All right. Uh, acting chairman, we are on the air. >> Thank you very much. At 7:02 p.m. >> 7:30 7:32 >> 2:30. Yeah. Thank you. 7:32 p.m. The I'm calling to order the board of adjustment
uh special meeting and hearing uh as of this date. Call to order. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by posting a copy of the public meeting hearing dates on the municipal bulletin board, by sending a copy to the echo sentinel, and
by filing a copy with a municipal clerk. Standard board procedures. Any meeting hearing conducted by the board is quasi judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments may be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision
and decorum appropriate to a judicial meeting hearing must be maintained at all times. being cut off. Announcement is made that as a matter of procedure, it is the intention of the zoning board of adjustment not to continue any matter past 10:30 p.m. at any regular or
special meeting hearing of the board unless a motion is passed by the members then present to extend the meeting to a later specified cutoff time. Electronic devices. All in attendance are asked to mute cell phones or any electronic devices as to not inter interrupt the
proceedings. Pledge of Allegiance. Carrie, would you please lead us to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. >> Thank you. >> Oh, apologies, Mr. Ronio. I didn't think you were coming tonight. >> Oh, there's a seat right here. I'll take this one. >> Yes. I'll get your name tag out right now. And Mark, you is present. Hold on.
>> Thank you. >> Well, we're just about to take roll anyway. Perfect timing. >> Yeah. Do you mind? Okay. >> All right. Chairman, shall I take the role? >> Please do. >> Mr. Aronio >> here.
>> Mr. Geianis >> here. >> Mr. Rosenberg >> here. >> Mr. Watts >> here. >> Mr. Zadosny >> here. >> Mr. White >> here. >> Mr. Zor, say it one more time for me. >> Zorke. >> Zorke. Thank you. I'll get it one of
these days. TJ. >> Uh, Vice Chairman Groskov. >> Yeah. and chairman correct is recused this evening. Chairman, acting chairman GCF, we have a quorum. May I also add, I'm sorry, before we go further for members of the public that are here, our our board planner is Elizabeth Lehaney
and our acting uh and our engineer this evening is Rob Behinger and our board attorney is John Duca. reports. Copies of the reports from both our board engineer and our board planner are up up front and with addition to two other
reports that Verizon submitted that did not go on to the website. So there should be extra copies for everyone if you need them. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> So next business is resolutions. Did we
get resolutions for Armstrong and Yeah. >> Mhm. >> Did everybody have a chance to read them? >> Yep. >> Yes. >> Any questions? Any comments on the Armstrong application 25-13Z?
>> I don't questions or comments? >> No. >> Did I get a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Mr. Janakus. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rosenberg. >> Yes.
>> Um, see, Mr. Ronio, you cuz I did not know you were attending this evening, so I did not send you the resolutions. So, >> it's okay. I don't have to I have not read them. >> Okay. >> So, I will not vote on that. >> Okay. I apologize. >> That's okay. >> Okay. Uh so, we have Mr. Zadzi.
>> Yes. >> Mr. White. >> Yes. >> And Vice Chairman Groskoff. >> Uh obtain. >> Okay. for resolution for Ricardo G and Sandra Alia. Application 25-15Z. Have you all read them? Any questions,
comments? >> Seeing none, do I get a Can I get a motion to approve? >> So move. >> Second. >> Second. >> Was that Mr. Zney? >> Yes. Mo >> uh Mr. Znney? >> Yes. >> Mr. Geianis? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rosenberg? >> Yes.
>> Mr. White? Yes, >> vice chairman Groskoff >> abstain. >> Okay, thank you. Okay, next board business before before us is application preliminary and final
major site plan use variance bulk varants block 12304 lot one zone P 1891A Longill Road application number 25-17Z
applicant proposes to install a 104 foot tall monopole and emergency backup generator >> council before you begin I just for the benefit of the board, the applicant and the public. I just want to make a few statements about the procedure of tonight's hearing. Uh obviously the applicant is here to uh present this
application. I will let the applicant describe uh what that application is and the relief they are seeking. Uh but in terms of the procedure and how things will go tonight, the uh the applicant's attorney will likely provide some opening statements here. He will then uh
have his witness one by one sworn in to testify. uh council for the applicant will then question that witness and that witness will provide answers. Then the board will have an opportunity to question the witness. Following the board's opportunity to question the witness, the public will have an
opportunity to question that witness. That will be the time for questions on the witness's testimony or area of expertise. It will not be a time for you to testify or provide comments or concerns about the application. Only questions. Once the applicant is through all of its witnesses, I anticipate that
the board might have some additional follow-up questions uh and uh then the then the public will have an opportunity to provide comment, concerns, uh what support whatever they might have to share about uh their thoughts or any
testimony they might have about the application. Uh at that time I will uh the board will I will swear in any members of the public who who do want to comment or question or provide testimony and at the conclusion the uh applicants
council will have an opportunity to provide his closing statements. Uh then the board will deliberate and hopefully tonight vote on the application. So that's how we anticipate the procedure to go tonight. And with that I'll turn it over to the applicants attorney. >> Thank you counselor. Mr. Chairman,
members of the board, Frank Ferrar with the Verizon Wireless. Mr. Chairman, as you indicated, we are here tonight for a use variances and design wireless telecom facility at the military fire
department property. U not the main property where the firehouse is located in the public use zone. This is in the 12304 block 12304 lot one zone
block 12304 lot one of the property the installation will include a 100 foot mono to the lightning rod. Most of the equipment will be placed inside one of the bays of the existing fire department
and there will be emergency backup generator outside next to the compound. Um we do have either four or five witnesses for you tonight. Um Verizon has an area of coverage in and around uh the township
in this particular area which is seeking to address the applicant has sought out existing structures uh but simply could not find anything sufficient height in order to uh provide service and remedy their uh their gap in their coverage. Um
as a result uh we have we are proposing this poll at the fire department. Um the township does not wireless telecommunication ordinance. I'm sure the board knows. So the applicant is left to find a reasonable location under
case law. Uh and we believe fully that the firehouse location is not only a reasonable location that is particularly suited for use. Um there is a existing whip antenna at the firehouse behind it and potentially down
the were potentially the fire department could relocate their communication antenna to the tower in order to improve emergency services communications. Um so that would be available and part of our
application. In addition, Verizon has had the opportunity to confirm with the uh the Long Hill Township Police Department that in fact police do use Verizon service um in their cruisers and also
you know for the primary communications. So uh there would definitely be a benefit to uh facility for that for that reason. So our first witness is going to be our >> Excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I just want clarification on that last point. Um, when you said that it's
available to the PD, do you mean the tower is available to them or the Verizon service itself is available to >> the service? So, they will benefit from the improved service. >> Thank you. Thank you for >> Yes. Clarify that question. Yeah. So, they they will benefit from the improved service. >> Thank you. >> I have a question too. >> Sure.
>> I thought I heard you say that Verizon would be using the structure, meaning the existing structure to the fire department. No, they Verizon researched this area to find an existing structure of sufficient height, but there simply wasn't
anything. Right now, the fire department has a singular whip antenna that's on a utility, a wooden utility pole behind their uh behind the building. that is not something that's a tall enough or b structurally sound enough to be used as
>> I I thought I heard you say you that they were going to be using the fire department's structure. >> No. So what what I said was >> with for their equipment to be in >> our cabinets will be placed inside the garage
that's across >> the barn where all the rest of their equipment is. And what kind of protection does the rest of the fire department's equipment have with your equipment sharing the same structure? >> Well, I'll let our engineers
details what equipment in there and whatnot. >> I mean, we've got board members here who've kept lawnmowers in other people's sheds, right? So, you know, if your lawnmower would catch some guy's shed on fire, you know, it's your lawnmower in their shed. So that's what I'm trying to
figure out. If >> Verizon has some sort of responsibility to the fire department, should it be damaging the equipment that the township has paid for? >> Sure. >> And is stored in that garage? >> Well, I mean, I can tell you this much, Verizon does have a lease agreement with
the fire department. pursuant to that they are responsible for the maint. >> Yeah. >> But to that entire structure should something. >> Thanks for clearing that up. >> Sure. Um so just to give an outline of
what we proposed to uh demonstrate to the board. We will have our radio frequency engineer to go over the gap in the service coverage in this area as well as how the proposed tower. Apparently, this not >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Yeah,
>> me. >> This one's better. Oh, yeah. That's better. Okay. >> Frank Sinatra. >> That's right. Um, so we'll have a radio frequency engineer to go through the need for this particular site at this location. Um, we will also have our
civil engineer who will go through the site plan and the improvements that are being proposed. We have our radio frequency emissions expert who will testify to the fact that if the tower were approved, it would operate well within FCC uh emissions requirements.
And then finally uh we have our professional planner uh who will testify to the criteria for the granting of the use variance, the height variance, um the underlying bulk variances and the design waiverss. Um so Mr. Chairman, um unless there's any initial questions, uh
we would call our first witness who's Ron Lucatch. He's our radio frequency engineer. >> Questions? >> So I have some questions. Maybe you're not the appropriate person, but I'll start and see what you say and then if you want me to direct it to someone else, I'll do that at the time. >> But I just want to understand how you
chose this site. Like you you mentioned earlier, I think that >> uh you looked at alternate sites and and they weren't really considered or or maybe they were considered but you found them not acceptable. So maybe you could take us through the process of finding a site, what the criteria is that you
looked at, whether it's the location, the signal or any of or any of those things and uh and tell us what you found. You know, like I'm thinking of locating it to a different area, right? So you probably thought that as well. I think that's what you're saying. So maybe you could say what sites you
looked at and why other specific sites were not acceptable. >> Sure. So I mean I can speak generally on these terms. we will have experts who or uh people can testify directly to that. But anecdotally, I can tell you this. So Verizon Wireless when they're looking for a new site or when they have
identified an area of need in their uh existing network, uh they send out site acquisition to try to find a location in that area to remedy it. Um generally speaking, it's not just unique to Verizon. It's really unique to it's
really typical of the injur of the industry that you go out and try to identify first existing structures that you can utilize rather than building a new pole. Um so Verizon sends out their site acquisition consultant. They look
in the area where uh RF has identified the need and to see if they can find a structure of suitable height. So Verizon did that here. Um, subject to the testimony that you're going to hear, um, just to give you a primer, I guess, they
they went and they investigated the the Enclave property, um, which is in your light industrial zone across Division Street. That was one of the alter alternates that was looked at. Uh, landlord was ultimately not interested.
Apparently, there's 140 unit development that's been approved there. Mixed commercial. Uh didn't have any room for it. Landlord just, you know, they were not interested, but they were approached. Um my understanding that Verizon has an office building on
Division Street. Um I don't have the exact address. Right. >> Most people are aware of the >> Yeah, you know the area builds central station, right? Exactly. Thank you. So that was investigated obviously because the applicant is Verizon. Um the
property just doesn't have the room for a compound tower and you know just the apparatus that we that goes into a standard wireless telecommunication site and um so that site was ruled out just for a lack of available space. Um that
site is almost adjacent to our site very close. Uh, there was also, I believe it was 84 Division Street that was looked at. Let me just give you the I want to make sure I give you the right address.
>> I was fine a few minutes ago. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Well, 84 Division Avenue. I was almost right. uh owned by CP certified which um to my understanding has a multitude of of
commercial type uses on it. Um, my understanding is that landlord was interested, but Verizon felt that with the intensity of the uses going on in that property, there really wasn't a location that they could be utilized
without pushing the tower all the way to one corner, which uh the property is is surrounded by residential on three sides. So, that site was considered and was an option. I think that's in the O office zone. um that's not in the light
industrial. And then finally um the uh the the fire department property which is in a P public use zone um was approached and the landlord was interested. They had this unique
situation where they not only owned the fire department lot, but they owned the lot uh across Commerce Street, which is an unimproved gravel street. Um where they had a shed that was or a garage, I will call it, a garage or barn that's
underutilized, and they had some space in there that we can put our equipment in uh which was a fairly unique benefit uh to be able to hide that. And then they had some room um for a tower and the generator and a fence compound and
it it it seemed to work. It's a non-residential zone and that's how really we came to that location started negotiations with them. Um lease in place now filed the application to come before you. So that downtown area if you
will that commercial area um it's bounded by I think there's three non-residential zones. is the P public zone. It's the light industrial zone which is now basically the enclave. Um it's a mixeduse development or approved for that. And then we had the office
zone with the uh the series of uh commercial uses on it own by JP certified. And then the Verizon store which is also uh I believe in the that's in uh that's in the business zone and then the P zone with the uh fire
department. So Verizon looked at all the alternative properties really that are not zone residential in this area and that's how we came to the to where we are. >> Okay. I just have one followup. Um >> Sure. >> Did you uh investigate the railroad all of that right of way that they have the
trestle the catinary devices? Can you >> piggyback on any of that up there? >> Horizon. So, just in light of some of the questions that have been raised during council's opening arguments, I I just want to um advise the board and uh remind the board that obviously you can
rely on the statements made by council, but you you should really rely and focus on uh the statements uh that are made by by the sworn witnesses. Uh obviously an attorney is required to make truthful statements under our rules of pro professional conduct but they should be
supported by evidence which are the which will be the testimony and the exhibits relied on by the applicant's witnesses and obviously uh the what what will be presented dur during the applicant's presentation. So I I think that the questions that have been raised so far are obviously very relevant and
prudent but I just want to remind the board that uh these questions really uh likely should be directed towards witnesses. >> Sure. Thank you council for your guidance. Just so you know why I'm asking the questions to this person. I see this as the person representing the business. So if there's another business
representative, I will gladly speak to them. And that's why I open my questions by saying if you're not the appropriate person, I'd like to speak with that person. >> Sure. >> Yeah. And I I don't mean to take over this meeting. I'm >> okay. I don't mean to ask so many questions at the beginning. We don't usually do this, but for obvious
reasons, I think you should. >> I'm not testifying. This is part of my opening statement. And I understand I'm looking for the back of how we got to where we are right here. That's what I want to know. >> But to answer your last question, if I may, since you raised it, thank you. >> Um Verizon does not use catinary lines.
None of the carriages >> railroad right away. >> Railroad rightways. Um at one point they did. I mean some 10 to 15 years ago, but no longer because you can't maintenance them. And >> okay, >> to get somebody up there to work on them, you'd have to >> I'm not only talking cat. I'm talking
about the whole all that. Correct. >> Everywhere. >> No, they do not utilize railroads anymore and u typically speaking, they're not even made available to us. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sure. >> I have I have a different question and maybe you can help with it. I'm not sure. It's not uh it's you mentioned the
parties. Uh it's Verizon, right? And the landlord, I'm sorry, I don't know who the landlord is. >> The the landlord is Million Volunteer Fire Department. So I don't know the structure of Isn't that part of the Long Hill Township? Isn't So is it
>> they're private entity? >> They own it. They own it privately. >> Okay. I just keep thinking that it's the township committee that buys, you know, firet trucks and stuff like that. No, >> they buy the trucks, but the members bought the buildings years ago. >> Okay. >> The real estate and and built the
buildings themselves. >> Okay. >> Yeah. and they're volunteers, so they're not paid by the township, right? >> Okay. >> Uh I mean, that's another site selection, you know, criteria that we'll testify to. You know, the carriers do look for municipal property when they
can. This is not technically municipal property, although it has a municipal uh emergency service use uh operating there. And and just to to expand on that, um, for for the board's information, for the public information, if this were publicly owned property, the applicant would not be before this
board because they would be exempt from zoning. So, they would be able to just construct whatever they wanted to construct as long as the governing body agreed with it. >> Um, but they there would not be a a public hearing. They would not require a variance or anything like that. >> Well, you you touched on a couple other
possible sites. They were all kind of privately owned. Were there any municipal sites in all of Long Hill Township that were considered? >> Not within the area of the deficient coverage. So, there may be other areas of Long Hill Township that still need to be addressed, but for this particular
gap in Verizon service coverage, there are no municipal alternatives within that gap that could be used to um to address it. So this was the second best thing which is almost like a qu a quasi municipal use if you will. Um
so there will obviously be benefits to the volunteer fire department from the from the tower but uh wouldn't necessarily go wouldn't flow to the town uh directly was there's no there's no lease directly with the township of long hill. >> Okay.
>> Yep. >> So I probably spoke more than I was definitely more than I was planning to. So, uh, there's any other question, unless there's any other questions, I can call our first witness, uh, Ron Lucatch, who can go through, um, what the need exactly is in the Verizon
network. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Mr. Lucatch, would you raise your right hand, please? >> Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> All right. Could you please state your name for the record? >> Yes, it's Ron Lucatch. L U K A.
>> All right. And can you please give the board the benefit of your background and credentials explaining your expertise? >> Yes, gladly. Good. Good evening. Uh members, um I hold a bachelor of science and electrical engineering from the New Jersey Institute of Technology. I have 29 years of experience as an RF engineer
capacity. uh currently employed by Purecon Solutions out of Butler, New Jersey as a senior RF engineer, systems integration manager and I've appeared before other boards throughout the state of New Jersey with regard to uh art of necessity on behalf of carriers, T-Mobile, Verizon, and have been
accepted before those boards. >> And is your license current in good standing? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. I recommend that uh Mr. Lucatch be recognized as an expert in the field of radio frequency engineering. >> So recognized. >> Thank you very much. Uh, so Mr. Lucatch,
Verizon Wireless is an FCC licensed provider of telecommunication services. Is that correct? >> I'm gonna yell >> that share. >> What you're saying, what you're saying is more important. >> Yes. Verizon is licensed by the FCC to provide wireless uh voice and data
services um in and around the uh the general area and throughout the state of New Jersey as well as other states. Uh they hold many licenses by the FCC. um in different bands, the 700 MHz band, the 850 MHz band, uh the 1900 MHz band,
2100 MHz band, and the 3700 MHz band. And they're licensed by the FCC to provide services uh in all of those bands. >> And uh we're going to be using the the initials RF that stands for radio frequency, correct? >> Yes. >> All right. Just so the record is clear.
Um, and have you performed an RF analysis of the surrounding site where the proposed Verizon facility is going? >> Uh, yes, I co-authored the report, the uh, RF report if you want me to refer to
that. >> Let's uh, mark this report as A1. Uh A1 is a report by Purecon Solutions titled independent radio frequency report
regarding a proposed Verizon Verizon Millington 2 wireless facility dated October 27th, 2025. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's correct. >> So this this report is in the board's packet hopefully. Um was this report prepared by you or under your
supervision? >> Yes, it was. >> So for the sake of the record, we will mark that as A1 since you mentioned it. Thank you. >> If we could just refer to it as the RF report >> since the uh title is a little bit lengthy. >> So Mr. Lass, could you just in general
terms describe the need um for this site and why Verizon is here? >> Yes. So uh for this in preparation for this hearing u as part of the RF report uh that was conducted um we evaluated uh
Verizon's existing network um as part of the report I have exhibits and that is to say we evaluate the existing coverage that they provide whether there is in fact a gap or a lack of service identify the area where a site must be placed to
uh ostensibly u maximize um the deficiency and limit the amount of wireless facility locations. Uh and then address and pro, you know, provide the uh um the statistics on what that proposed site does and compare it to
other alternates um and why other other approaches or alternative sites or locations or technologies would not be u equal in terms of uh their ability to to do that. >> And before you get into specifics, um
did your professional analysis conclude that Verizon does have an area of deficient coverage in and around the proposed site. >> Yes, it does. >> And did your analysis also conclude that Verizon needs a monopole at a height of 100 ft in order to address that area
deficient coverage? >> Yes, the information will show that as well. >> And in your opinion, is that the minimum height necessary? >> Yes, it is. >> Um, can you describe some of the symptoms that a user may experience uh
when they enter an area of deficient coverage. >> Yeah. Well, simply stated um an area of um lack of reliable coverage and I'm going to focus on reliable inbuilding service. That's residential inbuilding service. Not to say that there's uh not
mobile coverage or in street coverage uh but reliable inbilling service is that a user may experience um difficulty accessing the network, dropped calls, interruption of service um and not the robust network that they expect,
you know, being a user in a uh being a user of the service. And um in your professional experience, is it standard in the wireless industry to use propagation tools in order to identify gaps in coverage and come up with means
of addressing them? >> Yes, the the uh computer simulations are are used industrywide. Uh the one used by Verizon uh the name of it is the tool planning tool is called ATL. It's also used by T-Mobile. Um and it's industry standard. Um and it's used for planning
purposes. It shows existing coverage with a very high level of accuracy and it's also used to evaluate uh new sites and what they would essentially do at different locations, different heights uh to a a pretty good level of accuracy in my in my uh experience.
>> And uh you have performed a computer simulated or you have prepared I should say um propagation exhibits demonstrating the uh area of deficient coverage around this site. Yes. >> And now are the exhibits you're about to
testify to, are they contained in the report that we marked as A1? >> Yes. The three exhibits, the three exhibits um I'm I will talk to are are in the report. >> Okay. So, no. Should we mark them or No need? >> I don't think that's necessary.
>> So, Mr. Lucatch, um could you just describe um where the existing site is on your first exhibit as well as the first on air Verizon sites. >> And when you do that, can you please uh move your easel so that if anybody from
the audience would like to come up and uh take a look so we can see it and perhaps they can over here >> I'm trying to see what's visual on TV and >> so they can see it. But as long as we
understand where Yeah, there that'll >> So we know we're on the page talking. >> Is that sufficient? >> I think so. Can Can you folks all see it? >> Well, members of the public are welcome to come up. Yeah. >> Okay, fine. >> You're welcome to come up and look at the exhibits if you wish.
>> Can Can the members of the board see it? >> Okay. And we have >> Are you following along with the package? >> Yes. >> I believe there were copies of the report by too. >> Yes. the public.
>> They may not be in color, but yeah. [Applause] >> Yes. >> Okay. So, the first exhibit I wish to uh to talk to is uh label as exhibit A. It's titled Verizon Wireless coverage from existing on air sites without
subject sight at the 700 megahertz LTE. I mentioned that 700 MHz is one of the frequency bands that uh the Verizon provides is licensed by the FCC to provide services for um their their lower bands just just by background the lower bands tend to
propagate further or cover uh further than the mid-bands that they're also licensed for. So when an analyzing Verizon's wireless uh service, if the low bands show deficiency, the mid-bands would also show even a greater deficiency because the signal levels
decay faster. So if there's if it's present for one, it's present for for the others. So in fact, by presenting this is the best case of what Verizon has um in identifying what their current service is. So the exhibit A has a number of items on it. Basically, it's a
road map. It's a depiction, a geographic map of the uh of the area around the subject site. By way of orientation, uh north is is up. Um there there are streets that run through the area. They have labels on them. Um I78 being to the
south, the red line, and other roads uh being identified. Um there are some other items that I'd like to read as well into the record. the yellow triangular items around the in a more or less a
clockwise fashion are the existing sites that Verizon is is present on um and currently providing coverage to the to the overall area and um I'll introduce what those locations are the heights and if they're collocations for the most
part they are all collocations with other carriers in the center of the um the map uh identified by a pink dot is the subject site and then there's a color uh a dark green color that is
representative of the reliable inbuilding service level which is a - 95 dBm that's a mathematical calculation to determine what the reliable level is adding up all the systems gains and losses etc and it's consistent with
industry standards for uh establishing that minimum value for reliable service >> and this is reliable in building service. >> Yes, in a reliable inbuilding residential service is is shown in green, dark green.
So I would just like to uh introduce what what these sites are. Um they're labeled at the very top of the uh the map starting approximately at 12:00 uh is a site called Millington and that's uh and I and I'll talk about how far these sites are away from the from the
subject site but it's 1.3 miles away from the subject site. Um that is a lattice tower that is a collocation and um Verizon is present and they have a center line of the antennas at 150 ft.
Moving uh clockwise to about 3:00 um is another existing site. Sterling is the name. Uh that's a 120 foot center line antenna for Verizon. It's monopole existing monopole and that's also collocation with other carriers.
uh moving towards 4 or 5:00 again in a clockwise direction is a site warrant 4 um that site is Verizon has their antennas at 90 ft that is a lattice tower there's also a collocation multiple carriers are there
moving to about 6:00 is a site called Bernard's Bernard's township and that is a rooftop that's actually the Everest insurance company it's 57 foot I believe Verizon is the only one there. Um, and again, still moving the
clockwise direction or I guess west uh Warren 5, that's a 108 ft center line antenna for uh for Verizon. That is a monopole that is also a collocation with other carriers. And then finally up at
the top uh left hand corner is a site called Basking Ridge and that is uh Verizon is at 95 ft center line. That's a stealth uh flagless pole that's there. I don't know if it's colllocated. Other collocators are there. It's sealed up. I
don't can't for certain say. So, as you can see, all of the existing sites, uh, Verizon is colllocated with other carriers. Um, and the coverage that is shown, if you look in the center of the map where the subject site is, uh, there is no dark green. It kind of
breaks up in some some spots. So in the indication is that there is no reliable inbuilding uh residential service and therefore that establishes first of all in an evaluation is there a service gap does it need to be remedied that's the first step the answer to this is yes
there is one so then goes about what are the next steps and how do you uh address it appropriately and efficiently >> um just for the record could you uh describe the parameters of the gap service Oh yes.
Yes. Thank you. It was on page two. Um yeah. So in totality uh the service gap is approximately 1.5 square miles. Um the affected areas are approximately 042 miles along um Northfield Road south
of the intersection of of uh Long Hill Road to Valley Road in the center map. Moving uh top down uh uh.5 miles along Division Avenue from uh from Long Hill Road to Valley Road. Again, kind of a
parallel street uh from Long Hill Road at the top to Valley Road at the bottom. 1.57 miles along Hos Road um west of Division Avenue to Stonehouse Road. Um
and that is running more or less east to west in this area. I know it changes names some point and then back to Hos Road, but uh that that's the that's the stretch area that I'm referring to. uh.56 miles along river road from uh
Valley Road to uh is it Hos Hos Road? Yep. That's that's the road that kind of runs from northwest I'm sorry, southwest to northeast and then uh one mile along Valley Road from Bernard Drive to
Northfield Road and that would be Valley Road that would be this area Bernard Drive to the to the west. uh valley road continues here, goes down and comes across east. So it has the general description of the area um and the
distances and according to I I believe and I'm want to correct the report at this time for the population. I think there's a reference and in the report the RF report it said according to 2020 census data. >> One second we have a question. >> Um yeah so I you might have been just
getting to that. How many residential do you know how many residential buildings? just going to um I have some other followup if you were going to get to that. >> Okay. Yes. So I just want to make a correction which is in the RF submitted report there's a reference to 2020 census data and the numbers that are actually in there are 2010 census data.
I have both sets but I just wanted to make that clarification and and correction for the record. Okay. So, I'll stay with the numbers that are in there just be just be consistent and I can update them to 2020 census numbers, but just note that the numbers that are referenced in the report and then the
ability for the the site are 2010 census numbers. So, I'll just introduce those for consistency. Um, so according to 2010 census data, uh, 2190 residents are are affected by that area, that gap area that I just spoke about, the 1.5 square
miles. Um, also within that area is the Millington Elementary School on Northfield Road. It's about a quarter mile from the proposed site and that would fall into the area as well. >> Is the train station also in this location?
>> I I don't believe I don't believe the >> I don't believe it's on this map. And then in your expert opinion, is this the size of this gap? Is this a significant gap in Verizon's service coverage?
>> Yes, I would categorize it as a significant gap in in reliable service due to the size and then in the um and the number of of residents affected. >> And before we move forward to show the propagation to be gained from the site if it were approved with respect to on
air sites. Is there anything that could be done to those sites provide coverage into this gap area? >> No, the answer is well the answer is no. Uh they're you know of of a decent height of themselves between 100 and between 90 ft other than rooftop the
towers are between 90 and 150 ft and give it a distance and I'll give it the average distance of the sites. Um and from RF perspective um RF just has a a finite range that it can provide service and after that it's just it's too far
away. So um you can see by the distance u of the existing sites and where the proposed site they're all relatively you know pretty pretty similar. So this is essentially how uh how far apart sites can can be and um and is representative
of what that frequency is capable of doing. And based upon this exhibit, is the proposed site centrally located between the uh the first level on air sites that Verizon has? >> Yes, it's it's almost essentially uh
pretty close to the center, I would say. >> And is there a benefit to that from a radio frequency perspective? >> Well, yes. So obviously at the outset I said um to establish or evaluate whether there is existing coverage gap um and
then identify what that is. Uh the benefit of being in the center of that area is that you would maximize any site's ability or you know ability to to address the coverage from one location as opposed to two. a site located somewhere else having again limited capability to provide coverage would
then open up or still leave another area to be adjusted at a future time. So location is very important in addition to height in terms of affectuating what the what the service gap uh is. >> So in your opinion is this proposed
location an efficient location for minimizing the number of sites in the township? >> Yes. >> Is there anything that you wanted to address on this exhibit A, which is actually a page from the report that's
been marked as A1. Anything else on here that you need to address? >> Not at this time. >> Can I I just wanted to follow up. I'm sorry. Um I have a few questions and I apologize. Just just for for a point of clarification, the other sites with the
yellow is is the angle at which that yellow the yellow uh I guess pie piece facing is that relevant? Is that some sort of that there is is that the the way the RF is fa is is going? I don't I
don't really know. >> Yes, I'm sorry about that. I should have explained the pie pieces are really um typically cellular carriers before uh will stick up three sets of or groups arrays of antennas and they'll point them in three different directions or where it
makes sense mostly to concentrate um service. So when um the cellular service is first being out obviously was along highways and roads or where more traffic would be gained etc. Uh but that is essentially what tells you which where the antennas are pointing. >> Okay. and and this antenna, how would
that compare? Would it look more like a Basking Ridge 2A? Um, in terms of the way it's radiating the I mean, if it was built, what would it look like on this map? >> Well, I I'll show you that I guess in another exhibit. >> Okay. >> I don't know if the uh I have I have the
written down. I don't know if they're depicted on the uh on the exhibit, but I can certainly explain that. So, it would assume, obviously I'm no expert on this, but it would seem that the proximity to the site is not necessarily the only uh
the only um condition that allows for for good reception because there's a there's a I don't know how large of a white area. I guess it's a small white area right adjacent to the Basking Ridge site. So just having proximity to a tower does not necessarily mean you're
going to get the reception this green re level of reception. That's correct. >> No. So if everything was flat and all conditions were the same, you would essentially see a circle around everything and everything would have the same radius or diameter, but other factors affect RF including terrain. >> Okay.
>> So um there are there are a number of factors. primarily terrain is what is what you you'll see and you'll see white spots in between existing sites and that's just because the height of a of a wireless facility as the elevation goes up and it goes down the RF doesn't penetrate that
>> and and I know this is only this is you know either black or white green or white uh depending on what you're looking at so the green is a greater than I don't know what that really means 95 dBm um that's a that's an industry standard can you speak in certain in
terms of say what we might might know in terms of my phone like is that mean that I get four bars or something like that or how how does that >> how does that translate into what a normal person holding a phone might know? So that's a good question. I get that asked a lot too. Uh but there are a
number of factors that actually go into that. Uh the design standard for Verizon is NE95 but there are other quality factors such as because these frequencies are reused so they're reused at the same sites. So areas where there's no reliable signal, you could
still have some signal I mentioned in maybe in in in vehicle or in street um but there's amount of overlapping signals that are competing like FM broadcast stations and you're caught between two of them. You can't make out either one. So again, it would be job calls. It would be um in at poor service
areas again outside of reliable u signal levels, you may have the indication of five well not five bars, but you may get a spinning circle if you're trying to download something or or whatever. So the other service affecting items um based upon those factors. So it's not just the reliable inb buildinging
>> that's meant to do is to provide what we call a dominant server. And if there's not a dominant server, that means all the other sites are trying to compete and service is poor. >> But the people in the white area aren't necessarily getting no service. They just have what you would consider non-reliable service. >> Unreliable residential inbuilding
service. Correct. Correct. >> Because I mean I don't live on this map, but I know my service I don't know how my service compares to this. It's unreliable in building service as well, but I you know I can't I don't have a point of comparison. So I that's why I was asking you what that really meant. So there could be shades of green here
if we wanted to. You might be able to say, "All right, these people are kind of less unreliable than others. Or is it is it a black or white issue? You're either reliable or you're unreliable." >> Like is there are there shades of gray? Like I'm certain somebody out in the
middle of of you know the middle of Wyoming or something has much less reliable service than someone who lives in this uh white area. You would probably say, right? I mean I don't know. Maybe Wyoming has really good service, but I I is flat, whatever. But um there's there's probably some areas
of the country that where service is considered to be non-existent as opposed to just unreliable. That's why I'm just wondering because you only have green or white, >> but there's there could be some shades is what I'm kind of getting at. Is that the case or is that am I totally off base?
>> Well, the computer simulation is like I said, it's very accurate in terms of showing what the existing service is and in evaluating other sites as the uh as a network expands. Again, it doesn't mean that if you go right uh south of Long Hill Road exactly at that location
that's shown in white that there's not unreliable building service. Okay? So, there's a little bit of give and take, not much, but it is highly reliable in terms of what it depicts. >> And there are large areas which just show unreliable coverage. Doesn't mean no coverage. Doesn't mean coverage not
in vehicle. It just means from for a user that's at at home at the end of the day trying to use their phone, it's unreliable from an engineering perspective. A subjective observation may be, hey, sometimes they have service, sometimes I don't. >> And I know you you're you're here for Verizon, but you mentioned that a lot of
these are are coll-located polls. Uh are you aware? So I I guess are you aware of another provider that has or or does essentially if any provider came before us they would show almost the similar coverage because a lot of these are colllocated. >> So they're licensed in very similar
bands they also are licensed in different bands that have different characteristics but assuming that they're all colloccated at the same location I would assume it's reasonable to assume they would have the same uh performance issues. And does that mean that other providers or maybe
that's not part of this because I think we've had other uh come before us maybe the sterling one I don't I don't remember a number of years back um does that mean other providers may be on these polls eventually or not currently or >> the poll will have theap capacity to
accommodate location in the future >> but that's not part you just don't You just don't want to build it just for use itself. Although we are building it to minimal need um it could be used by somebody else assuming it was ground
space was interested in so >> and just for I'm sorry this is not for our own experts if that was to be the case they would have to come to us to get a variance for that or would they be as upright on that
>> only if they were going to uh modify one of the deviations or or standards that they're seeking relief from today. So they wouldn't be permitted to make the uh tower any higher for the purposes of colllocating. >> And I'm not sure if this really is
related to Rosenberg's line of questioning, but legally each each FCC licensed carrier is responsible for providing reliable service coverage. So even if another carrier say AT&T or T-Mobile had reliable in building service in this
area, it doesn't It doesn'tate Verizon's responsibility to provide their own service. So each carrier is responsible for delivering reliable service. >> Yeah. >> Anyone else? >> I have a question. Um and you might be
getting this into this with the design because you know he was asking about the 2A site and it's a stealth site which sounds kind of interesting but we're not going to have a stealth site, right? This is going to be a normal site visible. >> It's not being proposed as a del site. No.
>> Okay. What's the difference between one or the other? >> The difference is in the terms well the difference is um what Verizon proposing again I talked about a set of antennas. So in a stealth uh pole or you know
flagless pole etc to provide service in the frequency bands in which they're licensed for they would take up multiple spots because one antenna is not capable of providing all of the frequencies. So in this case was 100 ft they may have to take up two or three spots 10 ft apart
minimizing the opportunity for uh for collocation. >> So is it >> that would be the difference? So you can't fit as many carriers antennas on a stealth system. >> What? It would take up more space. It
would it would it would require a taller structure to accommodate the different carriers for their different bands. It would ultimately wind up in a taller structure. >> I I didn't write down the height of that one, but this one is 104 feet, right? So >> 95 for that one. >> Okay. So the stealth one's actually
shorter. Um, and my question is, how did it come to 104? And what's the difference if it's 10% taller, 10% shorter, 15% taller, 15% shorter, 50% shorter? What What's the drop off? Why why wouldn't it be as efficient as it,
you know, 104 foot one? >> Sure, I can provide that. I have those details. >> That's actually the next part of our testimony. We're going to get into the propagation to be gained from the site that the proposed and why that
>> Mr. Lucas, are you done? >> I have questions. >> Mr. Lucas, I I have one question going back to my colleague's point before where the white area uh when when you look at it from afar, the white area looks barren. But when I look on this,
this is the same, but it's in black black and white. There seems to be there are pixelated gray or maybe green spots on your U. How is that determined that those green areas are within spec?
>> Is that is that something we need to worry about at this point? >> You've got a large area that's not covered, but within it got smaller areas. >> So, Mr. Chairman, you're referring to these these specks or pixelated, you know, islands, if you will. Even the
ones that are even less concentrated than that, there are dots all over it. >> So, can you explain why this isn't just a you know a white pure white gap and why there are pixelations of in building level of service?
>> Yes. Well, the the the simulation the computer simulation obviously is does a a very good job of predicting RF signals but there are land use types that are incorporated in in this if I were to show this. So there's USGS maps, there are land use types, there are
structure types, certain heights. Um, and RF is not is not a precise level always all the time. It fluctuates. So the the computer simulation program shows that in terms of this may be more dense vegetation or or tree area where another area may not. And so that's
reflected in the simulation as having a possibility of coverage. Generally, when you see a gap and you see a transition from green to white, uh even though there may be some that that show up, it generally shows that that's a whole or it's it it's now the beginning of unreliable service where it still may
show up occasionally. It's it's the nature of the of the program that that predicts it and there's other factors that go into it. >> I understand. Thank you. >> Gary, you want I mean, sorry, Jerry. >> Yeah, I'm Jerry. Um, >> so I just wanted to know, we talked a
little bit about alternative sites earlier and I just want to know if you looked at other sites within the our industrial zones in that area and um if if you could if if those zones could provide you with the coverage that you
need if if you were to relocate this thing somewhere else in the downtown Millington area in one of the industrial sites. Did you look at other sites? Like I know you did from a business perspective, but from an engineering perspective, did you look at other sites or was this the only one that you looked at? >> This is one of three that were
evaluated. >> Okay. And was this chosen for >> for business reasons, availability reasons or is this optimization reasons? >> Well, if I can go through the next um you know slide essentially where the search ring is generated. I wanted to
point out it's kind of located that's important for the criteria of why his site is chosen. Yeah. >> Okay. You're talking you're going to >> I'm sorry. Just to give an outline where Mr. Latch's testimony is going next will be the coverage to be gained from the poll, the hype.
>> Okay. >> Fair enough. I'll I'll hold then. Thank you. There's no other questions on the gap. You prepared another exhibit. >> Uh yes, the the next exhibit uh that's also any report be exhibit B titles
Verizon wireless search ring and distance map. So this map again is the same scale uh same roads um that was in the previous um exhibit. However, coverage has been removed and the purpose of this site is
to illustrate the distance. I think I read the distances between a subject site and the u the existing Verizon sites. Um on average I think that's 1 point let me get average distance to each one of the sites is about 1.7
milesi as you can see um in the center again is the subject site the existing sites are again marked with yellow wedges around the uh around the perimeter and also on the map is a red more or less a circle. Um and that
essentially is what's generated by engineering. Once there is a gap that's established, it essentially says these are the limitations of where a site should be placed to provide maximum uh coverage and address the service area. So those are the limitations going outside of this area u would either
provide coverage that's overlapping to existing sites and so the site optimally must be placed. So again, this defines the limitations on areas of where uh Verizon then goes and seeks for existing structures that have a suitable height and seeing whether they're uh you know
available in the area. In this case, there were not as it's mostly residential. There's some mixed um commercial industrial use in there, but nothing I I don't think above 20 30 feet uh totality uh fairly again uh dense
population of trees residents. So um there wasn't an existing existing structure that Verizon could colllocate on. So then a second alternative is then to propose or look for something near this the the center of the property and
approach people and see if they are interested uh in proposing a new facility. So it's kind of a last resort. In this case that was the only option uh because there are no existing facilities. shorter heights. I mentioned location is very important but so is
height because height then limits further the uh the RF signal uh its ability to to provide coverage. So something very very low provide a dimminimous amount of of coverage whereas increase the height you would be above the tree line and allow for
additional coverage to be provided. Uh the final exhibit is exhibit C. It's titled Verizon Wireless coverage from existing onair sites with subject site again at 700 meghertz. It's the LTE um frequency band that's being represented.
So this is a uh modification of the first map I showed with the existing sites and the the coverage at 700 megahertz with overlaid on top of that with the uh proposed site, the subject site at 100 ft. And uh you can see a
fair amount of the overall white. It doesn't capture everything in the gap area I described, but it it provides a a a very good uh amount of coverage uh from the 100 foot height. at 100 ft. The new site we pull the
statistics of what it what it does. Um and again being centrally located it minimizes overlap which is an important thing and it maximizes the VR's ability to address the the larger service gap and the amount of population there uh from one site.
uh the at 100 ft the proposed side would cover over one square mile again I had said the uh the coverage gap was 1.5 square miles um it would essentially provide coverage to point4 miles along Northfield road
south of uh long long road that was one of the gap areas that I mentioned uh.5 miles along division nav from long hill road to valley road uh 08 eight miles along Hos Road west of the intersection of division street uh
division A towards uh Stonehouse uh Stonehouse Road.55 miles along river road again from um from Valley Road to Hos Road 59 miles along Valley Road
west of the intersection of of Division Street to I That's uh what is that? Stonehouse Road again or somewhere Valley Valley Stonehouse. Uh and 21 miles along Valley Road
uh east of Division Street as well. So really kind of put these two pieces together. Um it's a distance of Valley Road that was previously not covered. Um again going and correcting it to the 2020 census data that would uh affectuate 166 residents in the in the
coverage gap area. Um by way of comparison or you know statistics just to provide an overall kind of recap the um the inbuilding residential gap that I had first described was 1.5 square miles in the
2010 population of uh 2190 people at 95 ft. I'm sorry, not 100 feet, one at 95 ft, which would be the the uh antenna center line. Uh the proposed site would cover one mile, which would be 66.7% of
the overall gap that was described. And um 166 residents, the population 2020 census, which would be 73.3% of the overall population that I identified in the service gap or affected area.
The um the height was then also evaluated at lower heights to answer your question about um different heights. I don't I don't know that it was evaluated higher. It was it was looked at lower. Um at 85 ft again using the same computer simulation it for the
low band 700 meghertz 85 ft um the site would only cover 87 miles. um provide coverage to 1260 people and that would represent 58% of the the coverage gap in terms of area and 57%
57.5% in terms of the population. So roughly an 8% reduction in terms of area and uh an 18% reduction in terms of population at 75 ft. The uh the proposed site would
provide coverage to 79 square miles and 1151 uh residents and that would represent 52.7% of the overall uh area in terms of square miles and area and 52% of the number of residents and I have a number
of 65 ft obviously that would be less than that. So the difference between 95 ft and 85 ft is a significant one. So in my professional opinion, the 100 ft or the 95 ft would be the would be the uh the minimum height necessary and would maximize the the amount of area that
would be addressed and the amount of the population that would be addressed as well. >> Just to >> Did you say 95 ft or 104T? >> Clarify the heights because you're going to hear a series of different heights
being quoted. So Mr. So Lucas 95 ft is the measurement that wireless carriers call the rad center, right? That's the center of the antenna. >> Yes, that's a source of confusion. That would be the center. So the uh the antenna goes up a few feet and down a
few feet and then the structure height with the lightning rod, etc. You might hear different references to heights, but this was the uh the analysis is done at the essentially the center of the antenna height at 95 ft. And that's where the the radio frequency coverage
emits from. Correct. The center. >> Yes. Yes. >> So 95 ft is the measurement to the center of the antenna. Is it correct that 98 ft is the measurement to the top of the antenna? >> I would have to look at the actual antenna models from the drawings to say
if that was 98 99. Generally they're you know between three I'm sorry four and 8t something like that. Our civil engineer can confirm when it comes up that it is actually 98 to the top of the antenna and then the top of the steel is
100 top of the tower. So our civil engineer that the last measurement is 104 towering rod on it. Once again, you obviously concluded that what's being proposed is the minimum height
necessary to address this gap in in building service coverage. Correct. >> Yes. From my evaluation, the statistics, uh 95 ft would be the minimum height and maximize the uh the coverage from the proposed location. It's in a logical
location in the center of the existing Verizon uh network. Um it maximizes again the site's ability to provide coverage minimizing the overall number of sites from wireless facility or or the overall number of wireless
facilities needed. >> In your professional opinion, does the site substantially address the uh the gap in coverage? >> Yes. >> Just uh with with respect to operations, if this facility approved. Would it also
provide E91 emergency services? >> Uh yes, it would. >> And uh would this facility interfere with any other municipal communications or electronic equipment that might be in the area? >> No. >> There were questions
the gentleman's question about alternative sites. We might have to save that for another witness. I'm not aware of any other light industrial districts myself other than the >> surrounding surrounding the surrounding area.
>> My understanding is that we can have our plan >> for or let's remove the word industrial or other the the surrounding area the other zones in the area. what what my question was is um you know
does this have to be in this precise spot? You showed me the red the red area, right? So I I kind of answered that question. So thank you for that slide. But the follow-up question to that was did you consider and did you model any other particular spots within that red circle that you drew there? Was
this the only model that you did? Because I thought you said earlier that you modeled three places. Did I not hear that correctly? >> So the adjacent property Well, so it's a combination of things. Does it work from RF perspective? Uh the adjacent property I think that was mentioned as a mixeduse
property from RF perspective that would work. So that was evaluated same height, same elevation, same everything generally in the same location. >> So that's that's the qu I guess how far away from the from the center of that circle can you go without clouding the results or changing results? Because
that answers my question. If you you don't need to model other areas within that Millington center area then that because it's all the same, right? Well, a structure placed there would be same. So that's from our perspective tower a thousand feet away would give you the same results
>> approximately 500 feet something like that. I mean in that area >> it would but it would also have to be a viable location if it was in a res to >> backyard it wouldn't be I'm sorry >> just to satisfy your technical requirements
right your optimization thing to get the most coverage you can on that 100 foot tower. If you move that tower a little bit here, a little bit there, you get the same result. Is that That's what I want to know. >> In this area, yes, you would. >> Okay. Um, so one one last question on this and then I'll leave you alone. Um,
if you look at like around 11:00 on your red circle to towards the uh the northwest side of your circle, you'll see like Rayburn Road. >> Mhm. >> Over there. There's a I think it's a sewer pump station by basking owned by
Basking Ridge or Bernard's Township. Is is that a viable site? Can can you share with municipal pump stations? So So are pump stations. >> East Riverburn Road. >> Yeah, East River Road is in Long Hill Township, but if you just go a little bit west of that,
>> is it outside of the red circle or >> It should be just within the the the red circle >> somewhere. Am I pointing in the right direction? >> You know, it's not labeled on your map. Okay. >> But it's it's I'm guesstimating that it's within your red circle. So I guess the first question is can you share a
property with a municipal sewage pump station? >> That's really outside perspective. >> It doesn't matter what's been allowed us. >> So he's only RF. He's not okay. Okay. >> So I mean >> but I'm I'm thinking he's probably seen this movie before. He's done this like
for 30 some years. So if we just maybe that he knew that. Okay. Generally speaking, you know, as long as you have a willing landlord, then potentially any property, okay, could be utilized. If it's going to be a township property, generally speaking, it has to be put out
before you can even get this far. >> Okay. This is in the same context of what other sites you considered before you picked this one. That's all I'm looking at. >> Correct. >> Thank you, Mr. Um,
anything else that you want to touch on? >> Uh, no. I believe I've covered everything I would I would like to and summarize. >> No further direct. >> I've got a question. Um, the other sites that are noted on there, you know, the
the Basking Ridge, Millington, Sterling, Warren sites, was it considered at all as far as extending those polls to make up the gap? So it's not it's I don't know if it was considered but any any essentially height change for that the
sites are too far away. So they will not they will not effectively u mitigate the current service gap >> signal to cover that >> gap. There's not enough signal. So if it increases 10 ft 20 ft 30 ft um just because of the distances that there are away um it's it's not possible there.
That's not a feasible uh answer or uh way to address the gap. >> Could that just piggybacking on that raising those towers just hypothetically you could uh raise those towers could cause interference and obviously
redundant coverage other existing on air sites. >> Yeah. So you know I I mentioned um you know the site placement uh you want to reduce overlap uh as they share the same frequencies. So potentially raising each one slightly may increase uh the
coverage. Again it's it's limited by topography um height changes among other things. Uh and then you you know in addition to maybe get having some coverage it's going to be not very good coverage because you'll have competing signals again causing interference. Any
other questions from the board? >> How large how large an area is this map here in terms of square miles? >> Do you know? >> Um guess but >> I don't uh if I use my fingers to kind
of uh look at the scale that's embedded there is 0.5 square miles I think on the on the uh scale bar. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, I'm in one, two, three, four, five, six groups of four fingers across.
That's that'd be uh three miles. >> Three miles. And it's >> I think it's about a nine square mile section. >> I would I would say that's that would be accurate. Again, I described this I think it's a one and a half square mile gap. >> Yeah. >> Um just essentially approximately by
hand three miles across, maybe four miles. >> So down. So obviously we can't see what's outside coverage, but let's assume I mean I would assume that because these are on the borders of this that there's probably not other ones that are just outside. I mean maybe you
know but that there's probably because of coverage you would want them at least a couple miles. So anything that's not in this picture maybe relatively f further out because of where the current ones are existing which is appearing to be on the borders of the square. Right.
Is that a >> Yeah. So an evaluation you you you look at the f what we call the first tier sites which is you know the the subject area and the surrounding sites. Obviously Verizon's network is is larger than this but anything east of Sterling right would have no impact. It would
cover another area same north south etc. My question then would be for in your experience for a nine square mile plot of land is this having seven towers of varying heights but seven towers in a nine square mile area typical.
>> Yeah. Well, this is again this is the low band. This is the best performing band or the one that provides the furthest uh coverage. It's about a mile. If I were to show you the mid-band frequencies, most of this would be white and that's where Verizon has higher capacity throughput, those types of
things. So the clusters actually have to even get smaller for those. So again, I'm showing you the best case, but um you know the the the intention is for all of those frequencies to kind of come together and kind of overlap each other.
So there's a a plethora of of uh you know frequencies and services available throughout all the frequencies. >> In terms of saturation I guess just just in terms of this high band frequency saturation of just the the poles themselves. You think seven in about a nine square mile plot of land is a
pretty typical for for like New Jersey I guess because of the topography in New Jersey. Does that seem >> Well, yeah. New Jersey can vary wildly, right? um this area is is um I mean it's dense uh tree again uh there's not a lot of u
terrain I wouldn't say mountainous uh in certain other area regions but I think it's pretty typical you'll find each one of these sites again between 90 and 150 ft depending on elevation will cover about a one mile radius um and again give it a distance about 1.7 milesi it's
just the area is too far from the existing sites for anyone to cover efficiently Any other questions from the board from our experts? >> Please pull the microphone. Sorry. >> That's not a movable one. Closest movable one is right here. And it's
short stick. So you gota like that one has a longer a longer >> So regarding we've talked about alternative sites. We're not really going to be able to talk about that right now, but is there can you speak to any other technology or designs besides
a monopole with antennas that could work to cover cover this area? Or is that nonviable? And if so, why is it nonviable? So in terms of structure again I kind of pointed to uh whether it would be a stealth and the uh limitations about
taking multiple locations from u you know a structural standpoint and an RF perspective and limiting the amount of uh relocation positions. Uh but to your to answer your question about alternative technologies or approaches
as a way as an al as a as an alternate type uh like a small cell um you know people may be uh familiar with small cells which would be a collocation. And it would essentially look like a uh a transformer a transformer up on top of a uh of a of a utility pole. And those are
used in very very specific um densification types of u network enhancement where let's say capacity was just going to be added. Uh typically they're just limited to the upper bands. I talked about the lower bands and mid-bands. They're limited to the to mid-bands. Um the amount of space uh
that would house radios at the bottom of the telephone pole would be limited. Each one would have to have back hole network power etc. And typically they're used in very very small areas. They would not be um a viable uh approach to cover such a large area given that at
that height of 40t of telephone pole or something like that and those frequencies may cover up to 800 feet. It would literally take dozens if not hundreds to cover the the area in the same way. >> Thank you. >> Yes. At this point, we're ready to take
questions from the public on on this expert's testimony only. Uh questions, not comments. Comments will be later in the proceedings. Anybody who would like to speak uh ask questions on the record, please come up, state your name, your
address, and uh your question. Certainly, it's Pamela Ojins. O GNS >> Millington. So, correct me if I'm wrong. There were four sites that were identified. Uh the first being the Enclave. Most
people know it as the Tifa site in town. and the landlord was not interested. Second site, the Verizon building on Division Avenue was um eliminated because of lack of space. The third
being the uh property at 84 Division Avenue and three it's surrounded by three residential zoned areas. The fourth is the uh fire
department lot. What would have happened if as with the enclave and the TIFA site where the landlord said not interested if the fire department had said not interested what would have happened
then? >> Ma'am, is that a question for the radio frequency engineer? this is the time to cross-examine the radio frequency >> with the sites and why this site was determined. So seemed like an appropriate time since
that was the discussion of sites. If you'd like me to wait, I will do that. I >> I just wanted to make sure that you you understood that this is time to cross-examine the radio frequency engineer. So if he has an answer, he's >> If you'd like me to come back, I'll do that. >> You're welcome to come back. Yeah.
>> Okay. You'd like me to ask my question, I'll do that. Is there an answer from this witness? >> It's really outside the scope of Mr. Catch's testimony, but I mean, if the board will allow just anecdotally what h what would happen if the fire department is not interested, then we have to find
another location. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions? Seeing none, closing to the public. Oh, wait. We have one. Well, while he's making his way out, what was the next best location if the
fire department said no? >> I'm sorry. I was >> Oh, sure. I'm sorry. Uh, so the question was, you know, if the fire department said no, what would happen? So, I guess I'm wondering what was the next best option for radio frequency.
>> I mean, there was only one other willing landlord in the U in the search area. That was the 84 Division Street location. >> That was 84 Division Street. >> Exactly. >> So that was the only other interested
landlord. So potentially you would have to maybe go back to that location and see if something can work. But just once again, procedurally, you really don't you don't produce these maps, whatever for specific sites until
you know that you can actually there's a landlord that's interested because you need to have a location to go to. We could do maps for every property, any property you ask about, but if if there's not a willing landlord, then
it's really just an exercise. >> We I'm sure you wouldn't approach a landlord unless you knew you could have positive results. >> There's lots of landlord say no. >> No, I mean with the radio frequency increase. >> Oh, well, yes. That was Mr. Blue Catch's
exhibit with the search rider frequency gives an idea of where we where you have to look for a site that would work. Then site acquisition goes out and tries to locate a site within that area and there's a whole criteria
um that we can we can analy touched on it. We try to find his testimony was look for existing structures first. If you can can't find an existing structure then the And obviously we look for
non-residential areas. Um we look at the code to see if there's direction in the wireless ordinance as to where we're supposed to go. Longhill Township does not have a wireless ordinance. So because of that reason, we're left to find a reasonable
location. >> That's okay. Steve Dailyaly Millington the D AI like the news without the I um the analysis is based on Verizon coverage or everybody's coverage.
>> So if you have AT&T and you have regular coverage then that's okay. >> So we're only here presenting Verizon's coverage. >> Yes. Only Verizon was considered in this
analysis. >> Any other questions? Seeing none, closing it up. >> Christina Burquist, Ber Q. Um I I have a question about the um significant gap in coverage, although that was sort of touched on just now
before. What do you consider a significant gap? By what standard is it significant? >> That's a very good question and I think that's a u more of a legal term from our perspective. It's is it a is it not just
a dead spot? Is it larger than that? Uh, this area is 1.5 square miles. There were over 2,000 residents that were affected. I would I would term that significant. >> So affected as in they don't get any service or just spotty service.
So the area presented uh that is being impacted is not no service. It's just not does not meet the engineering criteria for reliable inbuilding residential service. >> Can you elaborate on that?
I know there are so many you know 5G LT like there are so many ranges you're talking about low frequency high frequencies what does that mean to the >> well each each frequency band has it different set of parameters again I focused on the low band as that being
the most optimistic and the best picture of Verizon's network and showing that there's a significant gap in service 1.5 square miles over 2,000 residents and an engineering level that's that's the fine math mathematically as this 95 dBm says
that you will have coverage at this location at x% of the time 90% of the time that's what the reliability of location and and time uh those are the design standards that are uh consistent with with industry standards so it's not an indication particularly
of will you again will you be able to make a call establish a session uh but typically when there's unreliable service in building rates uh data rates are are are are slow are slowed down um to what Verizon expects to provide in
terms of throughput for the the tower down to your mobile device and a mobile up um call quality interruptions those types of things. So there's there's a there's an unhappy uh or unsatisfied type of customer usage associated with
unreliable service. >> Okay. And could you also speak to you talked about the competing signals? >> Please share the microphone. >> Um you you said that um competing signals are a problem if if you had
overlapping coverage, right? Can you tell us what kind of problems you would expect with that? >> Similar to a lack of coverage, so no service or or lack of reliable inbuilding coverage. If you had enough signals overlapping
again, you may see five bars, but the inability to communicate or have speeds um it would be service impacting as well. So has it tends to have the same type of of effect when you have overlapping signals to a large extent.
>> Is it an interference issue? Clarify this. >> Yes, it's an interference because the um Verizon as well as other carriers reuse the same frequencies. So you want to minimize the amount of overlap, but you want to provide a tiny bit of overlap so a user can traverse through areas
uninterrupted with service. >> But I I I imagine I would be able to find overlapping or competing signals in like very urbanized areas, right, where there is a lot of coverage from different providers or no? you would see maybe the presence of more
locations in a dense area. Um, but you would also have stronger stronger signals provided from the locations. In other words, if you had a number of buildings and they were located in close proximity, if you're closer to one, it would overcome the signal from the other
uh just given due to the distance. In this case, the sites are very very far away. So, they're all competing relatively with the same signal level >> which which creates interference in addition to not having reliable service which is the focus here.
How many how many complaints how many complaints roughly have you gotten from unhappy customers in this area or I mean I'm just trying to like obviously this came from somewhere because you're saying that you know you have unhappy customers that prompted this.
>> I don't believe the testimony was that unhappy customer but can you answer the question does Verizon use drop as a as a measuring stick for Yeah, Verizon monitors their network um
for statistics for um users, you know, key metrics and key performance metrics. I didn't analyze those simply because um the analysis shows that there's a a service gap. What I stated was not the report of unhappy customers, but that
the user experience would not be a very very good one given the performance is expected to be very poor, given that there's not reliable coverage. I have I have one one last question. You said that um there would be benefits to the volunteer fire department of of
getting that um you know new antenna there installed. What what kind of benefits are they expecting to get >> from an RF's perspective? >> Are there other >> Well, I mean the benefits of it goes
back to my opening statement. So, it goes back to my opening statement. Um, subject to qualification by our civil engineer, the fire department has a singular single whip antenna on their property that could be relocated or upgraded onto
this tower at a later time uh if it was constructed uh to provide better communication services for the fire department. Um Verizon was also told that the police department um uses Verizon service in their cruisers. So
the by introducing reliable coverage into this area u they would they would they would get the benefit of that of that reliable service. So that's what was meant. >> The police doesn't use different ingredients.
That's not the testimony of this gentleman. >> So I guess so the police communicates the communication with the police department depends on wireless signal is what you're saying. >> That's what was communicated to Verizon
by the Longill Township Police Department. >> Okay. Thank you. I just had to press the button. >> I had to plug it in. >> Ron Sachs 1891 ins That that red dot.
>> Please speak in please. >> That red dot is the uh the firehouse. >> Yeah. >> Okay. How far in that circle could you go in any direction and still have the same like effect that there?
[Applause] [Music] So the search area that was established is about6 mi by.7 milesi is kind of an oblong kind of close to a circle but not um obviously the the center was really
the target. You could again you could go outside of this area a bit but the further you get um to the red boundary uh then you have to evaluate that to see is there you know coverage overlap on existing coverage you want to minimize that >> I think the same question has been asked
I'm not getting straight answer how far can you go from that sub and still have the same effect to two miles three miles >> no well the I I mean the the whole
radius of this is from the subject site north to south is about 6 milesi this way up and down and about.7 mi that way. That would be the limitation of how >> go any farther? >> No, because then you would you would you would provide a site which would be I
wish this was all on the same map but essentially you would wind up in an area where there's already signal level and so placing the site there would be mostly overlap and it still wouldn't address the area that's been uh been identified. Is there any town that you could have focus on like residential
houses? >> I'm sorry. You said any town. >> Town land. >> Thank you. >> Town land. Sorry. Sorry. >> Not that I'm aware of. That was presented for evaluation. >> Who would have presented that put that tower?
>> Uh site acquisition consultant. They're the ones who go out and look for a site. >> Could you look over town? Well, I I can let them testify to that. >> Yeah, I I want to I apologize for interrupting, but just it's for the sake of our procedure. These questions really
need to be on >> He was talking about distances, so that's why I wanted >> to totally understand. Yeah. >> Any other questions for this expert? >> Seeing none, closing to the public. >> There's somebody.
>> Come on up. I pled back. Reop. [Music] So, uh, a couple questions. Uh, my understanding is that, um, this is supposed to be a 5G.
>> Yes, that is one of the technologies and frequency bands being deployed here. So um >> you're talking about a low frequency band 700 MHz >> 5G what they call the I think the FR2
band is uh 24 gigahertz up to uh about 52 gigahertz much higher well into the microwave range >> no that's not being deployed >> the C band is being Gahertz.
>> I I understand but that frequency band is not being deployed as part of the 5G deployment. >> What is I mean I I I understand that you can use there's different bands that can be used. Are you just going to use like 700 >> 850 MHz and 3700 MHz? >> That's as high as you're going.
>> That's it. >> Okay. That's what your plans are now. Do you have plans to go higher? >> I don't know. whether Verizon holds licenses above those or plans to deploy uh those frequency bands at this location or any others.
>> Technology is going that way. I would expect Verizon follow suit. >> Uh maybe not now. Um so then I I have another question here. A couple actually. So I'm looking at the um at
your exhibit A and I'm looking at the coverage area. Uh I see um this this like kind of white area where your coverage is less than ideal. Uh and I see this uh this antenna. Now, if I were
going to do it, I'd put it pretty much in the middle. It's not in the middle. It's not anywhere near the middle. And then after you go and um establish um coverage with the new location, there's still this hourglass shape that's that's
west of Kings Road, north of uh of 78. Um it's it's nearest to the Verner Township system. Um and no coverage has been added for that. >> You use the microphone, please.
All right. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. >> If the gentleman doesn't mind break up the questions and take the first one first. >> Yeah. Let's share. >> Yeah. Share the mic as well, please. >> I thought we had unfortunately.
>> Well, okay. So, move on to another question. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Well, you have this the cordless. All right. You can try this one. Why not? >> You have to unplug the other one. >> All right. Uh, is this better? Yeah. Okay.
>> So, uh, you know what I'm wondering about is the coverage area. Uh, you're you're basically doing something to remediate the coverage area that's that's white and it shows white here on this uh on on on exhibit C. Now, uh I I
noticed that the Burns Township antennas are pointed in such a way if this can be relied upon to basically miss that area. So, is that like is that is that like woods or you know what is that? You don't seem to be a aiming an antenna
ray at it right here. >> Yeah. So, um, just for the record, um, the gentleman is pointing to the lower left hand corner above 78. Uh, if you'll notice in that area, >> what exhibit?
>> I'm sorry, this is exhibit uh C, >> which is existing and um >> existing and and uh coverage with the subject site. Uh, the area that's shown blank without coverage. There are no roads that run through there. So, presumably is very less population. It's
not an area that would be prioritized >> to provide service. >> Just just for the sake for the sake of the record, I I just wanted to note um I'm going to refer to uh each exhibits within the exhibit as
exhibit A1A, A1B, and A1C respectively. Okay. Another another question. These are things you brought up. Um you you talked about the the process of of uh of identifying sites as well. this
this particular site didn't have a location didn't have a location high enough and most of them did and until we suddenly end up on the uh on the firehouse site and we're building a tower. Now I know I you call it a unipole. It's
a unipole that's going to you know spread out. It's it's not going to be very pretty, but I that's that's off topic here I'm sure probably. Um, but uh there's another site that's that's not far. So you're you're not in
the middle of your lack of coverage area here anyway. There's a site uh just on uh basically across the railroad tracks uh where the cars park. I believe that's not I I believe that's Long Hill
Township owned property, but I mean something like that would would move this um a few hundred yards away from residential. I mean, >> you know, so maybe the fire firehouse is is is not van is not zoned residential,
but right next door two feet away when you cross the property line residential all around residential. Sir, is there is there a question for the engineer? >> We shouldn't be building there. >> That's a that's a comment that's a comment for the public portion of the meeting.
>> Well, I'm basically what I'm I'm I'm asking about is, you know, the process in invol, you know, in in researching this. It seems like uh it could have been a little bit more uh
>> cognizant of the area. >> Okay. >> So, do you do you have any further questions for the >> No, that's all I have to say for now. >> Any other questions? Once vice real this time goes to the public.
Yes. The hour being quarter past 9, uh, can we take a 10-minute break, come back a little bit past 25 >> and see if we can fix that? >> And we'll be right back. But I go from like to job to job. So I'm
in my car. >> What do you do? >> I'm in the building construction like We're back on the air. And if I could please just make an announcement. >> Um, everybody who's using or speaking m
the microphones. Um, there are a lot of people at home watching and we're having, you know, less than stellar time with these microphones. So, please just make sure you hear yourself speaking into the microphones. Thank you.
>> Uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, back on the record, u, we'd like to proceed with our presentation. I'll call our next witness, Mr. Daniel Panesso, who is our radio frequency emissions expert. >> First name Dan Oh, wow. Uh, first name Daniel, last name
Panesso. P E N E S S O >> I have a Shall I qualify my >> uh I'll I'll swear you >> Oh, okay. >> because we need that to be the truth as well. >> Okay. >> Um do you do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to divide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Did it come in? Yes, I do.
>> Where' the cordless mic go? >> Uh oh, here it is. >> Oh, okay. >> Let's see. Oh, yeah. This is better. >> All right. And if you would please give the board the benefit of your background credentials, emphasizing your >> expert. I have a bachelor of science in electronic engineering technology um from DVR technical institute out of
Chicago, Illinois. I have been employed as a radio frequent engineer for over 25 years. I have testified with regards to um FCC compliance at hundreds of boards throughout the state of New Jersey as well as in New York and have been
accepted as an expert witness in the past. >> And is your license in good standing? >> Uh I don't have a license. Okay. There is no license for this. No. Is it a certification or >> No, just background. >> Just my just my education and and work experience. >> Okay. Yes. I would recommend that he be
recognized as an expert in uh radio frequency emissions. We deem you an expert. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Switch. >> This one works. >> I got to just talk softer maybe. >> So, Mr. Mr. Panesso, um, did you perform
an analysis of the proposed Verizon wireless facility with respect to the radio frequency emissions? >> Yes. >> And, uh, was the analysis and conclusions contained in this report dated July 24, 2025 entitled proof of RF
compliant compliance for Verizon Wireless Facility, Millington 2. >> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. I'm going to mark this as A2. >> This one. Thank you. And this uh this is also in the board's
packet. >> A2 A2. Oh, I lost my money. >> You need a description? >> Yeah. >> Uh A2 is a report dated July 24th, 2025 entitled proof of RF compliance for
Verizon Wireless Facility Mill 2. You're welcome. So, um, Mr. Pineso, the, uh, the analysis and conclusions contained in this report were performed by you or under your supervision. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Yes. >> All right. Could you please uh review
the analysis and conclusions in this report? >> Okay. Yes. So the report that we marked as exhibit A2 states that the uh com the full comp
the let me rephrase it the site with all of its frequency bands operating at full power would be at a fi less than 5% of the FCC standard. The FCC has set forth guidelines and the guidelines are
provided uh with the FCC office of engineering and technology bulletin 65 and all carriers not only Verizon but any carrier that's operating with uh radio frequency energy has to comply with the guidelines. The guidelines set
forth are will uh allow a carrier to go up to 100% and still be in compliance because there's a buffer set forth within these compliance guidelines. And being that we're only at 4.5 under 5%, we're well below the FCC guidelines for
compliance with the site um at the proposed centerline height of 95 ft. >> Excuse me. Can you explain to us what those standards mean? Like what does that mean? >> Five you're at 5% of their standards. What are their standards? How much you can push into the population?
>> So it's no it's it's based on the power. Let me take these. So each of the carriers 700 as Ron stated 700 850 they have a certain amount of power that is being uh used to have that signal propagate
outward. And so right now being that we're at a certain center line height of we're at we're at 95 ft center line height with the antennas with Verizon's uh equipment operating at full power all the time which normally doesn't happen
but we're analyzing it at the most conservative analysis possible. It's only at 4.5%. So if another carrier were to go on to >> what's the measurement? Is it megahertz? Is it >> No, it's it's in it. No, no. It's it's first it's in dBm and it's converted into watts.
>> Watts. >> So watts and then we convert that into a percentage. >> Okay. >> So that you can compare it. So the percentage is up to 100%. We're only at 4.5. >> Can that be changed in the future? >> Meaning change. >> Can you change the equipment on the
tower and will those numbers change? >> If it if you were to change the um amount of power or another carrier were to colllocate on the tower, then a new analysis would need to be done. Okay. >> But on so I've done analyzed so many sites on a on a on a monopole or
>> how about when it's fully utilized though you have everybody's up there. >> Yeah. You would still be in comp. I haven't seen anything at because you're so far >> compliance with the FCC, right? You can't do that, right? you you would you we can't go we cannot be out of compliance but I have not seen a site that's because it's so far away from the
general population you know from the the antennas are so far from the ground or from so far from any person that we would not we would we would be in compliance I haven't seen a site a monopole site that we were not in compliance >> can you compare the the the RF that
somebody's going to absorb from that from that device to some other things that were more familiar with in our house or other places we might go. >> Well, in your home you have your everything puts out EMF, even humans do.
>> So, like you have, for example, you have in your house a tell. Now, the TVs don't have tubes, but they used to, but you have a W and everybody has Wi-Fi routers, >> refrigerator, >> that refrigerator, >> those types of things. what we're getting up there >> like 2% or so a small amount but
everything everything has EMF >> that or you know >> EMP >> that are it's radio frequency energy that's being that's being emitted but they're at low levels and these types of energy are nonionizing. It's not going
to um it doesn't have enough energy for you to have uh um remove an electron from an atom because people are concerned that it could have a health effect. But this is not the case because it's so low. The phones operate on
millatts of power. Very low power. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> I have no further questions of Mr. Panesso. Um but just to sum up, Mr. So, in your professional opinion, the site if approved will operate well within FCC
allowable standards for permissions. >> That is correct. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Any questions from the board? >> I have a question. How is the site powered? You said as we power it was >> there will be power run to the there's
base station equipment that was spoke about um that'll be uh enclosed in the garage. there's some type of a shed or a barn that will that will power. Then you'll have remote radio heads that will be located behind the antennas. That's
what will generate the signal. So you'll have fiber optic. >> So power is power >> talking about the signals and I'm not talking about the the power of the stuff coming out and I know that's what you're testifying. I guess this might go back to >> it's not RF. I don't maybe it's civil
but what is the civil what is the energy source for >> powering up your antenna >> is it the diesel is is it the diesel engine or is it electricity >> no electric >> they'll be run they'll run electric right in from PSNG >> there's an electrical service that our
engineer our civil engineer can review on site >> okay >> can I can I ask you a question about this this is you put this together this July 24th um study I know in the back there's some appendices. Um, they're
labeled as Verizon. I don't know if this is just something typical that Verizon issues as well. It's regarding safety and awareness, training, etc. It's not the easiest thing to read because it looks like it's been copied from a couple things, but there's a on the
right column of the last page, it talks about antenna safety and antenna types. And again, I don't want to be alarmist here or anything. I know there's probably some similar questions from other people. There are some cautions and concerns that it says about each type. I can't even read what the first
type of uh antenna is. Yoki, I don't know what that says. Uh panel, whip, microwave. And each one it says maintain distance, etc. There seem to be some safety >> precautions. Can I confirm what you're looking at? Oh, so the very last page. very last page.
>> So on on the very last page, this is you'll see what you're looking at is like you'll see a notice RF, which is the yellow. These are different signages, but this is a general statement. If you look on the bottom, there's a photo of antennas on a rooftop. So, uh, and you can see on
there's a parapit and then you'll see the caution sign with a yellow triangle because an antenna that is accessible if you're on a rooftop, which this isn't for the this isn't the case with this particular site. If antennas are mounted on a
rooftop, if it is accessible by the general public, the carrier has to mitigate that site because we can't have anybody walking because you have to imagine the antennas are it's wattages of power like a light bulb. A very high wattage light bulb. If someone were to
walk in front of it, that heat, you know, is what we have to prevent someone from doing. So on rooftop sites, they're either mitigated with signage or barriers. So that's what this um last page is uh stating because that is
something is part of mitigation. But for this case there is no mitigation. There would be signage and umformational signs on the compound itself that would um alert and and people can't you know you can't climb this monopole. There would
be pegs uh up above if everybody if someone had to climb it. But for the general public they could not access the monopole. to get up to the antenna. >> So the only place uh in terms of danger would be if you were actually at the top at 100 >> at the source. Yes. At the source. Yes.
>> Okay. And that wouldn't radiate any further than where the 100 ft. It wouldn't be down to the ground. >> Right. That's why we're That's why I stayed at the ground level. It's only 4.5%. If you're up at the source, it's going to be of course >> if you're right at the source, you would exceed the FCC limit. >> I got you. Okay. So, the four
>> because it's like a flashlight. If you're shining a flashlight, the the the the uh intensity of the light is right at the source and then as it propagates outward, it dissipates. >> Mhm. Yeah.
>> Any other questions from the board? >> Experts, no questions. Any come on up. Yep. Yep. My name is Jennifer Miguel. M I G U Lel.
So you said that the distance closer you are, the more intense it is and the more dangerous it is. So at what safety level are we safe at? What's the distance? What's that safety level? So you would
have to be a bird or something 95t in the air >> and about 50 feet away from the antennas. >> Okay. >> So that that is why it's it's impossible for a human to do that. >> Great. >> Yeah. >> So my house is 20 ft from the antenna
and we have multiple stories that do reach pretty close to the top of the antenna. So we are under 50 ft away from this antenna. So are we safe? >> Yes. Yes. How are we safe under the 50 that you just said before? >> Yeah, you're safe because you're below
the the antenna propagates outward. Your house your house is not right in line with the uh antennas. >> No, but it's closer to the top than the ground. >> No, >> on my on my top floor, >> right, >> on my top floor is closer to the top of the antenna than the ground floor of the
antenna. We are closer we are 20 feet away from that antenna and we are we have three stories in our house up to the top of our house. So, we are not super close to the ground. We don't story. >> You're heading into the territory of what would be considered testimony and
not asking. >> Okay. But he he mentioned safety distances. So, I'm speaking to the distance of my house to the antenna within the limits that he spoke which was safe to be in. And our house
currently at all levels is not at within those limits. I'm only speaking about the our house. I'm only speaking about our house and the limits within that we are living in that he has already testified is not safe to be in those
ranges and we are currently living in those ranges of the proposed >> you're making a factual assertion that that that's considered testimony. So I I would encourage you to to save any testimony for the public. >> Could portion. >> If she spoke in hypotheticals and said
if a house was x feet tall, >> would that could could she ask that? >> Rephrase it as a question. She could. >> Yes. I guess asking the kind of >> Thank you. So >> if you know how tall your house is. >> Okay. That's see that's that's the that's the
issue we're having is that the testimony there's been testimony now that the house is within 20 ft >> the tower is >> your house is with >> oh here here take the microphone >> just one person at a time >> so the tower is approximately 73 feet
from the closest property line >> so there is no possible way that the house could be unless the house is on the fire department property >> the house can't be on Our house is 20 feet off of actually probably 17 because that was the legal limit when we built
the house. >> Oh. Oh. She's she's saying her what I believe she's saying is that her house is within 20 ft of her own property line. >> No, it is 20 ft within the property line of the firehouse >> where this not the firehouse of the
building, the firehouse property line which is where the antenna is going. And on your map that it shows 20 ft that our our corner of our property is on, our home is on. >> Well, we can address the distance when our engineer comes up. >> So fine. The hypothetical is if there was which we live in.
>> So ask rek then >> hypothetically if there was a home three stories high within 20 ft of that tower, are we safe? Guaranteed we are safe. No problems. No
safety. We don't have to worry about walking or my kids ball throwing going over within 20 ft of the property line where the tower is that we're playing under all day long. >> Hypothetically. >> So I'm you're saying that your house if
this this is the monopole >> and this is 20 ft away your house is adjacent to the monopole which it doesn't it cannot be >> it. But do the hypothetical she >> hypothetical. So I'm saying if you're if you're at the same height of the
antennas, you have you have to be uh further away than 20 ft is what I'm saying. >> That's yeah. >> Yeah, that doesn't answer. Yeah, that doesn't make >> I agree. If if you do have a comment or
would like >> Okay, thank you. >> Where's where >> any other questions? Christina Burquist again. Okay. Now, um so you mentioned the 5% within the FCC standards, right? What are the FCC
limits in numbers? >> So you you can go up to 100% and still be within the FCC guidelines. >> Right. That's the 100%. But can you give that to us in in wattage numbers because you said that's how it's calculated. Right. >> Right. But it's represented in a
percentage. >> Right. But you can still give me the reference for nano watts. Right. Per square meter or per centimeter. >> Okay. Let me look for you. So you I can go through each one for the ERP if you would like to have that. So
for the 700 meghertz, we have 1,253 ERP watts. For 850, >> hold on. So 750 is what you're putting up there, right? >> These are all the frequency bands that will be deployed, correct? >> Yep. And >> so each of these bands that are being
deployed have been analyzed at the maximum wattage of power that they uh can transmit at >> and being and and I can go through and give you all the wattages but it's converted to a percentage so that you can compare it to the FCC limits.
>> Well I I understand that but still >> here here use the mic so she can get >> sorry I I understand the percentage thing. I'm just curious as to the numbers because when I looked I was trying to find that information and I found something um that was expressed in uh microwatt per square meter or per
centimeter. Is that correct or incorrect? >> It's a density. Yes. >> Okay. And what I looked at was a number something like 580 microwatts per square centimeter. This is that roughly around correct or no?
>> But this I'm giving you the convert here. Let me talk. I'm talking. >> So tell me the question though that you are asking. What do you want to know? >> The maximum allowed EMF frequency right is 580 microwatt per square centimeter by the FCC, right?
>> Okay. >> Okay. How um does that compare to what an average cell phone would give out? So you're asking the maximum is you're stating from you have your own notes there
>> of what the maximum power density is. >> So looking at this that's the maximum. This is well below the maximum. Well below >> right but five so 5% of 500 like 5.8 million per square meter.
>> What would be 5%? Like 1 point something >> or even less. >> Okay. But we're still talking one. >> You're well below that got that threshold that you're you're in the microwatts per centimeter squared. We're well below that. This is basically 4% is
is like almost nothing. Like I said, it's comparable to like a Wi-Fi transmitter in your home, a router at 2%. There's different things that in your home that are emitting almost as much as this cell site would emit.
You see very very this is very low a monopole cell site such as this is very low emissions. It's it's it's nothing there. There is you're not even there's no emissions at all almost you're almost at the b the you're almost you're below 5%
of the threshold >> right I mean of the threshold. I I get that but >> so that's that's it. There's nothing else to say. >> Well not really. I I mean I I do have some questions there because there is significant amount of data now that
talks about um cell phone radiation which is probably significantly less than what a tower would put out right like an individual cell phone probably puts out a lot less of this right than a tower. No >> an individual cell phone depends how far
away are from you from the it's a two-way communication system. If your cell phone has to power up to transmit back to the serving cell, it can emit more power. Depends on where the f how far away are from a serving cell you are. That varies, but the the the phone
can put out it puts out EMF as as a cell site, but not the same. It's a cell phone. And these are still cell phones are even operating at the within the FCC guidelines. There is no issue with a cell phone. >> But do they less than the cell phone tower? It depends on where the cell
phone is transmitting to. If it has to power up, it could be more. It depends. And it's only depending on how the phone is, as I said, if the phone has to power up to transmit back to the serving cell, but it's still a cell phone is well
within the FCC guidelines whether it's powered up or down. >> And why in the guidelines doesn't mean there aren't documented health negative health effects. There there are no negative health effects. >> First of all, first of all, I have to >> You're going to be for Okay, you're
right. I know this >> if I could just know my objection real quick. I'm sorry. >> I'm sure the board is well aware that, you know, the case law and the this the rags on this are pretty clear. Um, no local jurisdiction can make a determination on a cell site based on
perceived health um, you know, effects from radio frequency emissions. you know, once once the applicant has demonstrated that the site will comply with FCC mission standards based upon the mathematical uh formulas that are contained in Mr. Pineso's report. So, we
believe we complied with that. So, we're we can't answer any questions with regard to any studies or reports that might be out there about, you know, potential health effects from cell phones, cell towers or or things of that nature. >> And sir, can I ask a question? >> I I just want to note for the record,
Mr. Faro's characterization of the law is correct. That is a federal statute. Thank you. >> Just to to help our residents understand what's going on, can your expert talk about the um the the amount of RF you receive from being in the radius of that
cell tower, maybe 100 ft radius of that compared to your own personal cell phone when you're holding it at your ear? Like what's what's the RF? I I I think I know what it is, but I'd like to hear you say what it is. Do you do you have that analy
each cell is different though? How can you know what >> average cell phone versus average cell tower? So so cell towers my understanding is that they project the signal outward not downward. Right. >> So it's not there's not going to be a lot of RF at the base of that tower. It's going to be towards
>> No, it's at the base of it the the 4.5% is at a at a distance away from the tower. Anywhere else it's less. >> Do we not use the percentage term anymore? Can we just say that this is a cell tower and this is what whatever measurements you want to use instead of the percentage the RF right whatever
you're whatever you're talking about >> gives it this much and your own handheld cell phone when you're holding it to your head gives you this much like can you you have to know about what that is I think I do yeah to each cell phone it could be up to 2% on a dep like I said it depends on
if it's got a power up so you you cannot as I stated. >> Okay. So typically would a cell power >> the RF the RF sorry >> a lot more or a little bit more power RF power to your head to your brain right
than your cell phone holding it right next to your head >> right the cell phone is definitely more RF power than the cell site because >> very intensely like a thousand 10,000 times more right >> yeah because you're not going to be able to be the cell site as I as as was stated once the signal leaves the site
it dissipates very rapidly correct so there No going towards the horizon. >> Going towards the horizon. And also >> your head >> inside a home or even outside there is it it's not directed right on you like the phone is. But even now people don't they're using some people do still hold
their head but they use a wireless a wireless headset >> or they would say it's safe to say that you get more if if it is harmful more harmful RF from how more RF from a cell phone take away harmful from a cell phone than you do from a cell phone. >> Yes. If you were holding the cell phone
to your head. Yes. Thank you. >> I think that gets to the point. Thank you, Jerry. >> Any other questions, please? Stand. >> Hi. Uh, my name is John Caputo. Um, Millington, CIP UTO.
Um, so the question for you is, uh, I we've all been assuming that Millington in the village is kind of a flat site, but if you were standing on the uh, the firehouse property, we um, it's pretty
clear that there's a good 20 30 foot slope up to Long Hill Road and then from there there's probably another and I'm not testifying, but anyone who could walk by and see there's another 10 15 ft up to Sunny Slope.
So 100 foot tower at the base of the firehouse property, 95 ft to the center line. Um you can't really assume that there are uh no effects to the to the residents up
on Sunny Slope because I feel like some of those first floor, second floor of those houses on the hill are already up to 100 feet. um measured from the base of the tower and they might only be three to 400 feet away. So I understand I don't know as much about propagation
and critical distance as you do. At what distance does um does it become a safety hazard if you're directly in line with these box antennas? So your question is similar to I forgot her name, the woman that just spoke and
so there there is no the site as I stated you have to you cannot uh be right in line with the antennas to have an issue like as if I when I was speaking about the signage um regarding it being right in front of the antennas there the there is no home within the
vicinity of this site that would cause an issue or a structure that would cause an issue at the same height of the antennas. Anything that's in the same height of the antennas is far enough away to not have an issue. That's my that's my statement and the testimony that I'm giving.
>> We have no issue with any structure or any any type of property or home or rooftop that's in in line with the uh propagation of the antenna that would cause an issue with the emissions. There is none. It's already been analyzed.
There's no there's no structure or rooftop or or or anything unless you were a bird right in front of the antenna. >> Does Can I ask? >> Yeah. >> So, does I haven't seen the the evidence. It wasn't posted. Does the does the study take into account topography?
>> It does take into account topography. >> And what was the what was the highest obstacle that you found within >> and he I this is not the same. He's trying to I think it's very relevant because
what's the critical distance at sir if I could just yeah at at the elevation of the antenna >> we're kind of going around and around >> I heard 50 feet I heard 55 ft >> the uh >> what is the critical distance >> a civil engineer can testify as to what the ground elevation is he would be our
next witness so I I can address that through the next witness >> but did you you testified that outside of 50t feet from direct contact, you'd be okay. Is that what you're saying? Is that what you said? I'm asking that is was it 50 feet away? If you were a bird
and you were 50 feet away, you would be okay. That's right. >> Okay. >> So, >> closer than 50 feet for a bird, it would be problematic. >> Yes. >> So, so I mean just by that testimony, anything that's up on the hill is obviously going to be a lot further away from that.
>> Yeah. his testimony. But you said your your other person will testify to that this but he is testifying that distance. Exactly. >> A bird within 50 feet would be in in trouble. Anything outside of 50 ft would be okay. >> Right. Does that answer your question?
>> But we're not birds. >> Any additional questions? >> Why don't we do this? >> We'll come back next time and we'll specify exactly. There's a there's a calculation in this report as to what the maximum exposure level is and why don't we just come back and put it on
the record at what distance. >> But he's ask he's asking at they're asking at the height though. >> That's what I recommend. >> Okay. >> Can you make a few different points on that like what the exposure level is at this distance that like 100 feet 500 ft,000 ft something like just so we can
get an idea of how much signal is lost as as distance goes on. I imagine it goes down. Right. It will closer and further away it will be less. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? Seeing none questions for the audience. >> Okay, Mr. Chairman, that brings us to
our next witness who's our civil engineer to review the site plan, Mr. Fred Lutus. >> Thank you. If you could raise your right hand, do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Could you please state your
name and spell your last for the record? >> Yes. My name is Peter Lutus, L U D- A. I work for Network Building and Consulting at 1777 Century Parkway West in Bluebell, Pennsylvania. I'm a licensed civil engineer in the state of New Jersey. Um have a bachelor's of science
in civil engineering from Duke University. um been practicing engineering for about 20 years, about 10 years in this industry of telecommunications. I've testified before boards in New Jersey um dozens of times in the past
and I'm here to speak uh about this project. >> And is your license in good standing? >> It is. >> All right. Thank you. I recommend uh that he be recognized as an expert in the field of engineering. >> We deem you an expert. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. So, Mr. Lutus, the uh the site plans
you're about to present have a last revision date uh when you get set up. Let's see. So, if you can just identify the last revision date on the site plans you're about to testify to. >> Yes. The zoning drawings are dated March 7th, 2025. Revision two.
>> Okay. Consisting of approximately eight sheets. >> Yes. >> And these plans were either prepared by you or under your supervision. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> We'll mark them as A3 for the sake of >> A3. Perfect. Um, so Mr. So, Luc, as you go through your testimony, if you can just refer to the sheet uh number and um
could you start by uh identifying the site and the existing conditions? >> Yes. Uh as discussed, the site is located at 1891A Longill Road in Millington. Um it is a what I would say a secondary property of
the volunteer fire department. Um it is identified as on sheet Z1 as block 12304, lot one. Um it is bounded uh at the northeast by the crescent and then by the northwest uh commerce street a
paper street here and then the railroad tracks here to the southerntherly direction. Um as mentioned it's basically an ancillary property of the fire department. Uh there's a three bay garage there building. I think it's
referred to as a pole barn. Um, Verizon is proposing to locate a new 100 foot monopole with a 4ft lightning rod on the site uh just to the southwest of the existing building and then place their equipment in the building. Uh, taking up
some of the space of that existing garage. Uh, we can have a little bit of a blown up site plan view on sheet C1 of exhibit A3. Um you can see uh said proposed monopole
here uh located just uh adjacent to the existing building that I mentioned. Um Verizon is proposing to place a 13x 21 ft compound uh with a fence around it. Uh in the exterior area they're
proposing a diesel generator for backup power in the event of a power outage or um severe weather or interruption to their service. Um they do have a utility backboard uh proposed here to
basically support their electric meter. Um they're proposing to run electric service uh from the nearest transformer from the power company uh to that uh location and then service their equipment that way uh through a utility
easement. Uh there will also be a telco attachment where they will provide fiber telecommunication back hall to the site uh via similar utility easement. Um and then as mentioned earlier uh the equipment uh which will power and
service the site at the base station will be located in uh the existing building. I believe there was a question earlier from the board about um whether or not that equipment might impact uh other fire department property or other
assets there. Um that room will ultimately be designed uh to be in accordance with the NFPA 76 uh requirements for uh fire protection for telecommunications facilities uh within that space.
And uh within that space there will be like I said uh serviceable equipment for the base station uh racks of equipment, electronics components um that'll feed the antennas up at the top of the pole. And then as earlier discussed the rad
center radiation center of 95 ft above ground. Uh that's where the antennas will be placed or proposed to be placed on the monopole. They'll be mounted on mounting frames, possibly a platform or T arms uh to support the antennas and the radios. Um they'll be up at that
elevation mounted to the structure. Uh the proposed structure itself will be a steel monopole uh made of structural steel bolted to a concrete foundation. Concrete foundation will be a quesan type foundation drilled shaft. They'll drill into the ground, uh, place rebar,
place concrete, and, uh, support the structure. Um, that pretty much sums it up. Uh, otherwise, uh, as you can see on the C1 sheet, there is a area of this parcel, I
believe there was a comment in the engineers report that I reviewed earlier today, uh, and a question about that area. It does appear that Verizon uh has decided to lease this area of the property itself, although the proposed deployment and development is relegated
to that 13x 21 exterior compound plus the utility backboard and the interior space within this first bay of the garage. And Mr. Lutus, before you move on, um do
you have the bulk requirements on sheet C1? There are yeah the bulk zoning requirements here for sheet C1 and hence uh part of the reason we're here is we are requesting variance for uh some of the setback requirements. Um you can refer to this I won't drone on any
longer on that but you can refer to uh that table for more detailed information um and see that one of the main variants here uh for that front yard setback uh is being requested here as it is required to be 25 ft per uh the bulk
ordinance and we are proposing approximately 10 foot setback from that lot line >> and that's that's from the Commerce Street front yard correct >> correct >> and That's the un well partially improved uh gravel street. >> Yes. Or paper street as it's referred to.
>> Street uh in between the pole barn and the actual fire department. Correct. >> That's right. >> So the front yard setback um variance is not to the crescent. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Um do you are you showing the um the setbacks from the tower itself to the
property lines? >> We are. Yes. Um, not each and every one of them, but most of them. >> Okay. Um, there was some testimony ear comments earlier about how far the tower
is um to I'm going to call it. >> I guess would be the southeast property line. >> Yes. >> Um, that's the property line that's adjacent to the residential zone. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Do you have the uh measurement from the tower to that property line? >> I do. Do I have it in my notes here? I
wrote that down earlier today, I believe. Yeah, when I measured that earlier today actually, uh, yeah, the proposed monipole. So the center point of the proposed monopole which would be indicated by this crosshair here in the
circle is approximately 65.5 ft perpendicular to the nearest residential property line to the southeast. >> Okay. Is that is that block 12304 lot 2? Is that what we're talking about?
>> Yes. Thank you. Um, do you also have an elevation view or or the equipment view? Whatever you'd like to do first. >> Yeah, we have an elevation view. Um, kind of this is another even further blown up view of the site. Um, everything that I've explained is
depicted here um just in a little bit more larger scale. Uh, one thing I didn't mention the cable bridge or as >> I'm sorry just to interrupt. Uh this you're referring now to sheet C2 in the plan set, correct? >> Yes, sheet C2 of the plan set here. Um
you can see the monipole, you can see the proposed generator here. Uh the cable bridge or ice bridge as it's sometimes referred to as where the cable is routed as it comes out of the monopole and into the building. And then you have the equipment uh two racks and maybe a future rack if Verizon needs it.
uh battery, HVAC units, uh OVP, overvoltage protection, um couple other components that uh Verizon typically would install at their uh cell sites here. And then an elevation view to depict
the profile of what the pole would look like and the site would look like. Um you can see the existing garage building here. Um, and then the ground compound and the 100T monopole with a 4ft lightning rod and those mounts at the 95
ft elevation. Uh, note they would be oriented in about 120 degree opposed azimuths to make the full circle as the RF engineer mentioned earlier. >> Okay. And are you showing six panel antennas in three sectors? Um this
actually is yes it is showing six panel antennas two per sector. >> Okay. And are there also two um GPS antennas that will be affixed to the existing barn? >> Yes, there's GPS units to be attached
here at the existing structure. >> And approximately how large are those GPS antennas? >> Uh they're pretty small. They're maybe 12 in long and 3 in in diameter. >> Okay. Um, so in your opinion, um, will most of the equipment being proposed be
located inside the existing barn? >> Yes, the equipment will be located in the barn with the exception of the generator and the antennas and radios themselves. >> Um, could you talk to the fencing that's around the uh the equipment? I think
what's being proposed now is 7 foot with 1 foot bob wire. Is that correct? >> Yes. Uh there's currently chain link fence proposed in the conceptual plan although there's been commentary regarding fence types uh from various uh professionals with the town and
something that is certainly subject to uh further review and design. Okay. So that fence could be changed to an opaque fence uh whether it's PVC or something else. Yes. If the board uh preferred. >> Yes. >> And also the height of that fence can
also be reduced to seven feet. It could be. Um, yes, we can specify the fence to really any height desired. >> Okay. And, um, how tall is the, uh, proposed generator roughly? >> Uh, the proposed generator sits on a diesel tank. Um, I'd have to double
check the total height. It with the enclosure in the tank, it may be about six six and 1/2 ft tall. Okay. So, whatever fence Verizon proposes, we can uh make sure that the generator is is screened from view. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, with respect to the
circulation and the parking for this particular facility, um, could you give a little testimony how that would work? >> Sure. Um, it's an unmanned facility. Um so basically uh the only time somebody would be coming to the facility on behalf of Verizon would be uh routine
maintenance uh in the event that there was some sort of issue that was flagged. Uh a tech would come to the site and then um on top of that maybe every month a tech would come up uh to the site. So they would obviously come in a vehicle they would park on the site for the time
they were there and and leave. Uh the maximum demand on parking would be one vehicle at a time effectively for Verizon. >> And is the area in front of the pole u or in front of the barn sufficient um to park or for that technician visit?
>> Yes. >> Um will it cause any uh or interrupt any site circulation uh on the existing commerce street? >> No, it should have a negligible impact on the circulation at the site. Okay. >> Will the site also have to be visited?
um to refuel the generator. >> Yes, theoretically um the generator will only run in emergency situations. Um I looked at the calculations earlier. I think it can run for a maximum of about 56 hours on the fuel provided at 147
gallons. So um in a very extreme event, uh they would run that generator and then uh they would refuel it after it was uh used on demand basically. Okay. And would that fuel truck be your your typical u home oil style truck about
that size? >> Yeah, similar to a fuel oil delivery service. Yeah, >> probably similar to the business that's right down the street, I would assume. >> It might even come from there. Yeah. >> There is a fuel service business on this Commerce Street. Correct. >> There is. Yes.
>> Okay. Well, at least the rear of it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So with respect to I guess there's staying on the generator then could you talk about um testing how often how long? >> Uh yeah so when the generator is first installed uh they will commission the
generator. Um so there's a more or less intensive test uh where they run it for approximately four hours at full uh demand. Uh that's a one-time test. And then once that's complete, um Verizon's network standards, to my latest
knowledge, don't actually specify uh a requirement. Um but it's my understanding based on the local folks here. Um they'll test it about uh one hour every month just to ensure that it's uh in working order in the event of a a storm or outage.
>> And could that test be set to run during the day, not not early in the morning, I think night? >> Yes. The text will typically come to uh do that during the day and it'll be uh about a half hour to 1 hour time frame. Okay. Um could you speak to the noise levels from the generator and whether
whether it will be compliant uh with state noise standards and local noise standards? >> Yes, the uh generator is proposed to be installed in an aluminum uh sound level two enclosure uh by the manufacturer. Um their testing shows that the noise level
at a distance of 23 feet from the source is uh 65.7 dB. Uh the state regulations for New Jersey would specify during uh normal hours of limit of 65 at the property line. Um and the nearest
property line is approximately 40 plus feet uh from the uh generator point. And is that decibel requirement actually to the closest residential property line? >> It is. Yes. >> And you've already testified to what that distance is. >> Yeah. That nearest distance would be the
65 ft plus about 10. So approximately 75 ft to the generator. >> So based upon the specifications for the generator proposed, is it your opinion that it will operate uh within the state and local noise standards? >> Yes, it is. Uh with respect to the safety the safety
features of the generator is this a doublewalled uh tank? >> Yes, the base tank is a doublewalled tank in accordance with uh believe it's UL 142. >> So if the uh interior tank were to uh spring a leak, there is another tank to
contain it. >> Yeah, it has a built-in secondary containment unit as a design feature. Okay. Um, is there going to be any vibration uh from the site as a result of the generator? >> Uh, there should not be. I've reached back out to the manufacturer to confirm.
Um, oftentimes generators are installed on vibration attenuators and we've specified that many times uh on designs for Verizon in the past. Um, this is a newer generator product. They do kind of update every year or two years. Um so just reaching out as we speak to
coordinate uh how we would properly specify that and if it's appropriate for the given model and the the base tank but uh assuming that that's acceptable per the manufacturer. Yes, we will design and specify it that way. >> And currently it's being proposed on a 4x7 concrete pad.
>> Uh yes, that is correct. >> All right. Um with respect to uh lighting, is there any lighting associated with this facility? >> Um >> exterior lighting? No exterior lighting is proposed. Uh at a maximum there may
end up being a exterior light proposed for the generator access itself. If so that would be a timed light uh that the technician would be able to turn on uh in the event of a storm in the darkness and uh it would time be on
a timer to turn off automatically so that if it was left on it wouldn't be left on for longer than a set period of time. Uh with respect to signage, um could you speak to that a little bit? >> Uh yes, the FCC as well as Verizon have
um standard and required signs uh to denote the site and those will be mounted on the compound fence uh in plain sight. U we are currently not proposing any landscaping at the site. Is that correct? >> Correct. Um, could landscaping be added
if uh deemed necessary by the board or its professionals? >> Yes, it could be. >> Um, from your review of the site, uh, is there existing foliage and trees around the perimeter that provide screening? >> Yes, there's a pretty significant amount
of vegetation, uh, trees, shrubs. Um, I would assume, you know, the most important area to to buffer would be to the to the souththeast there, uh, to the adjacent residential properties. So, uh, that could be a consideration. Um, to
the south, uh, the train tracks, I'm sure they're not wanting a buffer too much. >> And Jen, with respect to utilities, um, will there be telephone and fiber service? Yes, telco uh fiber service uh through the utility easement as well as
power to that uh h frame that I mentioned just to the northwest of the generator there. >> Any permanent uh employees at the site to run this facility? >> No, it's an unmanned facility. Um just going back to um some of the
variances and uh the waiver request and the application uh the front yard setback uh is currently an existing non-conforming condition. Is that correct? >> Yes, that is correct. >> And that's to uh from Commerce Street to uh the existing barn building.
>> Correct. Yes. This is the closest point on the plan view of the existing barn. Uh it is approximately 10 feet from the property line along Commerce Street with a required front yard setback of 25 ft. >> Okay. >> And the proposed uh fenced exterior
equipment area is uh approximately how far from the the Commerce Street front yard. >> It is approximately 10 ft as well. >> Okay. So that will not be exacerbating it. >> No. >> Uh there is one utility box that's being proposed. Correct.
>> Uh yes. If you're referring to the fiber uh box there, I believe that's that's what you're referring to. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> And that's approximately 9 ft from the front property line, >> give or take. Yes. Uh maybe 8 ft. >> Okay. So that would be the only incursion into the additional incursion
into the front yard. >> Yes. Um the uh there is a variance for accessory structure se separation 10 feet from the principal building on the same lot is required um where the monopole and the generator are within 10
ft. Is that correct? >> Uh yes that is correct. >> Was thinking to try to keep the tower and generator as close to the building as possible to uh screen it from view. >> Yes. and also to be close enough to the equipment that's in the building to connect with it.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um there was also a variance noted um 75 ft is required from any residential zone whereabouts 73 feet is proposed to our generator comm uh our generator pad. So
that is a twoft variance. Um given the the noise specs that you uh testified to, do you think there's any detrimental effects uh to the granting of that variance uh based upon uh the projected noise from the generator? >> No, the noise from the generator will be
well within the required limits. >> Okay. >> This particular facility will be monitored on a 247 basis by Verizon. Yes, there's remote monitoring sensors um that will uh provide the Verizon technician signals to attend to the site
or uh really give them any clue to uh any needs on the site. And respect to u traditional site plan issues such as traffic, water, sewer service. Uh none of those uh are going to be an issue with this unmanned facility. Is that correct?
>> That is correct. Um, will the facility result in any odor, smoke, glare, or dust or any nuisance? >> Uh, nope. The only thing would be the exhaust from the diesel generator when it's running an emergency or test situation. >> Uh, any need for municipal services?
>> No. >> Will the facility, if approved, comply with all building codes and EIA, EIA, TIA standards? >> It will. And um will Verizon submit a full structural report to the building department and also to the board engineer uh if this facility were
approved? >> Yes. >> So from an engineering perspective, is it your opinion that this site can accommodate the additional use? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh no further questions. >> I have a question for you. Um we heard a
question earlier about um pardon me, Ms. Miguel's property. being close to this project. Can you give me a an idea of how close from the monopole because
it's not on the border of property. How close is the monopole from any local residential property? >> Yes. So the monopole to the closest residential property line
which would be this line >> that is the western property line of by the tax map 30-12304-000000-00002 approximately 65 and 1/2 ft from that lot line to the monopole to the center
of the monopole. Additionally, that it appears that there is a uh building on that site, maybe a threecar garage with a potential living quarter. I don't I can't
>> I I can't confirm that, but that's what it looks like from Google. Um the monopole is located 85.5 ft from the nearest point of said structure. to the center of the monopole.
>> Thank you. >> How about the other structure? >> The other structure. >> Uh that would be this uh the the house to the northeast. Um I'll have to measure that. It is
certainly longer than that distance, 75 ft. I have a question. Yes. >> Um, so I understand that the system that the structure isn't and the antennas aren't going to be powered by the diesel. That's nice. Only in an emergency. >> Yes.
>> It's going to be powered by electric. Where is the electric uh entering the site from? >> So, there's going to be a proposed utility easement. Um, the actual source of power will come as a result of utility coordination with the electric
company. Um, typically it'll come from the nearest transformer or in worst case for Verizon, they may have to uh have a new transformer installed to get service to their site. >> Coming from a transformer. Okay. U which direction?
From the site. >> It uh I believe again this is all in preliminary design at this stage. Uh however, I believe it should be coming from the direction of Commerce Street uh to the northwest. to the west down Commerce Street towards
the parking area where Cars is or to the east towards >> um Cresant. >> So to the to the to the west and maybe a bit to the north in this bless you this area >> I haven't seen any electric poles near
there so I'm just wondering how does the power get to that spot in the west? It may come underground. It may come aery. Again, it's subject to final utility coordination with uh PSENG in this case, >> but through the fire department's land
or through somebody else's land. >> Uh it'll be through an easement. Uh so it'll travel through the right of way and then through an easement on this parcel. >> I'm sorry, which is this parcel that you're pointing? >> Uh the subject parcel um 1891A Longill.
So the fire the fire company's auxiliary land that we're we're proposing to put the site. >> But there isn't an easement there. So the fire department has to give an easement. >> Yes, there will be an easement with with the fire department. >> Why would that be part of this application?
>> Because we don't we don't sign and record easements for a use that's not permitted yet. So we need to get the approval. The utility company won't even go out and look at the utility bringing utilities in until we have an approval. So that's why it's always subject to uh utility approval
>> and the board could certainly explicitly state assuming the board were to act favorably on this application in any memorializing resolution. You could explicitly state that a condition of the approval before any building permit is issued that uh that that easement be
duly executed and recorded and it could be even subject to the review of uh township attorney, township engineer. Um, yeah. I guess my concern is that they need an easement for their new approved project and it could go through somebody's front yard
>> because they need it. >> No, I mean, >> it's not planned for now, then you're going to plan for it later and it's going to >> But it's subject to the utility. The utility company dictates where they're coming, what pole to come off of. We don't we don't dictate to the utility company. >> Yeah. So odds are they'll go they'll come from
the the closest overhead >> not an entity that's not even here today and talking about this will determine where the >> CG >> no they're they're not coming they're not coming to our this hearing or any other >> hearing it's not going the such an easement would not go through um a
private property that would be compelled to record that easement it wouldn't work that way >> correct >> correct we are my firm my My personnel will be reaching out to coordinate the utility design once we get to that phase of the project. The utilities will run
down the right of way and then Verizon will secure a utility and access easement from the right of way along this property to the point they need it. That's what we would anticipate at this time. Considering the time it being
10:30, uh, I'm going to request a motion to extend this meeting for 20 minutes for any additional questions from the board. >> Can I make a recommendation? >> Sir, >> we want to finish his testimony, right? >> Yes. >> Tonight, like the the current the
current presenter, the engineer, can we just have the motion go till the end of that >> could be till 12? >> Well, okay. Because >> we we could always reup it after the 20 minutes. fine because we continue to reup it seems like. So either cut it off
at 11 or finish it out because we always finish it out anyway. >> We might be done before then. >> Okay. >> Can I get a motion for 20 minutes? >> Motion. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I >> Okay, just one other thing I failed to mention while we're on it. Um if I can ask Mr. Lutus, this poll will be designed um if the fire department wants to move its municipal communications to it, uh this
poll will accommodate it. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> I have questions. So, um are you part of the search people or the people that locate the site or you just do the
engineering once the site is determined where it where? Yeah, this site acquisition people are part of my company but no I have nothing to do with that. Basically they hand speak with that person whoever we will talk to that person. Okay. >> Yes. So we will >> Okay. Then the only thing I have for you and it's really not uh one of my
presentings but um can you just talk about the structural integrity of a 100 foot monopole? I mean I know the power companies been putting them everywhere right? We see them everywhere. But just can you just talk about that because you know the reason why I not worried about it but I have a little concerns. We lost
a communications tower during supertorm st Sandy and it was thank goodness way away from homes and residents. So just want to see how that talk about the structural integrity and then say what happens if something really bad happens like that thing comes down in a storm or something.
>> Of course. Yeah. So um a steel monopole for telecommunication purposes is designed in accordance with the TIA 222 standard. Um it's a structural >> so just talk to us like we're regular people. >> Yeah. I'm I'm going to give you the background of what >> that's fine too. You can do the
technical stuff but also say what it means. >> I'll tell you a story about it. So it's it's a structural standard how we design and analyze these things. Uh I myself have even contributed to the development of these standards uh revisions of these standards over the years. Uh it dictates
to us every specification of how to check the steel um in accordance with building codes themselves. Um basically though the steel monopole is just that it's a steel shaft. Um typically it's made up of several segments that are uh
laps spliced together. Um I can just kind of give you a quick rundown of how they would build it. So they would come out to the site and they would come out with a drill and they would drill the shaft for the queson. Um usually something like a 100 foot pole depending on the soil conditions might
have anywhere from a 40 to 60 foot deep shaft for concrete. Uh they would fabricate a rebar cage to reinforce that queson. uh steel and the concrete is there for tensile resistance and bending capacity. So they'll place that cage uh
they'll pour that concrete, they'll place that concrete and they'll set the anchor rods in uh so that the steel pole can be mounted. Uh the steel pole, the bottommost section of the shaft will be shop welded to a base plate with holes for the anchor rods. They'll place that
on leveling nuts. They'll tighten it down loosely just like you're putting together IKEA furniture. You know, don't don't quite put it together all the way. Uh then they'll drop the top uh the top section and then probably 100 foot will have a third section. Uh they'll splice
that on. Um drop them on there. Then once everything is good and plum, they'll tighten the anchor rod nuts really tight and uh they'll be able to, you know, run the cables up the shaft. They'll be able to place the mounts. they'll be able to put the antennas, the radios, uh all the
equipment up there. Um it's also equipped with a lightning rod and a full grounding system um uh designed to uh the latest uh the latest grounding specifications uh in accordance with the the TIA group that I just mentioned
earlier. Um yeah, as far as the integrity goes, it's just designed to uh factors of safety. Um basically essentially uh we designed to load uh resistance factor design. So not typically factor of safety but a very
comparable system where we take factors for increasing the loads and the demands on the structure and we also take and account for reductions in the strength of the of the numbers and we marry that together to make conservative estimates as to the theoretical capacity of the of
the structures. Um something that's very important for steel monopole structures, they're single non-redundant structures, right? So um another very important thing that's come to light in the industry is the importance of fatigue design,
especially at the base, uh section where the critical section where the base plate is welded to the monopole shaft. Uh the latest version of that standard that I mentioned that was just adopted recently uh has specific provisions for fatigue analysis that um are proven uh
by you know decades of research driven by the ASHTTO uh committee on bridge structures um that has been kind of extrapolated and applied to uh these types of structures. Um so yeah the industry is very uh focused on this. a
cohort of my colleagues are going next Tuesday to meet with the entire industry to do the same thing all over again like we do every year. Uh revisit the code, revisit the standards and uh yeah in this case uh new monoples we basically
you know on behalf of Verizon we go to one of the big three manufacturers of these things and they design it up and hand over design. We look at it, say it's good, they put it out there, and then as time goes by, every time the loading changes, we analyze it, we check
it, we make sure that it's uh compliant with the codes. >> So, you talked about that connection. Is that like is that the most stress on that pole is right at that point >> at the base? Yeah, that's where the most stress is going to be. >> Is there ever have you ever seen one of these things come down? I mean, is there >> I've never seen it, but I've seen stories of it.
>> To your knowledge, has this ever happened? >> Yes, it happens. Um it most of the time it would happen as a result of uh poor workmanship at that weld uh and the fatigue uh fracture >> or combination of fatigue at that stress point and severe weather. Is that
>> impact on it? >> The fatigue is just cyclical loading. So it'll just happen over time. It'll happen because uh often times even at lower wind speeds where uh it induces just different phenomena that cause oscilly motion and different um you know you get into all the physics. So there's
an inspection process you said that Verizon follows and then is there a replacement or is that followed with necessity determined by the inspection? >> Uh so the inspection process is uh going to be effectively the owner of the asset
is responsible to inspect and maintain the structure. Um >> is it Verizon or is it someone else? >> Verizon's the owner of the pole. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. So Verizon would be then engaging in a routine maintenance and inspection cycle once the structure is put into service
>> and that's regulated. >> Uh it is regulated. It is code prescribed uh for certain structures for monopoles. Uh I believe the re it's a recommendation although um Verizon does have a program that they
actually do uh maintain and inspect their structures. >> Thank you. >> Any questions from the board? Just just a simple clarification, how many mile per hour wind is is this thing rated to withstand? >> Uh typically in this area, the design
wind speed is around 115 or 113 miles per hour ultimate wind. Uh that's the design wind speed that it's considered to be designed to um somewhat it's not it's theoretical. It's
not exactly what you expect. Like it's not like it's a sustained wind, but the numbers are based off of the data in the ASC uh ASCE7 codes. Um and we just follow the same standard that all engineers do for the country.
>> Any questions from our experts? So you spoke a little bit uh based off these questions about the construction of the monopole. Can you also speak to what equipment would be used for the construction of the monopole where they might be lo uh located as well as
possibly their swing radius and what that might impact in the surrounding area? >> Sure. Um, so there would be as far as the larger pieces of equipment and machinery go, it would really be um kind of three-fold. There'd be uh a crane to
lift the monopole. Uh there'd be a drill rig to drill that case on. There'd be a concrete truck to deliver the concrete and a pump truck uh potentially depending on how they wanted to place that concrete. Um, as far as the staging of the equipment goes, it would be uh
really up to the contractor and their um construction plan on how they would want to stage all the equipment. Um, I would presume because the street itself is not a very heavily traveled way, there would
probably be a way to organize potential again subject to everybody that would have oversight the use of the street andor of course the use of this area uh of the rear yard. Um, and that's again something that if it gets to that stage,
the contractor would be required to put a construction plan in place and obviously everything that they do in accordance with uh OSHA standards and all applicable laws and regulations. >> And with that construction plan from your select contractor, you would review
that as well as you would review that with town. >> Uh, so it depends. Uh, we're not always engaged as engineers to review construction plans. Uh but that's something that we certainly can provide and Verizon's personnel and construction management staff uh would have oversight
over that as well. >> Okay. So it would be Verizon oversees construction. >> All right. That's correct. >> Or Verizon's designate. Like I I can't speak to construction,
but Verizon as the applicant would notify the town who >> absolutely. >> That's right. That would be Verizon's responsibility. Um, kind of going back to your talk
about it's an unmanned uh site, maintenance is going to be as needed, it sounds like. Um, has there been discussion with the volunteer fire department about the fact that it's going to be a sporadic visitation? And
have they made any comment to the fact that it's a you know once a month situation where they will be coming to the site visiting it um or is that still >> um right now what's in place is is a
lease agreement with the fire department that provides for the leased area and uh 247 access to that leased area. Um, so that that's all I know. I don't know about discussions with the fire
department um as to, you know, you know, how many trips or things of that nature, but according to the testimony, the the trip should some somewhere be in the nature of uh once every four to six weeks. Um, so it's it's not going to be
visited uh very often. Uh, in fact, I mean the fire department, they did provide us a letter, so I might as well mark this in the evidence as um >> that would be A4. >> A4. Thank you. Um, this is a letter dated October 31st,
2025. Um, it's was addressed to Verizon from Mr. Patrick White who's the chief of the fire company. And it kind of relates to the fact of uh the communications that we talked about for the fire company. uh
potentially one day being on the uh poll. So, I would just I would just mark this into the record. I can get I can get additional copies to everybody for the next hearing. I'll email it. All right. And just to speak to the Verizon operations, typically they have cell
texts that are assigned to specific sites and those texts will establish rapport with the local contact at the site to, you know, they they work well together typically and what from what I've observed Um, so we kind of touched base, it sounds like the lease agreement, we
touched base about the lease agreement that's in the works and that's still pending, I guess, negotiations as well as >> that's uh signed, right? The lease >> the lease is signed. Yeah, that was my understanding. Has there been any sort of uh licensing agreement for Commerce
Street in terms of the fact that it's a paper street and it is not up to the standards of the town in terms of the developed street for access? >> Uh all we have at this point is um is just the access rights from the lease agreement
>> um to access the property. Um that that's all we have. >> What I just asked would that be considered at a I guess as part of this application should the on application. >> Yeah. I mean, if a license agreement was required separate and apart from the u
from the uh fire department, uh we would we would obviously enter that agreement. If it's required from the town, then uh we'd have to enter into that agreement as well. Um but is a paper it is a paper street. It is on the tax map. So, uh presumably uh it could be utilized by
the general public for access, >> right? I'm just thinking a licensing agreement may be I'm just thinking a licensing agreement may just be necessary for prior to construction given the as we've discussed size of the
equipment that's going to be coming to the site and the fact that you're talking about a paper street that is not developed might not be able to handle the loads andor complications can arise because it's construction >> yeah I it's not something that sounds objection we'll put it that way so it's
it's definitely if the application were approved uh and that was deemed advisable then I'm sure Verizon would would uh you know would would enter into an agreement like that you know subject to the terms of course >> I think at this time I have no further
questions >> thank you >> please one question one question I have with the lease um is there are you at liberty to say how long the length of it is like and if if for any reason it was ever
termin terminated, what happens to the tower? >> Uh, I have not seen this particular lease, but I can tell you just from doing this for 25 years, generally speaking, these leases are anywhere from 20 to 25 years. Um and about every lease
I have seen uh has provisions in it where Verizon is responsible for decommissioning all the improvements and restoring the property uh back to uh you know its original condition, you know, minus ordinary wear and tear.
>> Okay. Um, and I I think there was testimony I I think perhaps not from you, but the garage obviously is going to be um holding the sort of the ground equipment to service the tower and that if an additional if there was a
collocation situation, there's room for more in the in the garage. >> Um, theoretically, there would be room inside the garage. Uh, I think that potentially there could be room outside as well. Um, I can't speak to future
plans nor um the fire company's immutability to I mean from when we went to the site they had some old fire trucks in there, some old equipment. I'm sure they probably need that space, but that's not really my place to make a judgment call there.
>> Okay. Um, and then landscaping. I I just I had made a few comments in my letter for the board's consideration. Uh I don't think that it it's not going to address the resident's direct concerns about health, but I think that you may
want to ask um the applicant to put some sort of evergreen buffer uh along that property line >> just just for screening, visual screening. >> We can add that as a condition. >> I mean, if if if the applicant is amanable. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Yeah. Are these going to be 100 foot
long? How how tall? >> Are you talking about everything now or just engineering? Because Are we talking because I think Great point. >> I think you were speaking about the fencing and and the border. >> Well, I did I he they addressed Yeah, but I >> What about lighting, too? Because didn't you have concerns about lighting as well? >> I did. They um
>> did they address them? I'm sorry. >> I missed a step here. >> No, it's okay. >> Because I have concerns about lighting, too. Sorry. Go ahead. >> His testimony about lighting said that test uh lighting is going to be A and correct me if I'm wrong please. No
lighting is planned for the site at this time. However, there is going to be except for an exterior light by the generator which is a time. So it's just for the emergency work when we need to access the generator is when they're looking for this light. >> Thank you. >> Correct.
>> Um actually that's a question is there's no light at the top of the tower. >> No, the tower is not required to be lit uh in this case. >> Okay. So, um, yeah, but landscaping I think is is >> I think we need a landscape plan actually, like some kind of >> Okay, >> I think we do.
>> Okay. Okay. >> I have a question that this triggers and I'm not sure if you're the right person to answer it or perhaps we'll get it later. We've all seen those lovely u monopoles along the highways that kind of look like trees with the greenery on
top. Is that something that can be accommodated here if um it was so desired by the township? >> I mean it's it's certainly something we can investigate. You usually to be honest you usually don't see 100 foot
poles done done as trees. So um >> have a tree. >> We can come back with that answer. Usually you see that kind of stealth structure on a on a taller tower. Um, but we can uh we'll come back with a concrete >> some greenery to take to break up that
tower look so that it's it fits a little bit better with the area. >> Yeah. So, and if there may be an interference with the the the signal, then that's not something we're looking to do. >> Well, what's going to happen at the next meeting is we are going to have our
planner to go through the photo simulation. So, we will we will look into that before between now and the next meeting. Sorry. Yes. Aronio, do you want them to bring a sort of uh schematic landscape? I >> I think that would be appropriate.
>> I if I if I can just make a request and obviously by all means uh usually what we agree to do is we agree to work with your board professionals to come up with a you know an acceptable landscape plan rather than us guess at it. Um, we we
more a lot of times we just collaborate as a condition of approval to come up with a plan. >> We do that as well. I just thought in this case because I think the residents that are in close proximity are going to want to see something. I I believe that. I don't know. I can't um >> I'm fine with delegating, but >> then if you can give us a little
direction Well, I you just did, I guess, of where you'd like to see it. So, >> yes. Yeah. And I I think if you maybe uh have further discussions with myself and the board engineer prior to next meeting. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Are we talking about two different
things? Landscaping and then what the actual pole looks like. >> Yes. Those are two different things. >> Okay. Just want to make sure that >> that's not a collaboration with the >> no engineer. That's no sight think is going to be adequate to help screen and
buffer from surrounding >> properties >> just to manage expectations. The board would see what the pole looks like but the engineer would see what the landscaping looks like. >> Well, no. What we said is that they're going to we are going to have discussions before the next meeting so that they can present it to the board.
>> Okay. So the reason why I was thinking about a plan is because I've seen this before also where we approved these towers or whatever else and then three years later there's four dead arbor vites that are like around the tower and they don't belong there. They weren't you know they don't fit with that area
and they don't live well there. So as long as it's something that that is appropriate for that area and it's well nurtured and it's going to survive then I'm fine. I don't mind delegating that. But I I just have a feeling that our our residents in that area are going to want to see what's what what what's screening
their view from the base of that tower. >> Sure. And and that's why I want I want to consult with your your you know your local professionals because they can steer us in the right direction. >> Okay. Thank you. We we're to that witching hour again. U can I see a show
of hands? Uh how many questions we have? One, two, three. more than we're going to be able to get to tonight unless we stay till midnight. Uh at this point, I believe we're going to have to close the proceedings for this evening. Deb, what
would our next date be? >> Uh Tuesday, December 16th. >> Okay. December 16th back here for this. Um carried to that date, Mr. Chairman. December carried to December 16th.
>> Yes. Without further notice. without further notice. Okay. >> And would you just put in writing that you consent to an extension of time for the board to act on the Thank you. >> I will do that. Thank you. >> Would you need a motion and a second and an all >> motion to adjurnn? >> No. Wait.
>> Wait. Have a motion first to carry the application. >> Oh, carry the application. I think >> to carry the application to December 16th. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Now, can I make a motion to adjurnn? >> Now you can make a motion to >> motion to adjurnn. Yes. >> Second. Second
>> I >> thank