Okay, we're on the air. >> Cold to order and statement of compliance. Adequate notice of this meeting hearing has been provided by posting a copy of the public meeting/hering dates on the municipal bulletin board by sending a copy to the echo sentinel and by filing a copy with
the municipal clerk. Standard board procedures. Any meeting/hering conducted by the board is a quasi judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and a
quorum appropriate to a judicial meeting/hering must be maintained at all times. Meeting cutoff announcements 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/hering of the board unless a motion is passed by the members then present to extend the meetingearing to a later specifi specified cutoff time. Electronic devices all in attendance are asked to mute cell phones or any electronic
devices as to not interrupt the proceedings. This is where we all check oursel. Pledge of >> allegiance. Pledge algiance 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. >> Roll call, please. >> Yes. Mr. Aronio, >> here. Mr. Giannakis >> here. >> Mr. Rosenberg is excused this evening. Mr. Watts >> here.
>> Mr. Zadznney >> here. >> Mr. White >> here. >> Mr. Zartke >> here. >> Vice Chairman Groskoff will be and vice chairman Groskoff will be our acting chairman as chairman correct is excused as recused this evening. Thank you.
>> Uh just a reminder just a point of order before we move on. Uh board members, please all remember to speak clearly into the microphones, okay? So that the public can hear. Um and any no and members of the public, please keep
conversations literally don't have conversations because the microphones all pick that up unfortunately. So it's hard for us to so everybody can just keep it quiet. Thank you. application preliminary and final major
site plan usevariance variances carried from 111325 121625 and 12026 block 12304 lot one zone P 1891A Longill
Road application number 25-17Z New York SMSA Limited Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless applicant proposes to install 104 foot tall monopole and emergency backup generator. >> Yes, happy new year everybody. Uh Frank
Ferraro um as you indicated Mr. Chairman um back on a continuation from uh the previous hearing from last year. Um we left it off last time uh where we got through our professional engineer Mr. Lutis who went through the site plan. Um
we didn't open it up to the public. There was some comments um from the board and the public which we incorporated into our plans and submitted in advance of this meeting. Um so unless there's some preliminary matters that the board needs to take care of, we would uh call our
professional engineer back to review the plans that were submitted and and to go over the changes that were made. Perhaps we can do that before we open it up to the public for questions on all Mr. Lewis's testimony. >> Sure. Uh before you uh you get started
uh my name is Yolanta Maziars. I'm the new board attorney. I was just appointed on January 20th. Uh we have become aware that uh this application has an objector. So if you wouldn't mind uh I would like for the attorney for the objectors to put his appearance on the
record and uh tell the board who his clients are. Members of the board, good evening. Uh, good to be back here in Long Hill Township, uh, right down the road from my office. Rob Simon from Herald Law. Um, I am here on behalf of various, uh,
property owners in the vicinity of this project. I will read them off to you. Uh Shane and Stephen Daly, 29, The Crescent, Millington, Victor and Jennifer Miguel.
26, The Crescent, Millington, Mark and Rose Yulen Brush, Brush, excuse me for the pronunciation. 26A, The Crescent in Millington. Ron Sachs,
1893, Long Hill Road, Millington, and Pam Oans and Ray Monahan, 36 the Crescent in Millington. Um, I will be
happy to supply the board with a a formal letter of representation, of course, uh, to substantiate what I just stated. Um, I have also made my clients who I have just named aware of the rule
that while at the appropriate time in the proceedings, should they wish to provide testimony, they certainly would be permitted to do so either through me or otherwise, but that um, under the rules that we all comply and abide with
that any cross-examination or questions they may want to ask of any witness throughout the proceeding meeting would be done through my voice. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. >> And I have spoken to Mr. Ferrero who has been very kind in providing me with um
materials that I've asked him kindly to provide. So thanks. >> Thank you. >> So uh Mr. Chairman, I understand the board has also retained an RF consultant. >> Okay. So, is that something that also needs to be
>> Yes. Yes. Please, if you can please state your name for the record. >> My name is Paul Row. I'm with Hoplight Communications. >> Thank you. >> RF Expert. >> And Peter Lup. I'm a telecommunications attorney, lawyer, FCC, uh, specializing
in that area of law. >> Okay. Thank you. >> We need to swear in Joe, uh, our engineer as well. >> Liz Liz would, I believe, remain sworn. Correct. >> Okay. Very good. So, everyone who needs to be sworn in, please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give with regard to this
application will be the truth. So, help you God. >> I do. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Um, so if there are no other comments, uh, Mr. Chairman, we call Mr. Ludus back uh to testify to the revisions uh to the site plan. Thank
you. >> Yep. Good evening. >> Um, Mr. Ludas, uh, reworn. >> He was sworn at the prior meeting, but >> And do you understand that you are still under oath? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> And Mr. Ludas, you are a uh New Jersey
licensed professional engineer. Is that correct? >> Yes, I am. >> And your license is still current? >> Yes. >> Okay. And uh you have prepared rei revised site plans that were submitted to the board in advance of this meeting. Is that correct? >> Yes. And what is the last revision date on those plans?
>> That is December 5th, 2025. >> Um I'm going to mark them collectively if they're um as A5 and just ask Mr. Lutus to refer um to each sheet number as he moves through the set. >> Sure. >> Do well submitted 10 days prior. Do we
need to mark them as exhibits? >> Uh I believe we marked the the last set of >> I think I I think we should. And can you please state for the record uh what the date is on these plans? >> Yes, this is revision three dated
December 5th, 2025. >> Thank you. How many sheets again? >> Uh we have eight sheets here uh physically present. I cannot recall if there are any additional sheets in the full set, but I
believe this is the full set. Like they were all submitted a few few weeks back in hard copying T165. These plans were prepared by you. >> Yes, these are prepared by my uh my firm.
>> Yes. Uh the the main changes are uh pertinent to sheet C1 uh the site plan. Um based on some commentary and ongoing feedback through the review process, uh we made a couple of updates to the layout at at grade. Um the monopole
location proposed uh has remained unchanged. However, we did uh relocate the proposed generator location uh to be greater than the minimum 75 foot setback from the residential lot line to the
southeast. Um, we adjusted the fence based on that change to maintain required uh clearances by code and we also made some slight adjustments to the utility backboard uh in order to again stay
within required code clearance parameters. Additionally, we proposed uh some landscaping. Um, right now we have uh two proposed junipers spaced at 10 foot on center. um still subject to further coordination and input from uh
the board's uh review if if applicable. Um but it's our opinion that that uh should be adequate to provide some some buffer there uh aesthetically for the ground equipment. Um that's pretty much the only change uh
for for the entire design from our last meeting in November. >> And Mr. As you indicated you eliminated the variance for the setback to the generator pad. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's correct. >> So 75 ft is the minimum. >> Yes. >> By code. And what are we proposing now?
>> We are showing 76' 7 in to the generator from the residential outline. >> Mr. Chairman, no additional questions that changes. >> Any questions from the board? Objector's attorney.
>> Objector's attorney. >> There you are. >> Any questions? >> You have any questions? >> Share. >> Okay. No, no. Why don't you're answering the question? >> Sure.
>> Yeah. If it reaches, might as well >> technology. >> You have to turn it on. >> Unplugging it and plugging it back in. This is what engineers are for. Oh, we got power in business. How many board professionals does it take to figure
that out? >> That was super fun. Okay. >> No, most impressive is it's the lawyers that figured it out. >> That's right. >> It actually was the planner. >> I was told by the lawyer that I was incorrect.
>> Just for the record. >> I was trying to give the lawyer some credit. >> Just for the record. >> That's right. It's good try. Good try. Um, >> Mr. Ludas, how do you spell your last name? >> It's L U D A S.
>> Okay. And um, Mr. Ludas, are you a a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey? >> Yes. >> Okay. And I don't see your name or your initials anywhere on this site plan
marked as A5. Is there a reason for that? >> Uh yes. My colleague uh K Col Kand Davilu is my uh vice president of my division. He's the engineer of record on this particular design. >> So you're not the engineer of record. So
did you um participate in the creation of these plans? >> I do. I oversee. I uh help with review. I provide design input. Um I help the team basically. >> Okay. So did you usually in engineering
plans that I'm familiar with um there is a the professional who prepares the plans whose name is affixed to the plans and there's a seal uh which is in this case that's the colleague that you're referring to I'm guessing. >> Yes. Um, and usually there's a notation
as to who reviewed the plans in the office. And I don't see any um reference to your initials anywhere on these plans. So you're are you saying
that you just oversaw um the development of these plans by your colleague? Uh yes, we have a fairly rigorous review process where multiple engineers and design managers review and I contributed to to that review process. >> When you say you contributed to the
review process to to to what extent when when were you first involved in this project, sir? >> Uh I can't recall. Um this project has been going on for some time. Um fairly early on in the process. >> And um did you participate in any of the
drafting? Uh not directly. No. >> And did you participate in the creation of the zoning information that is contained on C1 of these plans? >> I did not develop that personally. No. >> Did you review the ordinance that
resulted in the zoning information that is set forth on these plans? >> I did review the zoning ordinance briefly. Yes. When you say briefly, did you review it to confirm the accuracy of the information that's contained in the zoning information?
>> Personally, no, not to a deep level. However, my colleagues have >> and I've confirmed that. And with regard to the note, there are notes on this plan. And on C1,
note number five, it states this plan is based on a survey prepared in the field by Control Point Associates, Inc. Do you see that? >> Yes. >> Okay. Did you create that note or any of the notes on these plans? Did I create the note personally?
>> Yes. >> Uh no, I did not. >> Okay. Um and then number six, it goes on to state the survey was prepared without the benefit of a title report and is subject to the restrictions covenants and or easements that may be contained therein. Do you see that note on C1? Did
you did you create that note? >> No, I did not personally create the notes that are shown on C1. And with regard to the information on notes five and six, did you review the survey um that was referenced on these plans?
>> I have reviewed the survey. >> And have you reviewed the title report or a title report in connection with this property? >> No, I have not. So, you have no idea where there's any
whether there's any deed restrictions that impact the use of this property. Correct. >> I'm not personally aware of any deed restrictions. >> Are you aware whether anyone on the development team did an a title investigation to
determine whether there's any deed restrictions impacting on the use of this property? I'm not aware. I would have to check with the people involved to see if that was conducted. >> Um, with regard to
your participation on this application, um, so you work for NBNC. >> Yes. >> Um, what percentage of work does NBNC receive from wireless carriers?
>> Um, that is not something that I know off the top of my head. I would estimate it at about 50%. >> And the work that you perform, uh, what's the percentage of engineering work that you perform that come from
wireless carrier work? >> Probably around 50%. >> Um, and you've never testified in opposition to a wireless telecommunications application. Correct. >> In opposition to >> correct. >> That is correct.
>> Okay. And have you ever served as a um municipal planning board, board of adjustments consultant in the state of New Jersey with regard to a wireless telecommunications application?
>> No, I have not. >> And you've testified for Verizon on numerous occasions in the state of New Jersey. Yes, I have. >> More than a hundred? >> No, probably not. >> Okay. But more than 50?
>> I have not kept track. >> Okay. Um, of the times that you've testified on behalf of Verizon for wireless telecommunications application, were they mostly for um a monopole configuration similar to what we have
here in Long Hill? >> Uh, no. The majority of them would be rooftop collocations. Um, but I have testified on monipole proposed monopole sites. >> And where have you testified for proposed monopole sites on behalf of Verizon in New Jersey?
>> Uh, I cannot recall. >> Okay. When was do you recall approximately the last time you provided that kind of testimony for on behalf of >> behalf of Verizon? Um, >> it's been a long it's been a few years. I can't remember. >> More than 10 years. No, not more than 10
years. >> And you don't remember what town it was? >> I do not remember. No. >> And um are you aware whether there's been in the last 50 years any prior development application concerning this
property um or the firehouse property across the street? >> I'm not entirely sure that. Can you ask that question again? >> Sure. In the last 50, well, let me maybe I phrased it incorrectly. Um, are you
aware of a development application that was brought before the municipality planning board of adjustment in the last 50 years concerning this property or the firehouse property across the street?
>> I am not aware. No. And when was the last time you were at the site? >> Um, again, this project has been going on for some time. I do not remember. Um,
sometime in last year. >> Okay. So, you have you have not been to the site since the uh application commenced hearings. Correct. >> Correct. And you were not at the site since the site plan was revised per your testimony
this evening. Correct. >> That is correct. >> And have you ever been to the site when the site was in operation? >> In terms of >> in terms of activity? >> No. No. Um, not entirely. You mean fire
department activity? I presume >> any activity? >> No. No. Do you have any independent information or knowledge as to activity that goes on on a daily, weekly, monthly, yearly basis at
this property? >> No. >> And you understand that as part of the applicant's obligations, they are required to appear before this board for both preliminary and final major site
plan approval. Correct. Yes. >> And neither you nor your office performed any type of storm water analysis for this site. Correct. >> Uh to my knowledge that has not yet been a requirement. We will certainly provide that if it is requested or required.
>> Okay. That's not what I asked you. I asked you you you have not to date performed that investigation or analysis. Correct. >> Correct. Okay. And to date, you have not performed any environmental assessment of this property. Correct.
>> That is correct. >> And you did not prepare um or I'm sorry, the applicant did not prepare and submit any type of environmental impact statement either by you or anyone else. Correct. >> Uh I know that we did not. I cannot speak to whether there has been one
prepared, but I do not believe so. >> Um, are you aware whether there's any type of environmental um investigation or contamination at this site, >> either by way of a phase one or a preliminary assessment? >> I'm not aware. And
with regard to um the surrounding area, do you have any independent knowledge of the types of uses that currently exist in the area? Let's say within 200 feet to 500 ft of
this property. No, that is beyond the scope of my engineering contract. >> And with regard to your engineering contract contract, have you actually seen, you know, you call it or I may call it a contract, a lease or uh some
sort of agreement or even an LOI for the use of this property by the fire company? >> I have not personally reviewed it. No. and just have um and I apologize if I'm I not an engineer, but can you just
clarify for me based on A5 the most recent plans? What's the closest distance from the fence for the compound and the
Commerce Street right ofway? >> The closest distance set back here. >> Yes. I want I want to know the setback from the fence. the closest distance from the fence to the beginning of the Commerce Street right ofway.
>> That is approximately 5T proposed. And when you say 5T proposed, um, is that the delineation that's kind of toward, you know, this the south west there
where it says 5 foot compound. >> Correct. >> Okay. And below that it says 25 23 feet, I'm sorry, monopole. That is correct. >> So that is the is that the distance from the edge of the right ofway to the
monopole? >> Yes. >> And is that to the closest um location of the monopole or to the center of the monopole? >> It's denoted as to the edge of the steel of the monopole. And when you have the five foot when it
says five foot compound, I noticed that there's also it looks like there's a a gate in the front of the compound with doors that open. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. So when and those doors are those
also what I'll call fence doors? >> Yes. And when those fence doors So they open toward Commerce Street, correct? >> They do. Yes. >> Okay. And when those doors are a jar or
open, what's the closest dimension or distance from those fence doors to the right ofway line? >> I would have to look at a gate detail. Um >> isn't there a gate detail on um >> There is. Yeah. on sheet C4.
>> Yep. So, if you can take a look at C4, >> that should roughly be at the right ofway line for a 10-ft gate. >> I'm sorry. Say that again. >> Yeah. Take your time, Mr. That should be roughly uh right at the
line of the right of way there when it's a jar. >> When So when it's a jar, is it actually going to be crossing into the right of way or is it just going to basically rub up against the edge of the right of way? >> I would have to validate that in detail to give you a firm answer on that.
And again, no one has brought to your attention any title restrictions involving locations of fences, gates, structures, buildings uh in relation to
uh any right of way, whether it's Commerce Street or the Crescent. Correct. >> Correct. And I'm going to go over with you in a moment the the variances. Um, did you do but before I do that, did you do any
independent investigation as the engineer of the in the pro of the project who put together the zoning information for this application to ascertain whether similar variance relief
jointly or severally um has been applied for or granted in this neighborhood. Generally, >> I personally have not done that research. Um, I'd have to check with the team that worked on that part of the project to understand if they've done
that due diligence. And are you familiar with the uh revised notice that was provide public notice that was provided for this application? >> Um, I'm familiar that it exists. I'm not
I'm not sure what aspect of it I need to be familiar with. Um but >> well uh let me So I just by way of background um I had a few months ago written a letter uh to the
board and Mr. Ferraro um identifying what I believe to be additional uh variance relief that was required for this application beyond that which the applicant pointed out. Um, Mr. Ferraro responded to that letter saying while he
believed that the I believe and I'm not trying to state the letter will speak for itself that while the notice was legally valid um that they would renote that the applicant would renotice um to include the additional relief that I had
pointed out. Are you familiar with that exchange of correspondence sir? >> Uh I am not. >> Okay. And so you did not do any type of independent investigation to determine whether the additional variances or relief that I had pointed out in my letter um were substantiated by the
ordinance or not. Correct. >> Uh not yet. No. >> No. Okay. Um, I noticed before we even get to the the variances noted, um, I I noticed that there was no variance
request for what's called a a planning variance under the municipal annuity law, which is, uh, section 34, section 35, the municipal annuity law. Do you know what a planning variance is? >> Uh, I understand the concept of it. Usually the planners and the site
acquisition specialists are focused on that part where I'm focused on the engineering and design of the site. >> Okay. But when you put together your or the person who you were supervising put together the zoning information, do you recall whether he or she or you did any type of independent investigation to
determine whether a planning variance is required for this application? >> I will have to review what we have on file. I don't I don't know that off the top of my head. >> Okay. But you're not familiar with even what a planning variance is under section 35 municipal annu law. Correct. >> Off the top of my head for this
particular variance and this particular municipality. I do not know that at section 35 is a state statute. So regard it could apply to 555 municipalities in the state of New Jersey. >> But you don't know what that is. I correct. >> I defer to the planner for this type of
expertise. Yes. Now, um you're aware that this application requires a use variance. >> Yes. >> Right. Because the use is not permitted in the zone, >> right? >> Um you're also familiar of the fact that the property is currently used for what?
>> The property is owned by the fire department and I understand that it's used as a garage for the fire department. >> Okay. You don't know how often the ve what vehicles are in the garage, do you? They when we were at the site they appeared to be out of service vehicles
but I cannot confirm that. I don't exactly know. No. >> You don't know how long the vehicles have been in the garages. Correct. >> I have no idea. No. >> Okay. And my recollection is that one of the bays that you intend to you that you intend to use one of the bays for some
telecommunications equipment. Correct. >> Yes. Verizon is proposing to put their equipment in the bay nearest to the proposed monipole on the site plan. >> And um do you know what currently that bay is is used for? >> I believe it's used for storage. That's
what I have been told. >> Um and you're also familiar with the fact that um a height variance, a D6 variance is required for this application. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Right. And
I noticed that on C3 of your plans, you've you've provided an elevation of the the proposed monopole, correct? >> Yes. >> And did did that design come from you or
that did that design come from Verizon? >> Um I'm not sure I understand the question. >> Okay. Your firm was hired to create site plans for this project. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And you there was an elevation
that you've identified on or that you wrote in or your colleague did on sheet C3. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. And it has a a height of 104 above ground level to the top of the lightning rod. Correct?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Um, first of all, in terms of the particular design that is depicted on C3, who came up with that design? Was that your firm or was that Verizon? >> Verizon specifies the radiation center 95 ft above ground level where the
antennas are centered and they specify that they want a monopole and we design the site as you see on the page. So you design the site in terms of the cabling, the um the diameter, the width of the tower,
you do all that. And that's not from Verizon, correct? >> Uh no, that's not correct. The tower will be designed ultimately by the company that fabricates the tower. >> That is >> And who is that? Who's the company? >> That is to be determined based on when the project moves forward. It'll be more
than likely a company called Valmont, Saber, or potentially ran or maybe another manufacturer. >> So, the elevation that it's on C3 of A5, that's not the final design for this
monopole. >> It is specified that the pole will be furnished to 100 foot to the top of steel and then a lightning rod to a a height of 104 ft above grade. and everything else will be determined by um
Valmont Saber or some other third party >> their licensed engineer will design the structure itself the foundation of the structure and all structural components >> therein um I I had noticed and I don't want to get ahead of ourselves but since
we're on the on the subject that a revised at the request of the board frankly that a revised visual impact study that I'm sure will be testified to at some later time by the planner um showing uh visual proposed visual
impacts of the monopole um also included a uh what the applicant refers to as a stealth tree design. Have you reviewed that? >> I have not. >> Okay. So, you weren't asked to provide any stealthing of any nature, whether
it's a a faux tree or some other stealthing technique on any of your engineering plans. Correct. >> During the last hearing, that topic came up in discussion and to my understanding, it's still a potential discussion. >> Um, but when you provided your revised
plans under date of December 5th, 2025, that wasn't included in that. Correct. >> No, the concept is still as shown on the current version of C3. >> Okay. I also noticed that um on your elevation C3 that you don't include any
colllocators. Is that correct? >> Uh that's correct. There are no colllocators shown on C3. >> Um has there been any to your knowledge as the professional engineer on the project? Does there has there been any inquiry from any potential colllocator
to colllocate at this site? >> I'm not aware nor would I typically be aware of that as an engineer. But you weren't asked as an engineer because I I'm very familiar with these kinds of plans and typically when there's a colllocator
uh either as a co-licant or even as contemplated that the applicant would sometimes provide um antennas on their elevation as potential future colllocators and show the height or
above ground level of those colllocators. You're familiar with the concept I'm referring to. >> That's certainly plausible. In this case, Verizon is showing their intended installation >> with no other potential or other colllocators. Correct. Currently, >> what is shown is Verizon's intended
installation. Um, now you it looked like that you moved jump around just a little bit the emergency backup generator to be compliant with the ordinance. It was at what 73 feet and now it's at 76 ft.
>> Yes, it's at 76'7. Okay. Did that did that movement of the generator impact any of the other equipment or infrastructure that was previously identified on the plans? >> Just the fence. >> Just the fence. >> Yes. >> In what sense? >> Uh the fence had to be pushed back to be
in line with the front of the garage there. >> This fence line here that you were asking about earlier. Previously, it was set a little bit further back. So the the fence was a greater distance
than five feet from the right of way >> on a previous version. Yes, it was. >> And on the previous version, do you remember how far back from the rightway the fence was? >> I do not recall, but we can certainly look that up and get back to you. And
the applicant's cable tray is currently zero ft from the from the from the garage. Correct. >> Uh that's how it is shown. Correct. >> Right. Um and the applicant's proposed fence
gravel compound on the west side of the garage is zero feet from the three bay garage. Correct. Sorry, say that again. >> That the the distance between the three bay garage and the proposed fence gravel
compound on the west side of the garage is also zero ft. Correct. >> Yes. Correct. >> Okay. So, let me ask you a question. The reason why I asked you both about the compound and also the cable the cable tray >> is is there a connection a physical
connection between any part of the building and the compound or the cable tray or any other equipment associated with the compound? >> Uh no outside of the cables that have to
penetrate through the wall. >> Right. So the the cables go through the wall and they're connected to the new, you know, indoor. >> Correct. Inside. Yes. >> Right. >> Yes. >> Um and how many cables are going to be protruding out of the building approximately?
>> At a minimum three. Um that may be subject to change down the line as it gets to final design. >> And you're proposing an 8 foot um chain link fence with privacy slats.
>> Uh correct. Okay. And um is there any alternative to the chain link that's being proposed at this time? >> Uh proposed currently no. Although there is certainly a consideration if there needs to be a different specification for fencing or any any of these details.
>> And even with the movement of the generator, the gener generator is still going to be 7 feet tall. >> Um I have to double check on the specs for that. It's um these things do change. Again, I can't I can't give you a 100% confirmation on
when this is built if the generator that we have in mind is going to be exactly on hand. However, it should be close to that height. >> Okay. >> It's not going to be taller than 7 ft. >> It shouldn't It should not be. It's in a It's in a sound attenuating enclosure. Um they are fairly bulky relative to the
generator itself. Does does the sound attenuation enclosure increase the height of the generator? >> It does. It's larger than the generator itself. >> So, um, let me maybe I wasn't clear in my questioning. So, is the generator 7
feet tall or the generator as enclosed 7 feet tall? >> Correct. The enclosure encompassing is 7 feet tall >> and the and the fencing is supposed to be 8t tall. Correct. >> Uh, yes. Proposed. Yes. And you're not aware of any 8 foot tall fencing within
500 ft of this property, do you? >> I have not reviewed that. No. And you talked earlier um about your additional landscaping and I and I I did even though I have to admit I strained a little bit because it was
hard to hear um on the video. I watched it and I know that there was some questioning by the board as to landscaping and you responded with the two junipers. >> Correct. >> Is that correct?
>> Yes. As shown on C1. >> Okay. So, you're not proposing any additional landscaping other than those two junipers, correct? >> Uh, currently, no. Although again, all of these details are under
consideration, if there's additional input, I'm sure that Verizon would be immutable to updating the design. I'm going to ask you about this later, but since I'm since we're on it with the junipers, if you look at C1, you have
this area that is shaded, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And how many square feet does the shaded area how much how many square feet is that comprised of? >> Uh >> is that listed somewhere?
>> I think yes it is. I don't recall uh off the top of my head. It's five 5,771 square feet. >> 5771. >> Yeah. Right here. >> Okay. And what's the purpose of the shading, sir? Uh the purpose of the shading on the
plan is just to denote that area. >> Why are you denoting that area as shaded on the plan? >> Uh that is the proposed exterior lease area per the plan. >> Okay. So what I want to know is and was that shading
area and location was that determined by NBNC or by Verizon? Uh that would be my colleague scope here site acquisition. I can't speak to what drives that but I'm sure that they can provide that.
>> Okay. So they were the ones who told you to shade in this particular dimension. >> Yes. It was conveyed to us that that is the intended area for the lease area. >> Okay. >> And you don't know how that came about or why Verizon needs
that much of a lease area? Uh my understanding is that to your earlier question about the possibility of collocation, it would potentially allow for future ground equipment for other carriers. Beyond that, I cannot speak to what that's for. >> Okay. And the ground equipment for other
carriers per your shading um would encompass an area right up to the property line on my client's property to the east. Correct. That is what the lease area is on the plan.
>> Right. And and it also includes an area um adjacent to Commerce Street that's within the front yard setback. Correct. >> Correct. >> And it's also within an area um that is encompassed within the rear yard setback
from the crescent. Correct. >> That is correct. And it's also encompassing areas where there appear to be, according to your plan, some squiggly lines. What do those squiggly lines represent? >> Squiggly lines.
>> I'm going to show you >> these ones here. >> Hold on. >> These here. Yeah, >> that is correct. There's a whole bunch of squiggly lines on the subject property that your plan C1 identifies. What do those squiggly lines represent?
>> Yeah, that is existing vegetation. >> Okay. And and you did not yourself go out to the site to determine the the accuracy of the location of those squiggly lines in relation to the drip lines of any
trees. Correct. >> Correct. I would safely say that those are approximate and graphical in nature. >> Okay. And you didn't take a look at any type of aerials of existing trees, vegetation or otherwise to substantiate the locations of those. Correct.
>> Aerial imagery. Yes. Yes, we we do that. >> Did you take look at you didn't do that, right? Okay. So, you're aware that um buffer areas under the ordinance are
required along all lot and street lines um separating non-residential uses from residential uses or residential zones. Correct. >> Yes. >> And that's not being proposed here. Correct.
Um, I think that's subject to interpretation. >> Okay. And and it's your interpretation that you're that the applicant has complied with the buffer area requirements in the township ordinance. >> I would say that the applicant is
willing to provide whatever buffers are appropriate and required. H how are you not do you know the extent to which you are not complying with the ordinance regarding buffering? >> I'm not sure that's a quantifiable value.
>> Okay. So you your statement your sworn statement is that you don't believe that the ordinance contains quantifiable standards for buffering >> in this case. I'm not sure that we are quantifying that. If we need to quantify that we will.
>> All right. Um you talked about room for colllocators in the shaded area. Um you stated earlier that you're not aware of any collocation right now. Correct. >> I am not aware of any plans for
>> and no other carrier whether it's AT&T, T-Mobile or otherwise has approached you with proposed dimensions for an out outdoor compound. Correct. >> Nobody. Nobody would approach me in the context of this project for such a
request. >> But no one on the team was approached to your knowledge and then that information was relayed to you like how how much room do we have for a compound etc. >> As an engineering consultant for Verizon that would never come across my desk or be a request directed to me
>> because they just tell you what to do and you do it in terms of the location of the compounds. >> They provide the design criteria and we design it according to the code. >> Okay. Um, did anyone provide any design criteria for any equipment other than Verizon equipment in the indoor garage bay that's being used?
>> They did not. >> Verizon did not. >> And are you familiar? Um, well, let me ask it a different way. on C1,
your own plan. You provide So, I'll make sure I have this right. Yep. You provide a zoning map. You see that? >> I do. Yes. >> Okay. Did you participate in determining um
the uh the location of that zoning map on these plans, >> like where where it's shown on the sheet? Um, not directly. No. >> Okay. Do you know where that zoning map came from? >> Uh, came from the internet, I believe.
>> From the internet. >> Yes. >> I see. Um, do you know what source that the internet used to gather this information? >> Not directly. I know that I've looked up that very map myself from the township
and from a reliable source. >> And And when did you where did you look it up? Uh most recently it was around the time of the first hearing uh to verify some details and it was from a Google search which came back to
legitimate township websites. >> What details were you verifying, sir? >> Everything that's shown on the map, the zoning districts, how the parcels are defined by the zoning map. >> Okay. >> All the particulars. It it looks like um
I see on that zoning map you identify the LI2 zone. >> You see that? >> Li 2. Yes, I see that. Just north of Stonehouse Road there. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> And then there's a lot of white to the left or to the west. >> White. Yes. >> Right. What What does that white
represent? Do you know? >> That's uh the adjacent township, I believe. >> Right. That's it's Burner Township, isn't it? Y >> right. Um, and did you do any engineering work for this project
that has anything to do with Burners Township? >> No, I did not. And you don't know anything about zoning in Bernard's Township, whether wireless telecommunication facilities are permitted in any of those
zones that may be in that white area. You didn't do any of that investigation, correct? >> That's beyond the scope of my work. >> Okay. Um, did did did Verizon provide to the township or to the fire
company as part of this application a letter of commitment to lease the e any excess space on the tower to other potential users? >> I am not aware. And
do you have as the engineer on the project, do you have any independent knowledge as to whether if if a carrier, you know, let's say it's AT&T, T-Mobile, wanted to colllocate on this tower,
would they need to come back to this board or planning board for any type of approval to your knowledge? >> Yes, I believe they would. >> And This is designed um to have a height not to exceed
um 104 ft at the lightning rod location. Correct. >> Yes. Okay. Um, is the design is this tower intended to be designed structurally
so that it could be increased in height beyond the 100 or 104 feet if desired in the future. >> As I stated before, the final design for the pole is not yet determined. Uh that is something that sometimes is
specified. You're referring to a possible extension. I do not know if there is a plan for that in this case or if there would be. Um if the requirement is to limit this at 100 ft, I'm sure that Verizon would be happy with that or
amunable to that. Uh if there are other desires that can be considered, I'm sure that everybody involved is willing to discuss that as well. It's possible, but there's no intention that I'm aware of to extend. >> But nothing on your plans, your civil
engineering plans identifies the possibility of structurally designing this elevation monopole, whether it's by
Saber, uh, Valmart, or other third parties. to exceed what is being proposed before this board. >> Yeah, there's nothing proposed as of today to extend it beyond the 100 foot tower height plus the 4ft lightning rod
as shown on the plan. Now, topography. What's the topography of this site? >> What is the topography of the site? Yeah, >> I'm not sure I understand the question.
>> What is the elevation of this property? >> I'll have to go back and look for those details. The last time I reviewed that was November 13th, the last time we were here. Uh, right now we have a reference
to zero feet just at grade. Um, I'd have to look that up unless we have it on another plan here. I don't remember, but I did look at it. >> I'm showing you >> page one. >> 277.
>> Right there it is. 277 ft. Right. >> That's what it says. Yes. >> It says, could you verify that, sir? As I said, I looked at that on November 13th of last year, I believe. And I did look at the entire area. >> You did or you didn't? You did?
>> I did. I did. >> Okay. When you looked at the entire area, what what do you define as the entire area? >> Uh the the site, the general vicinity around about 200 to 300 foot radius. >> Okay. So, so within a 200 to 300 foot
radius, you identified um ground elevations of surrounding properties. >> Yes. >> Is that depicted anywhere on your site plan, sir? >> No, it's not. >> Right. And so, did you provide that information to the board in any form?
>> Nope. >> Okay. And as we since you did it back in no was it November of 2025 or 2024? >> 2025. >> Okay. And when you did that evaluation, 200 to 300 feet uh of elevation within 200 to 300 feet, what did you find? I
saw that the topography was overall variable. Um I didn't do a detailed report or anything like that, but I was just curious about it from the commentary. >> When you say it's variable, what do you mean by variable? >> That it changes. It's not flat.
>> Go go goes up and down. Uh it goes up to the north um generally speaking. >> So it goes h as you go to the north the elevation increases. >> Yes. >> Right. And as you go down to the south
toward the railroad tracks it decreases. >> Yeah it does. >> Right. And what happens when you go to the east or the west? >> Uh I'd have to look at the maps again. I don't remember. >> You don't remember? And
see here, um, your your site, sorry, your plans show on C1, um, existing building to the southeast. East, right?
>> Yes. >> What is that existing building? >> Uh that is the neighbors uh secondary structure uh on their property. >> Okay. And um
did you identify that for purposes of dimensioning it in relation to the common property line? Uh yes, it's roughly 15 foot off the property line, I believe. It's not 100% confirmed, but I did measure that recently and I believe
that is a close to accurate, if not accurate measurement. >> When you say it's 15 feet, you're saying it's 15 feet at the closest point. >> I I'd have to I have to verify that in detail, but I can certainly provide that. >> You didn't provide that on your plan anywhere, correct? >> Uh that is correct.
>> Right. Um, and do you know whether there's any what kind of what kind of structure is that building? >> Um, I haven't studied it in detail. I don't know.
>> And do you know um where the windows are on that building in relation to the firehouse site? >> I don't remember. I looked at it at it a few months back on Google Earth. Um, that's >> But you didn't do any personal
inspection of that site of that property. Correct. >> No, that's beyond our scope. >> Um, it's beyond your scope that you then decided to put it on your plan >> to inspect the property. >> Okay. To inspect the property to Do you know how tall the property is?
>> Do I know how tall how tall that that that structure is? >> I do not know that for a fact. I would approximate it at roughly 30 feet, but I do not know. >> And do you know what type? Um, is it residential, commercial? >> It's a residential property.
And I'll skip that. You didn't do any type of uh investigation yourself as to structures in the surrounding area. Correct. >> I'm not sure I know what that means. >> Sure. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I'm sorry. Um you didn't do any inspection or investigation as to taller tall structures u in the surrounding area. Correct? >> No, we we're hired to design this particular site.
Is there a dumpster being located as far as this uh part of this application? >> A proposed dumpster? >> Yeah. >> Uh no, I do not believe so. And um with regard to Commerce Street that
you show on your plans, um you haven't done any type of investigation as to whether Commerce Street has been um accepted by the municipality, plowed, maintained or otherwise. Correct. >> I have not. There was brief discussion
around that subject at the last hearing. >> Right. But you the the construction activities for this site are going to go uh via Commerce Street, correct? >> I would assume so. Yes. >> And when you have your dimensions, I
just want to clarify this. Um, on C1 site plan, when you show dimensions to the monopole, are those dimensions to the closest location of the monopole or the center line of the monopole? >> Generally, they're dimensioning to the
closest representation of the steel itself. >> Is there when you say generally, is there any dimension to the center line of the monopole on your plane? currently no it does not appear that
there is any dimension to the center of the pole >> and um I believe there was a reference to a transformer as part of the application materials is that being proposed on the plan >> uh so that's subject to final utility coordination with the utility company um that's something that would come further
in the process there is always a potential um but that is unknown until uh we would get to that point >> so the transformer could be located anywhere on the property or just anywhere within the shaded Well, it it can't go anywhere. Of course, there's code requirements. There's coordination
with the utility company. The utility company will generally have preference andor requirement to where that's located. Um, I can't even speak to the fact of if it would have to be in that shaded area or not, but generally speaking, all Verizon equipment would be
located within the shaded area or their defined lease area within the building, >> which which includes within that sideyard setback uh adjacent to my client's property. Correct. >> Uh, correct. Although there would be nothing proposed in that sideyard setback.
>> How do you know that? >> Well, because that's how we design things. Okay. But it could be right outside the sideyard setback, right? >> It might be. Uh I wouldn't expect it to be because I believe the power source will be coming somewhere in the vicinity of Commerce Street. Yes. As of our
preliminary investigation. >> Um and you're not um familiar at all, even though you identify the existing building to the east with the um amount or level of outdoor activity at that property. Correct. >> You have at at the neighbor's property.
Yes. >> No, no, I'm not aware of that. >> Um, and you don't know anything about radio frequency, coverage, capacity, dBMs, anything like that. That's not for
you. >> I'm a lay person in terms of that. >> Okay. And you didn't do as part of your um limited review of the ordinance any investigation as to whether um there could be other locations in in
the township that for the sighting of of the intended monipole that would require less variance relief. Correct. You didn't look into that. As an engineer, we are told this is the site to design and we design this site. >> Um, with regard to the shaded area, do
you have any information as to whether that shaded area that's being leased by Verizon can be used simultaneously by the fire company or or some other subless or leie? That would have to be
reviewed in the lease. I'm not I'm not aware of that currently. >> You don't have any information as to the level of usage on Commerce Street, right, by pedestrians, vehicles or the like? >> My only knowledge is from the last hearing here. Right. And you're
proposing um I believe from your testimony, if I recall correctly, that um a ser somebody who's going to be servicing the facility would would show up what every four to six weeks >> usually. Yes. About four to six weeks. >> And and they would park where? In front
of the bay that's going to be used for the equipment. I >> I have to presume that they will have an agreement with the fire department personnel uh and they will park out of the way uh at their direction. But again, that's probably something that is either in the lease or to be determined
based on the preferences of the people that operate the facility. >> Um, >> and you talked about the uh the testing, I think, if I recall correctly, of the generator >> generator testing, and you and you said it's what, like once I can't remember what
>> So, they test it once uh when they first install it. Um, and then typically it could be about every month, but it it does vary. It's not always consistent. Uh, to my knowledge, Verizon doesn't have a strict working standard for that procedure or protocol.
>> Um, but generally, they will start it up for approximately 30 minutes to an hour uh during those routine visits uh during daytime hours. And does does this pole provide monopole
provide an opportunity for collocation if collocation were desired? >> It can theoretically if it is designed and specified that way. Yes. >> Right. Um so but given the height there could be opportunity for colllocators. Correct. >> There could potentially be. Have you done any investigation as an engineer on
the project and worked on 50% of the time wireless telecommunication applications as to how many colllocators have the capacity of colllocating on this monopole >> on this particular monopole? >> Yes, >> that would I mean I've personally I've
analyzed hundreds of monopoles from a structural standpoint. It would have to be based on the parameters and the specifications of the pole which are to be determined. But theoretically, yes, this can be designed for one, two, three, four, maybe. I mean, you could
design it for as many as would physically fit potentially. >> So, based on your experience doing these hundreds of applications, um, you surmise that as many as four additional colllocators could be on this poll potentially >> theoretically, although not probable in
this configuration. >> Um, why not probable in this configuration? uh just because there's really only three carriers in the states that operate for commercial service. >> You're talking about Verizon 18 and T-Mobile? >> Yes. >> Okay. There's no other carriers that
you're aware of. >> There are, but they're not very viable relative to the commercial service that everybody expects. Well, are you familiar with carriers other than T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon
that that have um antennas either on rooftops, monopoles, or otherwise uh within Mars County? >> Yes. >> And so if you had, let's say, four
colllocators at this property, you could potentially have four generators at this property. Correct. You could potentially, although I think you'd probably be limited by space and clearance requirements at a certain point. Okay. >> Well, based on your experience and the space and the least area, how many
collocators do you expect to be able to fit at this property? >> I'd have to analyze that in detail to tell you a good answer. And with regard to uh generators, I recall you testified at length um at the last hearing about
noise impacts or the lack thereof and that you were at, you know, 65 dBs, correct? Something like that. >> It's per the manufacturer spec sheet. >> Per the manufacturers. So my question is you haven't done any type of independent um
auditory or or or otherwise investigation to determine what the um sound impacts would be for this for this one generator. Correct. >> Up until now, no. Although we do calculations to support that at a
distance specified. So in this case, if the nearest residential lot line, excuse me, is 76 foot7 from the generator, I can give you a theoretical number of that based on the manufacturers. >> But that's theoretical based on manufacturer specifications and that's
not independently verified by you as a a sound expert. Correct. >> No, no, that's based on engineering calculations. >> Just just based on the calculations. Yeah. Correct. And um my recollection is that you came up with at whatever it was 73 at the time.
>> Yeah. >> At um at 60 64 dBs or something like that. >> I'd have to look back. >> My recollection is that you actually testified it was at 64 dBs. So have you done the calculation at 76 feet instead of the 74 feet?
>> Not yet. No. The last statement I made was just based strictly off of the manufacturer sheet. when we do a calculation, we'll be able to show that it would actually be less than that value. >> Right. And but you haven't done any type of calculation via manufacturing specifications or otherwise to determine
um what would the sound impacts or the decibel or dB impacts be if two or more generators were operating simultaneously if there was a power outage. Correct. >> That's correct. And the 65dBs that you were talking
about at the last meeting, um that's a a standard that's promulgated by the New Jersey Department of uh Environmental Protection. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Yep. >> And um 65 dBs is is a daytime uh noise standard. Correct. >> Typically. Yes. >> Right. >> Yes.
>> And the an evening uh noise standard is 50 dBs. Correct. according to the D. >> Yes. >> Right. And so just one um generator going on at night would would violate
the state noise code. Correct. >> Uh I'd have to confirm that. Again, I have not done calculations specifically for this config. >> And you haven't done calculations for for multiple generators that are going on at the same time. That is correct. >> Fair enough. And th those sound um specifications
that you're you're talking about, that's just for the generator. That doesn't take into account any sound that's emitted by the equipment itself, such as because based on my experience, like humming or some other buzzing or other
noise impacts from these types of facilities. Correct. Um, that might be a general statement. However, because the equipment itself is located inside the building, I would assume that the sound would be attenuated by the building itself from the equip.
>> Fair enough. Is there any equipment that's going to be outside the building within the compound? >> Uh, so there's the generator. Uh, there's a utility backboard um here as well as a disconnect. Um, and then obviously the >> the cable bridge, >> the cables, the bridge, and of course
the pertinances, the radios, the equipment up at the 95t height above grade >> and the the height of the I apologize because this may be on the plan already. Um, so you're proposing an 8 foot fence height. Does the Does the height because
I couldn't tell. Does the height of the cable bridge exceed that fence height? >> Um, so the detail that we have currently shows 7 foot to the bottom rack of that.
>> I'm I'm sorry, sir. just just explain what you just said because it's >> uh detail five on sheet C4 shows the general detail um as it's shown now it is not dimension to the top um I'll have to verify exactly and again these are
not always um exactly the same they can be furnished in you know as long as they're within spec so I can't guarantee that height but if there is a maximum height required of that based on the fence or any other parameters we specify that.
>> Okay. Yeah. I just obviously I'm concerned on behalf of my client if you're having an 8ft fence and you're having a cable bridge that's going to be higher than that or even at the same height that's obviously concern. >> Yeah. If we wanted to limit that height to 8t to the top of the post or even to
the top of this attachment, that's something that we can specify in the final design. The the other concern, the related concern, just for your consideration, is that if you have a residential property that's next door that's less than 100 ft away, as in my
client's property, um, and there's the ability to look down, >> right, >> at at that short distance, not not just up at the cell tower, but down into the compound that we would want to make sure
that we wouldn't be able to see any of that a pertinent equipment. >> I understand. >> Understand? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um, just give me a second. Oh, so we we went back and and I I apologize. I
neglected to ask you about this. The squiggly lines that you identified showing the tree canopies. Yes. >> Right. Um, by the way, you didn't you yourself didn't do any type of evaluation as to the trees that are
depicted um within those tree canopies in terms of diameter, breast height, um the the root systems, the dimen the the diameter of those canopies. You have no idea. Correct. >> We did not do that. >> And you didn't do any type of evaluation whether those trees that you're showing
are dead, diseased, dying, or otherwise. Correct. Um, no. >> And you didn't do any type of evaluation to determine whether those trees are evergreens, deciduous, or combination. Correct. >> Not beyond just a visual. >> Right. And so, um, you know, you talked about earlier, I neglected to ask you
when you talked about the equip the the shaded area and the need for additional area to have additional compounds for for colllocators. Um, is that going to require the removal of those trees that are depicted with those squiggly lines?
I have not made that determination at this time. >> And I may have asked you, but in artfully before, you're not sure whether there's additional room inside the the the interior bay for equipment for additional carriers, right?
>> Same thing. I have not been asked to evaluate any of this. >> Okay. And you also with regard to the trees have not done an evaluation as to um whether the existing trees
that are on the property assuming that they're not removed or compromised, dead, disease, dying, or otherwise provide a some sort of visual screen for surrounding properties. Correct. >> I have not evaluated that specifically.
No. And um and you also haven't seen, this is a question that's always asked and I forget about it, like how far up these tree trunks go before there's any type of greenery, whether it's evergreen or deciduous, to see whether you can look through it and see the adjacent
property. >> No, that's something that we can certainly provide if if it's requested or required. Um but no, I have not done any of that up until now. Um, and other other than the just so we're clear, other than the two junipers each
at Oh, no, actually it doesn't state at the junipers. Um, what are the sizes of those that are being proposed? >> Um, >> I I I thought I saw 10, but then that's the the distance. >> Yeah, that's just the spacing, >> right? Um, I would presume that we're going to
try to get some, you know, not mature, but mature enough that they're full and have them be a good size to be a good buffer to start and room to grow, so to speak. >> Okay. So, is the answer that you don't you have not determined yet the size of
these two junipers that you intend to plant to constitute your landscaping plan? >> Correct. This as shown this plan is still conceptual in many aspects and until there is further input we are ready to design it however it needs to be designed
>> and beyond the the trees that your or your colleague depicted with the squigglies um you neither you nor your client has provided any type of um
grading ing plan identifying trees that need to be removed. Correct. >> Uh grading plan for >> chose trees as in terms of your limit of disturbance or otherwise that that right now you know are going to need to be
removed. >> No, as of now I do not know if trees need to be removed. There's a note here that shows >> existing trees to be trimmed slash removed as required. That's going to be per construction requirements. >> Yeah. So that that was my next question.
Removed as required. So you haven't you identify in your plan that some trees are going to need to be potentially removed, but you don't show what those trees are, where those trees are, the type of tree, the diameter, press breast height, correct? >> The canopy of the tree. You have no
idea. Right. >> Correct. Generally speaking, a contractor who is awarded this construction contract will develop a construction plan. They're going to construct the monopole uh typically using a crane and they would determine
at that time if any sort of alteration to the existing trees would be required to ensure OSHA compliance and safe working conditions. >> Okay. So, I just heard OSHA compliance. I didn't hear ordinance compliance. >> Right. I think that's that's why we're
here today. >> Not so the the plan that you show here in terms of trimming, removing trees does not take into account what the ordinance requires in terms of landscaping, buffering, screening when
you have a residential property, your property is a budding and non-residential propert. Correct. Um, I don't believe that the property to the south where the these subject trees of squiggly lines that you're deeming are really the focal point. Um, if we need
to provide any other documentation that hasn't been provided, we will provide it. I I'm not really understanding the the question. >> You answered it. Um the
are you providing irrigation for your two junipers >> as of now? No. Um, and you have not done an evaluation as the
engineer on the project whether any of the trees that you've identified or otherwise verbally are on this plan are evergreen or deciduous where they lose their leaves in the winter. >> I think I think we cover that. >> Did you cover that? >> I'm pretty sure. >> Okay. If the answer is no, I just want
to get confirmation on that. Correct. >> No, I we have not evaluated that yet. Right. >> Okay. Oh, when you last and you you said you were at the property what once last year?
>> Yeah. >> Right. Other than that, you haven't been to the property. Correct. Just that one time. >> Just driven past it. >> Just driven past it. Just so one time you drove past it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um when the one time you were at the property and you drove past it, did you stop at the property?
Uh when I went to the property, I went I stopped at the property. How long were you at the property? >> Approximately half an hour. I don't know, an hour. >> Okay. >> And um did you take the time to um
evaluate the height of existing mature trees in the area? >> I'm gonna check again. I believe >> yes, we have covered trees. >> No, no, no. I know we covered trees >> specific question >> but but I did not know >> I I have to say I asked him about all
those things on this property. I just want to ask him in this one time that he went to the property for 30 minutes whether he did an evaluation because he's he's putting it on his plan. He's a civil engineer, licensed engineer, whether he did any type of evaluation as
to the heights of trees in the vicinity of this property. And the reason why I'm asking, I see a lot of squigglies that are off this property, and I want to know whether he did any type of evaluation as to the heights of those trees.
>> The objection stands, and I think council has ruled on it, so I'm pretty sure the board's running this meeting. >> Not Mr. Stein. Hi, >> mistake. >> If I may, the as I stated earlier, these
are graphical in nature. Um, generally speaking, as an engineer, we design the site. We're not designing the trees. If we need to provide any sort of documentation regarding the buffers, we are happy to provide that. Okay. >> Did you consult with a landscape architect in connection with this project?
>> I did not. No. Give me a second. And you don't know how often um the fire company accesses the site, correct? >> I do not know. And you don't know, just because I've done a number of um fire company
applications, um you're not familiar with whether any portion of this site is used for fire training or related purposes. >> I'm not aware of that at all. No.
And um there were a couple of questions, good really good questions um by the board and um members of the public having to do with um a structure like this um
failing, collapsing, right? Mhm. >> Um and I I heard your testimony or tried to hear the testimony. Um my question for you is have you done since the last hearing. Have you done any further
review or evaluation as to the capacity for this 104 foot tower to fall over, fall down, collapse or otherwise? >> No.
If if this tower were to fall down um and collapse and fall down to the east, it would have the potential of impacting um potentially my client's property. Correct.
>> Yes, that is correct. >> All right. I have nothing further for this witness at this point. I thank you for your answers and your patience. >> Thank you. At this time, we're we're going to take a five minute for recess and we'll be
right back. Okay, we're back on the air. >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, I have 9:17. >> Thank you. >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, um, if I may, before we open up to the public, I just have a few redirect questions um for my
engineer if that's okay. >> Thank you. So, uh, Mr. Ludas, just with respect to the fence gates, um, could those fence gates, uh, be minimized in size to make sure they don't extend over the property line? >> Yes, they can be. >> Okay.
>> And with respect to the generator that's being proposed, are you familiar with the New Jersey rags that provide a noise exemption for generators used during an emergency? >> Yes. >> And other than an emergency situation, will this generator be tested during night nighttime hours? No.
>> And based upon your evaluation of the specifications for the generator, is it still your opinion that the generator will operate within uh state and local noise regulations? >> Yes. >> With respect to the tower itself, um could the tower be built to be
extendable? >> Theoretically, yes. >> Can it also be built to be static, not accept an extension? >> Yes. >> And would Verizon accept as a condition of approval uh either one of those preferences from the board? I'm sure they would.
>> The landscaping that's being proposed on the plan, um is this u the final landscape plan? >> No, this is still preliminary and certainly can be updated per input from any board professionals or any other stakeholders. >> Okay. And with respect to the tower
itself, uh there was discussion about the fall zone and uh and potential dangers from that. Can the pole as a condition of approval be designed in a way where there is a limited fall zone? >> Yes. Uh the pole manufacturer is capable of designing the pole structure to have
an intentional failure spot so that the fall zone if the structure were to fail would stay within a smaller radius that uh than the height of the tower itself. >> So conceivably could that fall zone be limited to the property that is the subject of this application?
>> Yes. Theoretically, the pole designer can provide that design and specification for this particular design. >> And if designed in that fashion, would then that mitigate the risk of uh any tower failure um protruding off of this property? >> Yes.
>> Uh there was talk about storm water management. Can you speak to the amount of imperous coverage that's being added as a result of this installation? >> Sure. Uh the imperous area proposed for the site development here would really
be limited to the pole concrete foundation itself. Uh the foundation elements of the ice bridge which is the cable bridge from the building to the pole. Uh the concrete pad for the generator. Uh the posts for that utility
backboard and uh fence posts. um haven't detailed out that calculation, but it would be limited to approximately 60 to 80 square feet uh of impervious area. >> And is that essentially limited to the
gravel compound with the exception of the transformer, the location of which may change? >> Yes. And speaking once again to the improvements that are going in the fence compound, that fence could be changed to an opaque fence, whether it be a vinyl
fence or some other material that the board wished. >> Yes. >> Uh and that fence could be lowered or or heightened uh as needed in order to mask the equipment from surrounding properties. Is that correct?
>> Yes, to heightened to an extent. um with respect to the the improvements that are going within the compound itself except for the generator which by your testimony will be tested during daylight hours. Correct? >> Yes, that is correct.
>> Um does the cable tray make any noise? >> No. >> Does the monopole structure make any noise? >> No. >> Do the antennas make any noise? >> Only negligible if any noise. >> And then do the does the utility backboard make any noise? negligible if
any noise. >> So assuming that the generator is not being tested at the time as you said perhaps maybe once a month will this facility make any measurable level of noise during normal operations? >> No. >> Thank you. Uh no additional questions.
>> You said that the monopole doesn't make any noise. >> Correct. >> Does the wind going through the monopole make any noise? It may uh it's it's possible. >> I have a question. Um so at the last
meeting, November 13th, u I asked you a question about, you know, if the poll failed and I mentioned Superstorm Sandy, we lost a tower um off Carlton Road and what would happen if if that happened again? Like what would be what would be the outcome? >> I think we're talking about that now and
this is something that hasn't come up. It was mentioned earlier in the meeting with the uh objector attorney. >> Is that new information that you have or did you know about that previously? When I say that, I'm talking about the design of the tower where if the tower fell, it would not reach the adjacent property,
the neighbor properties. >> Yes. In particular, >> this is a this is a practice that structural engineers and designers in our industry use. uh something that I know of that I have known of and it is something that as I stated earlier the pole design is not yet determined but in
the future when that's delegated to another engineer to design it it can be requested that there be a fall zone design per their specification and that is what that engineer would furnish for Verizon when that is ordered. >> Okay. The reason why I ask is because I
think that question was asked of you earlier if you did any more research on this topic and the answer was no but yet it wasn't mentioned in the last meeting or >> yeah I did this research in this meeting yeah like 10 years ago maybe I don't know I've done it a long time ago >> so can you just describe what happens if if there's a failure and that pole comes
down so so it doesn't reach the neighbor house or property >> uh so it would be mitigated to not reach the neighbor's property in that event there would be uh theoretical the calculation is done by the structural engineer to design effectively a weak
point in the structure such that if there were an extreme event that would cause overloading to the point of an actual structural failure, it would fail at a point at a height on the tower that the height that the tower would effectively almost crumple per se and
not just fall over from the base >> but rather fall down in shorter sections within a designed limited area. >> Thank you. And that's theoretical in actuality has that Has that been tested? >> I have to do additional research. I have
to assume that yes, it has been tested and I can validate that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Or not only tested, but actually did that occur in in in reality? That's a hard thing to say because in reality when we design and analyze structures there are very conservative loading
values and then there are also conservative factors of safety and then there are also variances in material specifications. So >> I just I think I think the question >> works does it work or does has it ever worked in in reality? Are you aware of a
situation where >> I'd have to research that more extensively to tell you that definitively. >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah. >> I I have a question. You said that this would possibly be designed where there be a weak point in the cell tower where it would give way if there was type of
storm or a high wind. So let's just say it was midpoint halfway theoretically. >> Yep. >> That would snap off and not lose the house is what you're saying. That's not exactly how it would be designed. Effectively, the way that you would the way that one would specify
this design would be to say we want a fall radius of X feet and then the designer would design and analyze it such that the failure pointer points on the monopole would lead to that failure basically.
So have it in theory if it was halfway up which would be approximately 50 feet it would fall within 50 feet. It wouldn't go 100 feet obviously >> approximately. There's more to it than that but yeah basically yes >> unless there was like 100 mph winds it would snap and it could possibly go 100
or 200 feet which would hit the house >> maybe. That's again that's a lot of hard hard things to figure out. As engineers, we come up with conservative criteria and we analyze it so that those sorts of X factors are mitigated.
>> I'm just trying to relate to a branch off a tree. I don't know if it's similar whatever a lot heavier than I've seen branches crack off of trees that were 25 feet up and blow >> more than 100 feet. >> Yeah, we again we can get very deep into the technicalities of it. But the
materials themselves, for example, like if I have a steel that is ASM A36, the minimum yield strength of that steel is 36 kilops per square inch. >> In reality, when they fabricate those steel, that's the minimum. Sometimes
it's maybe 50. And so if I analyze it for 36, but it's really 50, it's probably not going to fail anyway when it sees those loads. So there are a lot of other variables that are in play here, but the mathematics and the physics involved with the calculations,
like I said, based off of a specified radius, you would design and analyze to that per the conservative criteria and then you would expect that to be the result in the event that there were loading enough to reach that failure point.
>> Very good. Mr. Simon has two questions. >> You can keep stuff here. It's fine. Um you Mr. Ferraro said asked you a question about minimizing the size of the fence gates. >> Yes. um to what extent are you
minimizing the size and how does that correspond to the distance from the aar gate to the right of way? So in other words, if you reduce the size, which I think is where where you're going, um how much by how much are you reducing
the size? And after you reduce the size, when you open the gate, how far is the gate from the rightway? >> Uh that is to be determined. If we're going to reduce the size, we would if, as we stated before, effectively when you open that gate today, it would be
right up against the right ofway line. We would reduce that. Uh, in this particular instance, as you can see, the dual swinging gate here is really typically used for vehicular access. But in this case, there's no reason to drive
a vehicle into this. We could theoretically make this gate as narrow as would fit the generator through the gate. really um there's really not an exact reason to have the gate as wide as it is currently depicted. >> Yeah, but that's TBD to be determined.
>> Again, all of this design today is the concept to convey this intent and if there are other details that need to be changed based on input from any of the stakeholders, board professionals, etc. that can all be considered.
>> Okay. Um, jumping around a little bit, you talked about in response to a question that there's an option also for opaque or vinyl fencing. When is the determination going to be made as to whether it's
going to be chain link, opaque, vinyl or other type of fencing? And also you said it can be I think you use the term heightened to an extent. So when are we going to get that final proposed design
spec, height, width so we can review it. >> So a lot of times the uh aesthetic of the fence, the finish of the fence material is a condition of the of the zoning decision as we know. So it could come at that time. Um, and as far as the
height goes, I only qualified that statement in the fact that of course as you get higher, you have to design and make sure that the fence is going to stand up for wind loads. And there's only a practical extent you can make a fence. So, uh, we would if it had to be a solid fence that would take wind load,
uh, we would analyze and design that to make sure that it would adhere to the code. >> Okay. So is your answer that at this time you don't intend to propose any additional design specification or plan revision regarding the fence
um material height or size? >> Can I can I answer that question? >> Sure. Go ahead. I don't think >> I'm not trying to put words. >> No, I understand that's why I interrupt either. But >> my point is is that Verizon will usually when we introduce photo simulations
which When we get to our planner, um there's aesthetic thing, there's aesthetic elements that become a little bit clearer, generates a lot more comment for the public or it might maybe it'll look better if the fence was white vinyl or brown vinyl or you know the
landscaping. Maybe it look better if there was more landscaping here or there. So, and we also have a tree alternative that's been submitted to the board and and is part of the record. So, we have to that aesthetic is something
that is desirable as well. So once all these this input is taken back, we can make additional revisions to the plans uh based upon that feedback. The point is we're trying to be flexible, not necessarily um just dictate this is the
only thing we can do really to show the options that are out there. >> But what you're saying is this is not civil engineering testimony. So if we can move on all of us, >> right? >> But but but it is civil engineering testimony. That's why I'm asking the questions. He's the civil. >> Well, if we're going to talk about
landscaping, that's really testimony that will come later from what Mr. Ferrer just said. They have photo simulations and they have submitted a plan. Correct. Yes. According >> however, this is an application for preliminary and final site plan
approval. Typically, as all the professionals and board members know that when you hear for a a site plan application or even for a variance application that implies a type of Dvariance that you hear landscape tree
removal related testimony from the civil engineer and that is why I'm asking this civil engineer these particular questions. I respect and I understand what council all counselors stating in terms of uh to be determined based on some future testimony. I'm all good with that. Right. I just want to make it
clear that I was trying to ask the right witness the right question. But I get it. So, let me go on. >> Of course. >> Um you you talked um about this fall zone design and that that would have to be designed by a separate um structural
engineer and that you have to look look into that. Are you familiar? You know, and I'm asking because of the short setback to Commerce Street, right? And and just just to remind the board, what's the current distance proposed
from the beginning of the poll, the monopole to the closest distance to the right of way on Commerce Street? >> That is 23 feet. >> 23 feet. Right. So if a car is traveling
along Commerce Street and there's a storm and there's a failure of the the tower, do you have experience where the tower um will not end up somewhere within that
right of way? Can that be designed or you don't know? >> Uh I'm not 100% sure. We can certainly request that be a design if that is the desired parameter to adhere to. and the um the the existing I just asked you
about the the monopole the uh setback the front setback front yard setback distance from the building to commerce street is what existing >> uh the front the front yard setback is I don't know if that's technically a
front yard setback is it >> well it's >> front yard set back to here uh >> well no it's to the right of way. So, what is it? >> Yeah, that's 10 feet plus or minus. >> Okay. So, so it's 10 feet and the required 25 ft, correct?
>> Um, >> according to the zoning table that one of your colleagues prepared. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, and then the setback to the garage bay that you intend to use for the equipment is going to be less than
the 25 ft as well, correct? >> Yeah, that's the existing structure, >> right? Um okay nothing further. Thank you. >> We can open to the public. >> No further redirect. >> Any redirect >> public?
The uh floor is now open to the public for questions. Questions only, not comments. Charles Renoitz, Millington, have you or your firm done other engineering work for this monopole at
other sites? >> Yes, we've designed many monopol. >> Now, for this one, have you done engineering work for this pole at other sites in this town? >> For this particular poll? >> Yes. >> Uh, not that I'm aware of currently.
You've done no preliminary design or anything like that. >> Oh, like an alternate site, you mean? >> Yes. >> Uh, no. >> No, we have not. >> You were your partners? No, >> we have not been ordered to design a different site. This is the only site, to my knowledge, that we've been
directed to design for Verizon. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Any other questions? Good. How are you? >> David Hans 48 winding way Sterling New Jersey and Hans HDS
and just for full disclosure planning board member not planning board member. So just a few questions I think based upon your testimony if I might. >> Yeah. >> And I also might want to refer maybe for the land use Uh tell you have a planner coming here as well.
>> There is a planner. Y >> these some of these questions may be more people to the planner. >> Then we'll just ask those when that testifies. >> Let me just ask a couple of questions. So I think I heard 76 ft from the
structure to the residential line. >> Um that was to the generator itself. Um it's part of the monle. >> Uh 65 ft from the moniple to the residential line. In your experience in other town knowing we have no ordinance. >> Yep. >> In your experience in other towns, what
has been the general distance from the site to the residential? >> It it does vary pretty wildly. Uh generally it's it is greater than 65 ft. >> Right. I'll just refer to the model ordinance for cell towers. It says no tower should be constructed
without setback of space. You're going to check because whatever ordinance section is being read is not the ordinance of Long Hill Township. >> Correct. >> So, >> can I refer to model ordinance >> to a model ordinance? >> Model ordinance? >> No, because it it hasn't been adopted.
It hasn't been adopted. Long Hill Township. >> Okay. So, forget about Long Hill Township in general. You have not been various. It's more than >> it does vary widely across municipalities, counties, states, eter one and a half times at least. Generally
that's a a decent assumption. >> Less than one and a half or one less than one and a half. >> Uh again it's there's no actual standard. >> Okay. Nor says one and a half to two and a half. >> Yeah. >> If I may refer to some of the uh court
the cases referred in the application. >> Sorry as a question. as a question based upon the what has been presented in the uh in the application. Okay. >> I'm not aware of that. What what is that document? >> The question.
>> Yeah. So, let's just work on height or variance in a second. >> Okay. One of the uh citations is Kingwood Township Fire Company versus Board of Adjustment. I think they declined it then it got approved. >> I'm not familiar.
>> Maybe a question. on the record because I believe the gentleman is reading case logs to the engineer. >> I wait beyond the scope of his. >> No, it's reference to the fact that we're talking about something that's quite considerably high in relation to
the because you testified falling over, >> right? You can you said it would not should not if it should happen 100t 76 feet if it falls over it's going to hit something. Correct. Um well I mentioned that the pole that's still to be
designed can be designed such that the fall zone is limited to mitigate falling on the adjacent structure. >> Right. And I just want to point out some of these court cases the properties in question consider
>> well I I'll save it for the planner then. >> Can I answer? >> Yes. Because the civil engineer has not testified in that regard at all. So that that's not a question from him right now. The questions are simply uh for the
civil engineer, his plans and his testimony. >> And he meant he testified 76 ft and that's narrow compared to many other towns. >> Yes. The monopole as proposed is 65 ft from the residential lot line.
>> Right. And in best practice, do you think that should be at least a distance away from the height of the in case of failure? Uh well, in my opinion, as I stated, there are designs that can accommodate this risk. Okay. And mitigate this risk.
>> And I'll bring these these cases back when the planet comes up if that's right. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry. I can I ask you a question? Why can't he show us the cases where there's been failure? Because I asked a question about that and there was no data on it. >> Well, no. Right now, >> I just questioning the civil engineer
and >> uh and his testimony. >> So, whatever his testimony was. >> Okay. Anything was unclear. Fair enough. That's what the questions are for. >> And that's fair enough. I didn't want to over overstep, >> but I did know for someone who's going to come for town planner tonight until you just said that they were coming. >> I don't think we're going to get to them
tonight, but they >> I missed the first one. So, I don't know if the town planner did they testify the first one. >> No, they did not. >> So, they never testify. >> You didn't miss much. >> How about come back again? >> You have to watch the November. >> I'll come back. We all do. >> Thank you.
Hi >> Donna Ganji 60 for L Road. Um I have a question. So when you um I don't know the scope of your work as a civil engineer but was part of it to take the
whole area oh sorry take the whole area maybe a drone picture and kind of so that you know the board could see what this um monopole would look like from like I live up on the hill um people
live a little bit up um to show what it would look like to everybody else. I know there's the site. Yep. >> But then how that site fits in with the rest of the town. Sure. Is that part of your scope? >> That's not part of the civil engineering scope. However, uh the planner has
prepared photo exhibits that would show what it would look like from different vantage points around. >> Um and I believe that they can testify to that as uh as we get to that. >> Have you seen those? >> Yes. >> Can we see those? >> Those simulations are on record with the
town. >> They are. >> So they're a matter of public record >> and they're on the website. >> Great. They are. Oh, there's a website. Okay, great. One final question. It's not for you, but when do we ask you questions? >> The board. >> Yeah. >> No, you don't ask.
>> Oh, sorry. Or when can we make com when can we make comments? >> At the end. At the end. You can make your comments. You can give testimony and you can give comments. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Of course. >> Sure. G A N G I. >> Thanks.
>> Excuse me. >> Hi. Uh Jeffrey Bot uh president of Millington, also uh in disclosure, member of the Millington Volunteer Fire Company. Uh I understand that the monopole can be designed such that it can collapse at a point of failure. Uh, what about the garage that is holding
emergency equipment that is 6 feet away from the structure? >> That's a good question. Um, I would say that it would not be feasible to design the pole within a fall zone to mitigate any potential damage to the adjacent building.
>> Um, okay. Thank you. You're welcome. >> Anyone else? Any questions? Sorry. Um Leslie Flora from Overlook Road. Um you mentioned, I believe, that you didn't study or nothing was proposed about
doing um a stealth pole or a tree design pole. There was a there was a previous discussion at the first hearing about uh potentially um either a tree tree type pole. Uh I if I recall correctly, there
may have also been a discussion on the um stealth like concealed pole, although that is not a preferred option from a general um RF design perspective. Um but yes, all of these are potential design solutions
for a structure of this nature. Okay. Because I saw in the recent submission of the visual the photo simulation um that the monopole had been disguised as a tree and I just wasn't sure if that was that
actually feasible or efficient for this >> for this project. >> It it should be technically feasible if that's the decision that's ultimately made. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none and close it to the
audience. Um Mr. Chairman, um I would propose if there's no objection to recall Mr. Panesso very briefly. Um, if the board recalls at the last meeting, there was some questions regarding the emissions
levels from the property next door and also um some distances beyond that. So, uh, Mr. Panesso did prepare a supplemental uh, radio frequency emissions exposure report and um would like to address that before we move on
to site acquisition. >> Okay. >> So, uh, recalling uh, Mr. Daniel Panessa. >> First name Daniel, last name Panesso. P N E S S O. And as
>> Mr. Panessa, you acknowledge that you are still under oath and you understand that you are still under oath. >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Uh Mr. Panessa, you gave testimony uh at the prior hearing indicating that the Monopole facility, if approved, would
comply with FCC uh emission standards. Is that correct? >> That is correct. And in in response to some of the questions of the public, um did you prepare this supplemental report entitled supplemental radio frequency exposure FCC compliance assessment
report dated November 21st, 2025. >> Correct? Yes. >> Okay. So I'll mark this as A6 today's date. So uh Mr. Panesso, I would just ask you to um to review the analysis and
conclusions in this report and then just uh review your findings. >> Okay. So, the supplemental report was uh as Frank just mentioned uh created because we had questions regarding um uh the adjacent neighboring property and
what um the emissions were in that area. Um so the report that uh was submitted shows that any structure beyond 91 ft from the proposed monopole and less than 80 ft tall is in full compliance with
the FCC guidelines. >> So and uh did you also extrapolate the percentages of the FCC allowable limit? Yes. >> Various distances. >> Yes. And so then if you look on page four, there was a table that's included, table one, which gives the the maximum
permissible exposure percentage at certain distances. The highest incident is at 87 ft from the pole, which is 4.75% of the MPE level. And then anywhere else
in the area, it's less than that. So there were um if I recall questions specifically um with distances. So are there additional distances and calculations in this report? >> Yes. >> So um could you just extrapolate on 150 ft from the tower what that uh MPE
percentage would be? >> Yes. So at 150 ft it would be 3.1942. At 250 ft 2.9487 and at 500 ft 1.9575. Okay. And these uh calculations were
done in the similar or the same fashion as the first report that we marked into the record. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. And this is in accordance with um federal guidelines for radio frequency missions compliance. >> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. So specifically um based upon your
supplemental report um is it still your opinion that the site if approved will operate well within FCC allowable limits for radio frequenc radio frequency exposure? >> That is correct. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, no additional questions of Mr. >> Panessa.
Chair, >> can I ask a question of our radio frequency engineer at this point? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. So, we've heard a lot of testimony, right? A lot of it is to me gobbly good. Right. We're talking about highly technical stuff, but my understanding of this is that we cannot
make a decision based on the radio frequency results that he presents us because he's in compliance with the FCC and it's really outside of our purview, which is great. How do we as a board like interpret that and know that that is in compliance? Is that what you're
here for? And can you help us with that? And secondly, is there ever a situation where it's not that what's stated? Do we ever like and measure this stuff or how do we know they're in compliance and who's who's responsible for that on an ongoing basis to go out there
periodically or once just to make sure that it is we are getting the RF that was presented to us in this board. >> Excellent. Thank you for having me. I'm Paul Row RF engineer RF expert I should say and yes that's a good question. Basically, yeah. If if the applicant
wireless carrier demonstrates through their rigorous analysis based on the uh the section of the code of federal regulations that the proposed site will be in compliance with the FCC maximum permitted exposure limits, then then as long as it's demonstrated reasonably and
systematically, then yeah, that that's something that is beyond the purview of our land use board. That being said, once the site is up, you could give a reasonable required maybe once a year, every six months that someone goes out with like a physical spectrometer and there's a series of readings like around
the perimeter residential areas. Just something to, you know, it could be like a reasonable condition to say, hey, go 100 feet away, 50 feet away and see if it really is 4% of the MPE or 3% and and then that maybe every year, every other year. >> That's something that can be done on an
ongoing basis stated in the conditions of approval. Yeah, it's it's reasonable. Yeah, if it's reasonable, not overbearing to the applicant, generally that that's that's acceptable. >> And then lastly, just for the sake of this board, if anybody else cares and and our residents, just explain to us
like really what's behind the the RF that would come from a typical cell tower from somebody that lives say say very close to somebody who lives 75 feet from it versus somebody who lives 100 or 200. What what does that exposure do to you over time do to humans over time?
Well, generally the the exposure one's going to get like as as um the gentleman mentioned from a cell tower that's 100 feet tall, Verizon's antennas are at 95 feet. So by the time inversely proportional to the distance like the square of the radius by the time you hit the signal propagates so much by the
time it hits ground level, it's really dissipated. Your phone by your ear is probably giving you five times more exposure. Just being in this room here with everyone's cell phones, tablets, Wi-Fi devices, and all this stuff in this field in here. We brought a spectrometer in here, it's pretty
certain there'd be a higher level here than if one stood like like right at the base of a cell tower 100 feet away. That being said, because radio frequencies are nonionizing, they're not like causing any they're not knocking electrons off your your your cells and
your and your molecules. They're just having very very slight thermal heating effects and the limits that the FCC sets is supposed to make it where those are negligible like they're like barely like barely barely present. That's what the FCC says. And uh generally it's
corroborated by like numerous studies. There's a few out there that that run contrary, but the effects you're getting by being 100 feet from a cell tower are going to be dimminimous. like one millatt per centimeter squared is the uh
of your of your tissue is the MPE. It's like one millowatt. Think of like a one watt light bulb and divide that by a thousand and it's 5% of that. So you're talking like I don't know peak watts whatever whatever the the small the smaller term is. So very minimal exposure and very very minimal thermal
effects in my in my opinion. >> Thank you very much. >> Of course. Thank you. >> I I have a question possibly. Sorry about that. Closer for you because I asked the civil engineer about uh noise coming from a
cell tower. Uh and he indicated that noise does come from the cell tower when wind blows through it. But uh with radio frequencies and you're talking about the levels of radiation coming out of it. I guess I'm a little more curious since you guys are the radio frequency uh
experts. What kind of noise comes from a cell tower? Well, cell tower, usually it's the the radios give a little bit of a hum. The generators, the loudest thing by far, as they covered before, the remote radio heads, they're the things that send the power to the antennas, a little bit of a
buzz going on. But they're all going to be if to my understanding, a lot of the equipment is going to be inside the the garage, like inside like an enclosure. So, you're going to have the be within the garage, you're not going to get any noise from that. And the actual stuff on the tower is going to be 100 feet up. though you're going to have radio heads
on the tower 100t up. I I'd imagine there's going to be almost no noise at all. >> So the radio heads still make noise. Just the stuff inside the building makes >> No, they do. But at a 100 feet high in in the sky, the radio heads, you know, I've been around them. They like you hear like this very faint buzzing sound
from them, but at 100 feet altitude, I I can't imagine. >> So the tower buzzes. >> No, the tower doesn't buzz. radio heads are like they're about the size of a microwave oven and you these little >> like back in the day you had coaxial cables going from ground they went all the way up to the antennas like literally like the signal went right
there. Now you send power and fiber up to the tower's elevation and that power and fiber runs into these little boxes and those are the radios and then they send the power out sorry to the antenna and uh that I do not believe that will be audible at the ground level.
>> Can I ask you a question about that? Do you mind if I ask a followup? >> Sure. Will there be any sound that will be emitting from that site that you can hear with the give us a distance for how far away from that tower or the garage or anything you will you will hear that humming or that sound or the radio
sound? Is it 50 ft, 20 ft or not at all? >> Yeah. No, basically I would guess based on the characteristics of the site with an indoor equipment center for the larger cabinets, the battery cat racks and and the network racks and the radios being 100 feet in the sky. I'd imagine
other than the generator, you're not going to hear anything. >> But doesn't all that stuff create a lot of heat? Is there air conditioning that runs to keep it cool >> inside the building? Yeah, there's probably going to be some sort of cooling mechanism for the summer. Something like a some sort of uh and and you're right. If that
>> I can hear my neighbor's air conditioner all the time. >> Yeah, that that's that's a that's a good second order effect that So, the the air conditioner powering the inside of the equipment enclosure to keep it cool. Maybe there there might be a noise level
from that. I I'd have to wait on someone to comment on that. The designer, >> what do you think about? >> He's I agree with what he's saying >> that air conditioners make noise >> because the the antennas themselves and the radio remote radio heads will not make any noise. The only thing that you
would hear maybe a air conditioner cooling the base station equipment inside the garage and the generator. that that air conditioner that would be required for that. Is that like a is it a residential air conditioner? Is it something more industrial? What would be
needed? >> Um that would be based on the I I don't have any that's not my forte. >> All right. Engineering question. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> But I would assume it's just a standard just a cool >> placement of that if we get to that point. >> Right. And I mean just if I may there's
no AC there's no AC condenser focused on the plant. So, >> so your equipment isn't going to be cooled. >> No, I mean generally they can put fans inside the equipment run inside and that's >> that can right now there is no exterior
AC units. >> Well, that that's an engineering question. >> We can't have council testifying in that regard. >> Yeah. Questions from the board. Oh, I have no additional questions.
>> Mr. Simon has questions. >> Just 81. >> Um, Mr. Mr. Panessa, you're the author of this report dated November 21st, 2025. >> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. And you're the author of the
prior did you um create a prior report that was submitted to the board date? >> Sorry. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. >> Parameters of the cross examination. Is there going to be Mr. Panesso's testimony tonight or Mr. Panesso's
testimony in total open and close? I'm just asking. >> Well, well, no. Mr. Simon has not had the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Mr. Panessa at all. So my assumption correct Mr. Simon that you are going to >> No, no, no. Hold on. >> Okay. >> Um I play fair always.
>> Okay. >> I was not present. >> Correct. >> During the initial testimony from this witness, I do not think it's fair for me to cross-examine this witness or any of the other witnesses who previously gave testimony. Okay. um uh by virtue of the
fact that I'm showing up the second hearing, notwithstanding the fact that I challenge the notice, I reserve my rights on that. But I think in fairness to the procedure, the proceeding, I'm not intending to start over and and although I could not to cross-examine, I
just want to get some foundation laid with regard to this witness's testimony for tonight. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, Mr. Panesso, there was a prior, it looked like it was a July 24, 2025
Verizon report, right? You're familiar with that? >> I am. Yes. >> Regarding the regarding um RF emissions? >> Yes. >> Right. Did you author that report? >> No. >> No. So your was your testimony at the
last hearing. I'm just asking generally. It was not based on any report that you had previously submitted to the board. Correct. >> No, I did not submit the report. I reviewed the report. >> You reviewed the report. Correct. >> But but you had nothing to you were not
the author of the report nor did you participate in the creation of the information that uh was contained in that July 24th report. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So now there's
you you're associated with Medley Networks. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And and Medley Networks this November 21st, 2025 report is the first report that Medley Networks submitted in support of this application. Correct. >> No. Med the first report and this report
are through Medley. >> Okay. But the first report was not authored by you. >> No. Through colleagues of mine. >> Through colleagues of yours. Okay. um and that you didn't participate in, but you did participate in this report. >> Correct. >> Okay. And I see that you you signed this
report dated November 21st, 2025. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Are you are you a licensed professional in the state of New Jersey? >> No, I'm not. >> Okay. And um this person um Alexandra
Kitanowski who also signed the report is is it a she? >> She's a she. Yes. >> Is is is she um a licensed professional in the state of New Jersey? >> No, she is not. >> She isn't. So >> radio frequency engineers are not licensed in the state of New Jersey. >> Okay. So um you you have no licensure or
training um associated with the state of New Jersey. Correct. >> Correct. No licensing. >> Any training? >> No training with RF engineering. There is no licensing. >> Have you um testified in in the state of
New Jersey before land use sports? >> Yes. Hundreds of times. >> Hundreds of times. >> Yes. >> I'm old. Like uh very old. >> Very old. Okay. Um, with regard to your your findings here, um, in your the
report that you signed dated November 21st, 2025, um, you come up with a, um, MP of was it says because I think you testified 4.7, but is it 4.5? >> 4.5.
>> 4.5 maximum permissible or maximum permissible exposure percentage. It says 87 feet from the proposed site. >> Correct. >> What is that supposed to represent? Is that 87 feet the distance from my client's property? >> No. From the proposed monopole. >> From the proposed monopole to where?
>> Out. Out from the proposed monopole to the ground level. >> To the ground level. Yeah. Does that um correspond to a location on my client's property? >> If you look at this here, I can show you. We have another >> just have you can reference the >> so I'll reference page number two in the
report and in this uh image you can see the location of the monopole and there the coordinates of the monalipole and this radius circle here is the distance of 91.15 ft. So at 87 feet out from the center of
the monopole, that's the highest incident of the 4.5. >> So the percent for the MP level, >> the residential structure is located at 91 ft. >> Yes. >> Okay. And um >> but this is the this this structure here. I'm not sure if it's a garage or
what that is. >> You don't know what it is. You have >> it's a it's a it's a garage with a resident. I that's what I was told. Okay. And um is there any um effects in terms of maximum uh
permissible exposure on anyone that may be working on behalf of the fire company on the property inside or outside? >> I'm going to object to the question because I believe it's asking for Mr.
Pineso to apply as to health effects. >> Yes. >> Not not the the EM uh percentage from the facility. >> Well, no. I'm asking him for the EM percentage from the facility. The impacts if you were a human working
inside or outside at the fire company. >> I once again object to the question because Mr. Pesso is here to demonstrate whether or not the site if approved will will comply with FCC emission standards. The FCC determines what's what's safe
and what's not, right? >> Um, all Mr. Pesso is here to do is testify as to whether we meet those standards. >> Well, he's providing distances and measurements from various >> Yes. And it's it's demonstrating that it is safe. >> Okay. So, um, so you you're providing
>> for the FCC guidines. >> Okay. >> Demonstrating that it's within FCC levels. Correct. >> It's it's demonstrating that it's in compliance with the FCC guidelines. We are well below the 100% threshold. We're 22 times below the FCC guidelines.
>> No, understood. But when you use words like safe, I understand Mr. >> Simon's question then. >> Right. With with it. So if if I am >> working as a volunteer member of the fire company all day
inside the facility while assuming that the monopole is in operation, what will the impact be if any as to exposure limits to those to that person or people
I am working at the facility all day, all night. Okay. I have a 100 foot cell tower currently with just one carrier. Okay. What is your professional opinion of the emissions impacts if any on that
person or people? >> It's the same question. >> Yes. Understood. So then the question in your opinion should be I think the board the board should not be not consider health effects of radio frequency.
>> The only thing the board consider is whether the site will be in compiance. >> Correct. >> So that's >> all all I want to know is this. They submitted a report. >> Mr. Panesso showed me page two and said, "Hey, the,
you know, from the nearest structure, okay, here is what the the reading is." Okay, that's his testimony from his report that he co-authored. And I would like to know what's the reading or this
MP percentage that he has a nice little chart on on page four >> for the distance from the tower to somebody who's working at the firehouse. Okay. Fire company. >> So it's the distance from the tower to
that structure you're talking about. Not necessarily a person that's inside the structure, but the structure. You want to know? >> Sure. To the to the structure. >> To the structure. But as I testified, anywhere around the site, it's in compliance. >> Okay. >> It's in compliance.
>> What's the percentage? >> Any they were going to add another part of the chart. >> What's what are those numbers? The distance. I'm at the base of I'm working at the base of the tower. I'm actually inside
next to the bay where all the equipment is working all day. >> Okay. So, as I stated at 87 feet, it's 4 Let me put my glasses back on. 4.5%. Anywhere else it's less than that. That is the highest incident at 87 feet
because the antennas propagate outward. Anything directly under the pole is less. Anything further away than 87 ft is less. So the maximum is at 87 feet. That's has to do with the the um the antenna pattern itself. >> I think that answers.
>> So okay, I I don't know. In layman's terms, it's the they have a vertical antenna beam width. >> Just sake of >> Yes, >> a lot of people are watching. >> I think that answer does does that
MP percentage change and I apologize if the question's ignorant. Does that change if the exposure is extended? In other words, if I am 87
feet away from the proposed site for five minutes, okay, there's a percentage and if I'm there for 145 minutes, does it change? This is for
this is for continuous exposure for any age, weight, height or uh sex what for everybody's included for this >> and is there any this is going to be convoluted but I'm going to ask it is
there any else in the area you talked about cell phones wifi other other devices equipment that gives off emissions
that would contribute to that percentage. For example, I cross-examined a witness once, a radio frequency emissions expert, and I said, "Where is the worst place?" I need the answer. Where is the worst place in New
Jersey to put a cell tower given emissions? And they said, "West Orange." And he told me exactly where it was because there's all these television antennas and other types of antennas and other systems. And he said, "That's the
worst reading I've ever seen in the state of New Jersey." My question to you is, is there in a long- winded fashion, is there anything in this particular area that would contribute negatively, I say, to that percentage
that you're aware of? >> To my knowledge, no. >> Okay. Nothing further. Thank you. members. >> Questions open to the public questions. >> That's solely for this witness. Correct.
>> Yes. >> Good evening. Good evening. >> Hi, I'm Joe Godla. I live in Milan. Um, I believe you testified that your calculations are based on a ground the ground level
going out those various radius. Um, and that's assuming a perfectly flat ground level. >> Um, I'll let you finish your question. Go ahead. Well, you also said that the radio frequency emanate or propagates
directly out. So for those of us that live on Taft drive exactly at the same level as the top of this tower, >> what are those levels at at that at that site? >> So I'll I'll show you this. I'm going to
refer to the report on page three. This is showing the elevation of the antennas. And then this is showing the emissions. So anything beyond 91 feet and anything less than 80 feet is in compliance. So you're there and and then
I'll go and I'll show you here on the >> So we're all 90 to 110 ft. >> There's no one there's no structure. The closest structure is this property here. This radius is the 91.515 ft. And there are no structures within
that in that and especially at that height. You would have to be an 80 foot structure within this circle to be affected. So there are no structures nearby this >> hill right here that's 100 feet high, >> right? But there's no within this you
this radius is the 91 ft radius. You see this going out right here is 91 ft. There are no structures within this radius that are 80 feet tall. So beyond the 91 >> is is is safe is is I should say let me
rephrase it is it complies with the FCC guidelines for maximum permissible exposure. >> Okay. >> Hi Lisa Wright uh Old Forge Road. A quick question for you. We keep talking about the FCC guidelines. When were they
established? >> 1997. >> Yeah. And when have they been revisited? >> I think they were revisited a couple of years ago, but they they were um they they made no changes. >> Well, there was a it's my understanding that there was a court order, but they
haven't actually fully satisfied the court order. >> Yeah. I think that was related to the uh administrative procedures act. I think they didn't follow a proper notice and there was a there was it was more of an administrative thing, but that is that is correct. There was a there was a determination of no further action, no
change to the standards and there was a there was a court case and I believe I don't know the exact details but it had something to do with the administrative process they followed as opposed to saying there was some something that was unsafe that wasn't disclosed. >> It was actually the children's health defense fund and they're now taking them
back to court because they haven't complied with the court order. But I guess my bigger question is, and I know we can't make decisions on this, but I just want folks to know that um >> well, this is just time for questions of the RF engineer.
>> I'll say this gentleman, >> uh Joe Fazari, Sterling, >> F as in Frank, Az. So I just I have a qu you said the radius was 87 feet or 86 feet. >> No the radius is for this particular
image >> for this particular >> 91.15 ft. So, has there any been any study, it may not be uh relevant for your uh subject matter expertise, but any study ever done for properties within that radius or immediately outside of that radius whose property
value has been adversely impacted expos >> that's that's not a question for that's not my >> Thank you. Thank you. >> One more question.
Hi Karen Brozky, Old Forge Road, Millington. So your report talks about the guideline and 4.5% at 87 ft. So when it talks about exposure,
what period does that 4.5% take place during? I'm a lay person, but what I've read is it's a maximum period of 30 minutes. >> No. So the the 4.7 4.5% is the maximum
MPE level that if all frequencies were operating at the same time, that's what the level would be all the time. And it's showing it's it's show representing that it's well below the 100% threshold. You could go up to 100% and still be in
compliance because there's a safety margin in place that the FCC set forth. So, this is demonstrating that the site is in full compliance at all times. >> It's well below the FCC guidelines. It's 22 times below the threshold. So the f
so the guidelines refer to exposure time to structures which don't cumulatively >> but this could this is the you could be there 24/7 at that level and you're not and you're >> in compian 5%
the first 30 minutes plus% the second 30 minutes plus 4.5%. Oh, no. That's the that is the percentage right at that all the time. Your body is you're you're not it's not a cumulative thing that keeps adding and adding and
adding. You don't have other as uh the attorney just asked, are there other structures that I know of or other things that are going to add to that? There aren't any to my knowledge. >> Thank you. >> So, that's the maximum. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Any other questions?
At this point, we'll close it to the public. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> I'll leave it there. >> Mr. Considering the hour, do you have anything you'd like to >> Mr. Forever?
>> Sorry, this Italian name was close. >> Ended in a vow. Um so um Mr. Chairman where we are in the uh presentation now is we have our site acquisition consultant who you know
we're prepared to move forward. I know it's late, but if the board will consider it, we'll start it. If uh it's really at the board's pleasure >> at this point, I I'd like to see if anyone How late would
this be? >> It's going to take It's going to take a while. >> It's got 12 minutes. I think >> it's not going to be 12 minutes. >> Yeah, it's probably better to carry it over to the next meeting. >> It's whatever the board prefers. >> Just
too late. >> I'm always willing to help the applicant and the residents, >> but considering the duration that we expect on this, >> I don't know that it's really the right thing to do because we're going to be here at making continuation motions at 11:30
and whatever else. So, willing to do that if we have to, but I don't think we have to. I think we're going to be here anyway. >> We do want to hear the public. Of course. >> Absolutely. We want to hear the public. >> Since we just took two minutes of doing that, it's we've got 10 minutes. I think that perhaps we should >> in that case this would be probably a
good break point I would think Mr. Chairman >> sorry >> the next hearing date >> March 17th >> March 17th is is March 17th >> March 17th >> is that okay >> okay >> that um will that be carried on the
record without additional notice required >> yes yes >> uh Mr. Simon March 17th works for you. >> I consult with Mr. Simon >> and and uh and your professionals also. >> Everyone is will be available. >> Okay. For March >> as of right now, yes, everybody is
available. >> And then this this hearing for members of the public, this hearing will be carried to March 17th without further notice. 7:30 p.m. >> No, no, no, no. We still have testimony that will be heard on March 17th. So,
this hearing is being carried without further notice to March 17th. >> Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you, counselor. >> Oh, no. That's okay. >> Could you remind the public still in session? >> Excuse me. We're still in session. So,
please keep your uh comments to yourselves. >> I don't think they're listening. >> Not at all. >> Ladies and gentlemen of the public, we're still in session. So, if you could please keep the talking down and exit the courtroom and then you can continue your conversations.
>> Talk. >> Come on. You got to use your big boy voice here. >> Get out. >> That's terrible. >> We got to do the uh old and new business and then we can do that. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Any old business?
Seeing none, any new business? >> Well, I just want to remind the board that um in the next two hearings, you've got applications. So, I'm going to try to we're going to try to get through three on the next hearing in two weeks. And then uh you have a dunk the Dunkin
Donuts application and another uh residential coming up on March 3rd. >> We have three applications in one meeting. >> Yes, you do. >> What type are they? >> Fun. >> Easy. >> Easy. Nothing's easy. family residential
>> swimming pool >> existing nonform to a house or something. >> Yeah, there they're existing they're existing non-conforming conditions >> treehouse fact are are all three matters that don't involve professional >> there's only one matter that involves you and the other two matters I have
consulted with the board chair and the vice chair and they've both agreed that two of the matters don't require any review from our board professionals. Okay. I have one more resolution that is going to have to be adopted in February, probably at the next meeting. The notice
resolution. Now, I I don't know. Have Have you confirmed with our municipal clerk? >> I have briefly. We have We actually may have a meeting tomorrow about it. >> Okay. >> I haven't confirmed the time yet, but from my understanding, we have a meeting tomorrow. Okay. So
>> because uh and how are the so the the applicants for these hearings that are upcoming they have uh given the same notice that we've always >> correct the three applicants that are on this which which is the 17th I think
yes the 17th put notice in the echoes for this week >> okay >> and they will be sending out to the 200 >> okay that's all I wanted >> I was under the impression the statute doesn't take effect till mid-March >> uh actually March March 1st. So, we have to be we have to be in compliance by by March 1st. I just want to make sure that
we have we passed the uh resolution and uh we're ready to go. So, applicants moving forward are going to have less of a burden at least in terms of trying it public trying to get it published in a newspaper. They will still have to be given 200 foot notice, you know, in
letters to >> So, I'll put that on the 17th agenda as well. >> Yes, please. Thank you. >> Great. Can I get a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? All right.