for decades. There have been thousands of reports produced by government agencies, universities, and private research groups that support the standards adopted by the FCC. To date, there have been no credible studies conducted whose results showed evidence of any adverse health effects at the above exposure limits. Sincerely, Andrew M. Petersohn, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer Delaware license number 14438 ________________________________________________________________________ PO Box 165 Fairview Village, PA 19409 Phone: 610.304.2024 Fax: 610.584.5387 info@dBmEng.com Page 5 of 6

DECLARATION OF ENGINEER Andrew M. Petersohn, P.E., hereby states that he is a graduate telecommunications consulting engineer possessing Master and Bachelor Degrees in Electrical Engineering from Lehigh University (2005 and 1999, respectively). His corporation, dBm Engineering, P.C., has been retained by representatives of Verizon Wireless to perform an electromagnetic emissions analysis for a proposed telecommunications facility. Mr. Petersohn also asserts that the calculations and/or measurements described in this report were made personally and in a truthful and objective manner. Mr. Petersohn is a Registered Professional Engineer licensed in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, New York, and New Jersey. He has over a decade of engineering experience in the field of wireless communications. Mr. Petersohn is an active member of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) and the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers (IEEE). Mr. Petersohn further states that all facts and statements contained in the foregoing document are true and accurate to the best of his knowledge. He believes, under penalty of perjury, the foregoing to be correct. Andrew M. Petersohn, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer Delaware license number 14438 Executed this the 5th day of May, 2015. ________________________________________________________________________ PO Box 165 Fairview Village, PA 19409 Phone: 610.304.2024 Fax: 610.584.5387 info@dBmEng.com Page 6 of 6

________________________________________________________________________ PO Box 165 Fairview Village, PA 19409 Phone: 610.304.2024 Fax: 610.584.5387 info@dBmEng.com May 5, 2015 James Rodgers Site Acquisition Verizon Wireless 5175 Campus Drive Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Subject: Radio Frequency Design of Proposed Communication Facility: “CAROL PEAR” 615 Ridgley Street Dove, DE 19904 Latitude: N 39º 09’ 43.4” Longitude: W 75º 32’ 15.0” Mr. Rodgers: I have received and executed your request that I perform an independent evaluation and design review for the Verizon Wireless telecommunications facility proposed at the above referenced coordinates. The intention of this study is to provide an objective, professional opinion regarding the proposed facility from a Radio Frequency design perspective. Specifically, how the site compliments the existing network and what coverage and capacity objectives it fulfills. As a registered Professional Engineer, I am bound by a code of ethics to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. All statements and calculations offered herein are made in an objective and truthful manner pursuant to that code. Summary of Findings In my professional opinion, the proposed facility is extremely well suited to provide enhanced service to the portions of Dover surrounding the site that currently suffer from a lack of reliable wireless service. The proposed facility is the only feasible alternative that will meet the design objectives of this search ring. The location and proposed structure height are the least intrusive means of providing reliable coverage for Verizon Wireless subscribers in the targeted portions of Dover. The designed antenna height is the absolute minimum acceptable in order to achieve a high percentage of the site’s design goals. Sincerely, Andrew M. Petersohn, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer Delaware license number 14438

Network Capacity The Verizon Wireless facilities currently serving the portion of Dover surrounding the site have reached their data capacity upper-limit “ceiling”. Spurred on by smart-phones, tablets, data cards, and the various applications and content available, an exponential growth in data use over the past few years has left providers, equipment manufacturers, and the FCC looking for solutions and radio spectrum to address the demand. As illustrated below, Cisco has recently predicted a 57% compound annual growth rate for global mobile data traffic between 2014 and 2019 resulting in an anticipated 10 fold increase in traffic during that time frame. Because Verizon Wireless can only broadcast and receive in the bands for which they are licensed, there is a finite amount of data throughput that can be supported even using the most modern equipment offered by base- station manufacturers. The traffic demand in the area has already begun to overrun the available resources particularly during peak times of day. Without proper action, the data growth trend will result in a significant degradation in customer experience including services that affect public safety. ________________________________________________________________________ PO Box 165 Fairview Village, PA 19409 Phone: 610.304.2024 Fax: 610.584.5387 info@dBmEng.com Page 2 of 7

Existing Verizon Wireless Coverage Currently, Verizon has four (4) existing sites and one (1) planned* in the areas immediately surrounding the gap in coverage. These would be the first tier of neighbors for the proposed facility. These sites are detailed below: Structure Ht Name Structure Type Street Address (feet) WEST DOVER Water Tank 126 Hazlettville Road FOX HALL Water Tank 127 1293 Walker Road DOVER DOWNS Monopole 125 0 Bacon Avenue SOUTH DOVER Water Tank 139 391 UNITED WAY CENTRAL DOVER Monopole* ±120 TBD The reliable strong in-building coverage from the above existing facilities is illustrated in yellow below in figure 1. Highlighted with a green ring are the areas of inadequate coverage and capacity that define the design objectives for this search ring. Figure 1 – Existing Coverage ________________________________________________________________________ PO Box 165 Fairview Village, PA 19409 Phone: 610.304.2024 Fax: 610.584.5387 info@dBmEng.com Page 3 of 7

Proposed Verizon Wireless Coverage Figure 2 below illustrates the Verizon Wireless anticipated reliable coverage should the proposed facility be constructed as planned. The new coverage (green) from the proposed facility addresses the vast majority of the previously unreliable service areas. Figure 2 – Proposed Coverage ________________________________________________________________________ PO Box 165 Fairview Village, PA 19409 Phone: 610.304.2024 Fax: 610.584.5387 info@dBmEng.com Page 4 of 7

Reliable Service The term “reliable” is used to describe areas where a Verizon Wireless subscriber has the ability to place, receive, and maintain a phone call. Additionally, the concept of reliable service extends beyond just voice communication; access to the data network with a high probability of success and adequate throughput is now a pre-requisite to reliable service. Without adequate capacity, there cannot be reliable service as users attempting to access the network through an overburdened facility will be rejected until such time that resources become available. When the network is not dimensioned properly, delays in network availability become as detrimental to the user experience as coverage gaps as both will result in a denial of service to the customer. Reliable service provided from a facility is affected by many factors including surrounding topography, clutter types, foliage, and subscriber loading during the site’s hour of heaviest use, its “busy hour”. Because the network must maintain reliability under all conditions, these factors are taken into consideration when designing a new facility. Currently, busy hour exhaustion of the sites serving the area targeted for improvement represents a potential for voice and data service interruptions that may impact public safety. If left unaddressed, the busy hour exhaustion will become increasingly prevalent as subscriber demand continues to increase resulting in exhaustion for greater periods of the day. Eventually, the network resources in the area will be in a state of chronic exhaustion with subscribers consistently experiencing call blocks, data session rejections, and unacceptable data throughput rates. This includes 911 emergency calls and public safety related data requests such as an officer’s ability to process a license plate or driving record during a traffic stop. Wireless Substitution According to the CDC1 more than two in every five American homes (44.0%) had only wireless telephones (also known as cellular telephones, cell phones, or mobile phones) during the first half of 2014. This represents an increase of 3 percentage points since the second half of 2013. More than one-half of all adults aged 18-44 and more than one-half of all of children under age 18 were living in wireless-only households. As wireless substitution continues to spread, availability of in-building wireless service, both data and voice, becomes increasingly important. Emergency Services Implications Wireless devices are widely used by municipal emergency services for voice and data services including those that impact public safety. Additionally enhanced 911 (E911) services, which allow a mobile caller to be located by the dispatch center, are dependent on an adequate service level to provide help in an emergency. 1 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201412.pdf ________________________________________________________________________ PO Box 165 Fairview Village, PA 19409 Phone: 610.304.2024 Fax: 610.584.5387 info@dBmEng.com Page 5 of 7

Technical Parameters of Consideration According to the configuration information furnished by its representatives, Verizon Wireless plans to install a total of not more than twelve (12) panel style antennas arranged in three sectors at azimuths evenly spaced in the horizontal plane. The antenna centerline height above ground level is planned at 120’. Transmitting through these antennas will be two (2) LTE radios in the 700 MHz band (per sector) at a maximum of 600 watts ERP (effective radiated power) per radio, two (2) LTE radios in the 2100 MHz band (per sector) at a maximum of 600 watts ERP (effective radiated power) per radio, and two (2) LTE radios in the 1900 MHz band (per sector) at a maximum of 600 watts ERP (effective radiated power) per radio. Co-location Opportunities It is Verizon Wireless policy and strong preference to co-locate on existing tall structures when they are appropriately located and structurally capable of supporting the new proposed load. In this case there is an existing monopole immediately adjacent to the proposed location owned by SBA. Unfortunately in this case that monopole is unavailable for co-location due to a lack of ground space for the Verizon Wireless equipment crucial to the functionality of the facility. ________________________________________________________________________ PO Box 165 Fairview Village, PA 19409 Phone: 610.304.2024 Fax: 610.584.5387 info@dBmEng.com Page 6 of 7

DECLARATION OF ENGINEER Andrew M. Petersohn, P.E., hereby states that he is a graduate telecommunications consulting engineer possessing Master and Bachelor Degrees in Electrical Engineering from Lehigh University (2005 and 1999, respectively). His corporation, dBm Engineering, P.C., has been retained by representatives of Verizon Wireless to perform a radio frequency design analysis for a proposed telecommunications facility. Mr. Petersohn also asserts that the calculations and/or measurements described in this report were made personally and in a truthful and objective manner. Mr. Petersohn is a Registered Professional Engineer licensed in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, New York and New Jersey. He has over a decade of engineering experience in the field of wireless communications. Mr. Petersohn is an active member of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) and the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers (IEEE). Mr. Petersohn further states that all facts and statements contained in the foregoing document are true and accurate to the best of his knowledge. He believes, under penalty of perjury, the foregoing to be correct. Andrew M. Petersohn, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer Delaware license number 14438 Executed this the 5th day of May, 2015. ________________________________________________________________________ PO Box 165 Fairview Village, PA 19409 Phone: 610.304.2024 Fax: 610.584.5387 info@dBmEng.com Page 7 of 7