Welcome to tonight's meeting of the zoning board of adjustment of the township of union which is being held pursuant to the open public meeting law C231 laws of New Jersey dated 1975. Notice of this meeting was advertised in the local source, the newspaper of
record, and notice has been posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building adjacent to the municipal clerk's office. Roll call. >> Mr. Wy >> here. >> Miss Martins >> here. >> Mr. Bentegan >> here. >> Miss Scott >> here. >> Mr. McNeel >> here.
>> Miss Little >> here. >> Mr. Graves is absent. Miss Rickettts >> here. >> Mr. Champion >> here. There being a quorum present, this meeting is now declared open. At this time, I'll entertain a motion for the approval of the minutes from our March
18th and March 25th meetings. >> Mr. Chairman, I move that the meeting minutes of March 18th and March 25th, 2026 be approved as written and dispensed with their reading.
>> All in favor? I >> opposed. So moved. Are there any communications? Mr. Monguso. >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, there are no communications. >> Hearing none. We have one case this evening. Calendar number 3473, New
Singular Wireless PCS LLC, otherwise AT&T. Location is 2322 Mars Avenue, block 39:15, lot 17.01. Applicant wishes to uh construct a
telecommunications facility. Counselor, >> good evening. >> Other other side over here. Yes. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yes. >> Good evening, chairman and members of the board. My name is Lindseay Hobenrike. I'm the attorney for New
Singular, New Singular Wireless PCS LLC or AT&T. Um the applicant is here requesting um preliminary and final minor site plan approval and approval of five bulk C variances for the installation and operation of a wireless
telecommunications facility at 2322 Morris Avenue. So, I think believe many of you were on the board just a couple of years ago when we were here before you for a temporary site, a temporary facility at this exact same site. Um, what we're proposing tonight is a permanent replacement of that temporary
facility. Um, the temporary facility is a 90ft monopole mounted with six panel antennas, a microwave dish, and related groundbased equipment, all housed in a 400 square ft concrete ballast block foundation. Um, the temporary facility currently provides essential network
coverage to the surrounding area, including many commercial uses on Morris Avenue and nearby residential neighborhoods. The proposed permanent facility that we're here before this board tonight um is for the installation of a 120 foot monopole with mount
multiple panel antennas, remote radio heads mounted at a centerline height of 117 ft with available space for two collocators and additional antennas by future users. Um the project also proposes an a groundbased equipment
compound um that will be a 20 foot by 12 feet concrete pad adjacent to the monopole base that will include a natural gas power generator cabinets related equipment and all surrounded by a 6-ft tall chainlink fence. Um the site is located in the C1 commercial
industrial district where telecommunications facility are a permitted use with minor site plan approval. The project also requires five bulk C variances um pursuant to section 172304 A18. There is a 120 foot setback
that's 100% of the height of the tower required. Um and on the side yard lot we are only proposing 24 feet. So a bulk se variance is required pursuant to 172304 A19. There's a minimum 100 or 750 foot
separation district dist excuse me from the residential zones and we are proposing uh 254 ft from the nearest residential unit nearest house and 246 ft from the nearest residential zone. So two bulk variances are required.
Additionally, pursuant to 1702304B2 for the groundbased equipment compound, there is both a sideyard setback requirement of 25 ft, but we will only be 12 ft from the sideyard lot line and there is a maximum gross floor area of
200 square ft and ours will exceed that by just a little bit. We will be 240 square feet. So, another bulk se variance is required there. Tonight, we will offer testimony from three expert witnesses. uh Dan Panesso I'll call up in a minute. He is a radio frequency
engineer and we'll provide um we'll describe AT&T's network needs and the justification for the site the need for the site. Next we will bring up Ectas Shaw a licensed professional engineer who will take you through the site plans and uh for the proposed installation and
talk about any structural impacts associated with both the demolition and construction of the new tower. And then lastly, we'll bring up Paul Reichi, a licensed planner, um, who will describe the visual impacts of the facility, changing it from 90 feet to 120 feet,
and then also describe the need for the five variances. Um, lastly, we do have Martin McGee. He's a site acquisition specialist here as a fact witness. Should there be any questions about the history of the site, the lease with the landowner, anything, we can offer him up as a fact witness uh to answer questions
if needed. Um, I will note that on March 13th that we submitted a Fulsome application. Um, we did receive a letter dated April 13th from the township engineer acknowledging receipt and review of those materials deemed our application complete and obviously we
are here before the board tonight uh to discuss the application materials as well as to seek approval uh from this board. Um there were a few technical comments noted in that letter that we will discuss uh we will address with tonight's testimony. So I'd like to call up Dan Panesso to take us through the
site. Uh thank you council. This is Rob Pansula, the board attorney. Uh I did mark uh through the various submissions. I marked A1 the application as it was submitted with the supporting checklist items. Uh I marked day two the site
details from KMBB uh which consists of 12 sheets and and then I followed your exhibits. I know you submitted it through your March 13th submission. Uh A3 was the survey A4 and I followed it straight down the
line with your exhibits all the way through A9. So right in sequence the way you supplied the exhibits I went in number A3 through A9 is marked for the record. Can I ask the witness to swear or affirm that the testimony you provide this evening is the truth and the whole
truth? >> Yes, I do. >> And for the record, could you state and spell your name with your affiliation? >> First name Daniel, last name Panesso. Pen e sso. I'm the radio frequency engineer. um here to describe the need for the site. I have been employed as a
radio do you want me to give my qualifications now? I have been employed as a radio frequency engineer for over 25 years. I have testified before this board and hundreds of other boards his credentials. >> Okay. Yeah. So Dan, if you could just provide
testimony on FirstNet, what that is and then provide the need for the site and the coverage. >> Uh AT&T was awarded FirstNet, which is first responders network authority um to have that 700 megahertz spectrum allocated to first responders. if there
was ever an emergency that spectrum would be dedicated to their service only, not to the public use. So that's a part of this. All of AT&T's network nationwide is implementing this. So any 700 megahertz spectrum that is um
allocated to the site. If there was ever an emergency, it would be dedicated to the first responders so that there would be no issue with because when we have a an emergency, the wireless networks get bogged down by all of the users trying to, you know, access the network and
that could cause an issue. If a first responder was trying to communicate with another first responder, they wouldn't be able to do so if the network were overburdened. So this dedicated spectrum is allocated to the first responders only so that they could have access to
communication whether it be voice or data or whatever they needed. So that's one aspect of the application. Another aspect of the application is that we're going to be implementing new antennas with uh new Cband which is 3,700
megahertz at this site so that we can get a uh we'll have um faster throughput with this signal that's uh being implemented. And also, as Lindsay mentioned, we are currently going at the temp site is at 90 feet and we're going
to be going up to 117 feet, which will give us a greater footprint of coverage to cover the area um in town. Um, I prepared exhibits that were uh submitted in the application and I have um uh blown up copies that I can go through
with the board to show what the existing coverage is and what the proposed coverage will look like as well as the neighboring sites that are surrounding the area and I can do that now. So the first exhibit is map number four
actually. So this represents the uh composite coverage with the existing temporary site. Uh the temporary site is indicated by the purplish uh blue dot in the center. That's NWL03950. This and this uh the coverage that you
see the blue and the green represents the blue inbuilding coverage reliable inbuilding and green reliable invehicle coverage. So I I shall I go through and list all of the sites? Does the board want to hear that? The neighboring sites
and how they interact in the network. Shall I do that? Yes. So as I mentioned, we have our temporary site located at 2322 Morris Avenue. And then I'll start here east southeast of that site. We
have a site with the site identifier as NWL03778. That's a water tank that's located at 1767 Morris Avenue. Then we have a site that is on a rooftop at 601 Chestnut Street and that site is
identified by NWL0 uh 9 03935. South of that we have a site that's identified as NWL03219. That's a billboard and that we're
located at two, let me get my 20-60 South 31st Street. Then north of that in Kennallorth, we have northwest, we have a water tank that we're located on, which is identified as NWL03356.
That's at 400 Michigan Avenue. And then west of that, northwest we have site identified as NWL0114, a monopole at 51 Brown Avenue. Then north of that in Springfield, we have a
monopole at 192 Mountain Avenue. Then another monopole norththeast of that identified as NWL03434 at 30 Bleecker Street. North of that, we have a rooftop on 340
Milbour Avenue, and that site is identified as NWL03945. East of that, we have a site identified as NWL00594. At 28 Baker Street, that's a monopole. Souththeast of that we have a site
identified as NWL03493 at 2040 Milbour Avenue. Then we have southeast of that site identified as NWL 03193 at 2170 Stanley Terrace, a monopole. So
all of these sites that I just named are existing onair sites which would be an immediate handoff site to the proposed site and the temp site that we currently have on air. So if we were to remove the I'll to the
next exhibit. This exhibit which is labeled map one represents the coverage that would be provided by the existing onair sites without the temp site or the proposed site. So as you can see without that proposed site we lose the inbuilding coverage and we have gaps in coverage
that are signified by the white that will be uh occurring if we didn't have a site in the area. The next exhibit I'll show what the proposed coverage would look like and this is labeled map two the AT&T
proposed composite coverage and that is depicted by the yellow star is the proposed site and then you can see that the area that was white and green is now has inbuilding and in vehicle coverage in the area of union which we need to
cover. So this this site and going at the height will provide us a more footprint of coverage than what we currently have. So we can limit the amount of sites that would be needed in Union to fulfill this area of coverage. >> So Dan, that's why we're going from 90
up to 127. >> And then also this will allow for other future carriers to come on the pole that they could come at if we're at 117 then 10 feet center to center what you need so you don't have any interference issues. Someone could be at 107 and then
97. So you could have additional carriers colllocating on the pole and they would be able to utilize the pole for their networks. Um shall I go through and name the roads and uh put that on the record that this site covers? >> Yes, please.
>> Yes. And it in the RF report it was submitted. This is in number seven that I mentioned the roads that this site will cover. Morris Avenue, Liberty Avenue, Caldwell Avenue, Bernett Avenue, Carol Road, Burns Place, Commerce
Avenue. Also, the Union High School is in the vicinity and their businesses in the vicinity as Lindsay mentioned as well. So, this site is is a very important site for us to have to cover in Union Township.
Um, >> are there any questions on the RF materials? If not, we can move on to the health and safety, but wanted to see if there are any questions on these exhibits first. >> Are there Mr. Mr. McNeel? >> I do have um
on all of the maps, I'm still seeing some white specks in in there. So, even with this this 120 foot pole, you'll still have some things that's not not covered. >> That's correct. Yeah. As you could see, this this site, and I'll show you an
example of the site itself by itself is labeled map number three. So, this is what the proposed coverage would look like from the site itself. And because of the topography and the existing obstructions that the signal
incurs, you get this footprint of coverage at this height. And if you and now I'll go back to the composite. To the southeast we have a little bit of white area. This is the Garden State Parkway which I'm tracing with my
finger. This is Route 22 here. So we and this site here is not a tall site. The 30 uh 3935 that I mentioned which is a rooftop at 60 feet. this site here. So
you see the the this height is a smaller footprint of coverage because it's a rooftop at a low antenna centerline height. So we could put another site here to fulfill this gap if if if AT&T saw to do so. But at this time I don't
foresee any plans for a new site. But a cell site can cover uh we're this site is doing a good footprint of coverage for us. Even though you do see an area of white southeast and some this is Elellanor Terrace up in here, the site
is doing very well for us at the height and we didn't propose a taller structure because we wanted to stay with you know we you can't we don't want to have it too high or too low to meet our coverage objective. So this is the minimum height required to fill our ne to fulfill the
coverage gap and to hand off to the neighboring sites so that we have continuous coverage and that we don't have any issues with handoffs between the existing onair sites. >> When you say handoff >> is that a mechanism or is that just
>> No. So this is a mobile network. If someone were driving and they're being served by this site that we have on air, our proposed site, and they drive towards this site for example, this site provides coverage to a certain point, then the phone automatically transitions
to the next serving cell based on their signal strength. So this when the strong signal sent from that neighboring cell is received by the phone, it hands off. That's what I mean by hand off to that next serving cell. Are there any other board members that
would like to question the witness >> on his testimony? >> Hearing none. >> So before Dan, before you step down, so you did also prepare a health and safety report. Can you just take us through that report and what it says? Uh what uh Lindsay is referring to is the the FCC
RF conformity assessment and report for the antenna installation that's dated March 7 of this year 2026. And this is a study that is done which all cell sites have to comply with FCC guidelines regarding emissions. And this site is in
full compliance with the FCC guidelines by a margin of 10 times lower than the FCC limit established for safe continuous human exposure to RF energy at all of the frequencies that AT&T is implementing. The total amount for the
assessment is 9.9519% of the FCC general population maximum permissible exposure which is the MPE limit. So, this site is in full compliance with with regards to emissions.
Any board questions on the testimony Mr. Panesco has provided? Hearing? None. Are there any members of the public that would like to question the testimony this witness has provided? Hearing none. Counselor.
>> Thank you. Thanks, D. >> Thank you. >> Okay. I'd like to call up Miss Ecta Shaw, a professional engineer with KMBB Design Group. Um, Miss Shaw, can you please uh state your name and your credentials for the record so we can offer you as an expert witness? >> Can I ask the witness to swear or affirm
that the testimony you provide this evening is the truth and the whole truth? >> I do. >> And for the record, state and spell your name with your affiliation. >> Sure. Ecta Sha E K A T A last name S H A H. >> Thank you. So, Miss Shaw, if you could please
provide your cred credentials, your background, um, and your relationship with this project, what you've done to prepare, uh, uh, the site plans. >> Sure. Um, my name is Act Sha, business address, uh, 1800 Route 34 Wall, Township, New Jersey. I have a masterers
of science and the degree of civil engineering, uh, from the University of Texas in Arlington. I'm a licensed engineer in the state of New York and New Jersey and I have been involved with these kind of installations for over a decade and have presented my >> the board will accept her credentials.
>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. So can you please take us through the site plans and the you know the the relationship also if you can between the proposed site and the uh the temporary site and the proposed permanent site. >> Uh sure. Currently on the site there is
an existing 90 ft pole. What we are proposing over here is to install a new 120 ft tall ballasted monopole which will house uh four antenna sectors on a plat on a standard platform. The um the
monopole also can can you see this? Okay. The the monopole can also house additional carriers at an elevation of um 107 feet and 97 ft
on the on the proposed platform. It is we are proposing to install three antenna sectors. Each uh four antenna sectors sorry each antenna sector will have three antennas, three rus and one DC9 unit.
Apart from that, we're also proposing to install a an equipment pad which is 12 feet by uh 20 ft in dimension. On the equipment pad, we're proposing to install a generator, a power plant
cabinet, a rayap 38 cabinet and a gas booster. The entire compound of uh will be uh uh housed in a enclosed in a chain link fence which uh a six feet high chain link fence with access provided uh
on the east side of the compound um uh for construction about how long does it take to both demolish the existing monopole and replace it with the uh permanent site? Um just the demolition
and everything the approximately if everything goes right and the site is prepped right and everything takes about a month and all safety protocols including physical barriers uh control access points signage will be will be uh provided during the de demolition and
the construction of the site. >> And then what about ongoing maintenance or visits to the site? How frequently do people visit the site? Uh maintenance is usually done every four to six weeks and it will be just one personnel coming in just to maintain
the site and uh with a truck >> any camouflaging what the color of the monopole >> uh there's no camouflaging for this >> but it is painted >> it is painted to uh to match the tool. Yeah. >> Are there any other questions from the
board? Are there any board members that would like to question Miss Sean or testimony? >> Uh just uh in terms of monopole that's one single piece. >> It will come in sections. >> The monoples used come in sections and then they're slipped on together.
>> And now they they just slide on. >> Yeah. Friction bolts or something hold it in place or just >> No, the the the the what we call is the lap joint is what it's called. The lap area will be designed enough that there will be no bolts needed. It just slips
in place. >> Any other board questions? Hearing none. Are there any members of the public that would like to come forward and question the testimony Miss Shaw has provided? Hearing none. Counselor, >> can I just ask is there also in
addition, this is Rob Pansul, the board attorney. In addition to the maintenance visit, I think you said it was one person four to six weeks. Is there remote capabilities to monitor the site and certainly security features and things like that? I imagine it's under
surveillance on an ongoing basis. >> Right. The site is monitored 24/7. >> I just wanted to clarify that. >> Counselor, your next witness. >> Yes. Thank you. I'd like to call Mr. Paul Reichi, license planner. Can I ask the witness to swear or affirm
that the testimony you find this evening is the truth and the whole truth? >> I do. >> And for the record, state and spell your name with your affiliation. >> Uh Paul Ricky, RI ICCI Ricky Planning LLC. >> Any changes from your credentials when you last appeared here and were qualified as an expert planner?
>> No. >> So noted for the record, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I've been licensed since the year 2000. Also a member of the Institute of Certified Planners. I I have a master's degree in
city and regional planning from Ruckers University. I'm currently a municipal planning consultant in seven towns. I I testify regularly in front of boards. I testified in front of the board will >> accept his uh credentials. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Mr. >> You're welcome.
So, Mr. Ricky, if you can take us through, let's start with the variances. There are five variances proposed here. Take us through those and the need for them. >> Uh, sure. Um, uh, first and foremost, uh, I think it's important to recognize that, um, the issuance of an FCC license
generally establishes that the use promotes the general welfare. Uh, and the reason so in terms of for wireless applications, um, these promote the general welfare for for a number of reasons. Number one, um they allow family interactions, uh access to
prompt, reliable information. Um over 80% of all emergency calls occur from uh phones. And today, I think most people recognize that a cell phone is really the primary source of that individuals use. I think right now, uh if you're a
person living at home with a child in the house, I think about 20% of people still have a landline today approximately. So they provided a tremendous benefit in this facility here as well. It's an existing facility that the goal was to continue to provide service uh to Union Township as well. I
know the variances have already been mentioned. If I don't have to remention them, I'll I'll kind of just go through uh the criteria. As part of this analysis, I just wanted to point out I did review your your master plan, pertinent sections of your your zoning ordinance, and I did perform um we did
photo simulations where I went out in the field and I flew a drone to 120 ft. That was the basis for the for the simulations that you see. So, we feel very good about the accuracy of them. And also with the drone, I can I can go around. and they have someone that flies it and then I go around and I canvas the
neighborhood and I actually look for the drone to see where it is and take photographs to to show the visual impact. So that that helps in in in that regard as well because since this uh tower is approximately 30 feet taller, we want to be able to assess the difference in the height and any
additional impact that that that may have um in the community. Um generally from a planning context this is the variances themselves clearly stem from the condition of the property and how it exists today. It's context and
condition. I do note that this property is an oversized six over 6.6 acre lot in your commercial and industrial district. We are again a permitted use here in the zone. Um but because that lot um is is
very narrow um you saw pictures on the on the site plan where we're locating the tower. It's approximately only about 160 ft wide. Uh just by nature of your of your ordinance, you require 200 feet in in lot width. And and the goal here
is is to to to locate the tower uh in a manner where it allows the operation of uh Jaguar Lumberyard to operate their facilities and to locate it in a manner where it works for for everyone. And here it's located most approximate uh to
the commercial uses that are that are most uh close to uh Rawway Avenue. So the context and condition of the properties and to try to retain um the the existing location approximate shifting slightly is what's driving the
need for for variance relief. >> Um so um maybe it makes sense to show the photo simulations. Photo simulations. I >> I have paper copies too. I I have it on the screen but if anyone would like a paper copy I have that uh as well.
it if it's the exhibit you submitted to council's uh a >> yes >> I marked it a6 I think it was exhibit f to your submission so the board notes that for the record >> okay so the the exhibit's entitled photographic simulations proposed 120
foot AT&T telecommunications facility 2322 Morris Avenue uh it's dated March 10th 2026 um I may flip back and forth a little bit. Can everyone see the the aerial photograph? Um the aerial photograph
you'll see um we show the subject property or 99% of it outlined in orange. Mars Avenue runs across uh the top portion of the lot and like the northern portion north is generally straight up on this exhibit. You can see in the bottom it's slightly turned to
the left. The cell tower location is located in red and then I show various u numbers on there and those numbers correspond uh with the photograph locations. So picture one is going to be taken right from the front of the lumber
yard looking into the site. Uh picture two is on on Morris Avenue. Uh and I'll go through these moving in the the westerly direction kind of in front of the high school. Um, and then picture number three, we try to what I try to do
is I take the the worst potential location in terms of proximity uh to residential or uses would be on Klein Court. Picture number four is on the opposite side on the property on it
southeasterly side. Um, and that's on on Gford Court. And then finally um the final picture is is picture number five and that is is located on seit place if I'm saying that correctly.
Um so the first picture shows the existing condition and the second picture shows the proposed condition. So picture number one in front of the property. So you see the existing condition and then you show the tower slightly moved um and uh slightly taller
from this vantage point. Um in my opinion the the visual impact is um uh negligible in terms of the change. Um picture number two here we're kind of on Morris Avenue close to being in front of the high school. Um the tower is not
visible um at this location. And then if you look in in the center of the photograph, you can see a very small top and I'll zoom in the very small top portion um of the tower is visible and at that distance it's it's it's negligable in
its visibility. So unless you're really uh looking for that tower um it's really hidden in the landscape in my opinion. Um photograph number three. Uh this is taken from from Klein Court. This would be the the closest residential. So what
we have here is the the the jogger. Is it jogger? You say joerger lumber. Is it jogger? You say it's not the silent jagger. Younger. Sorry about that. >> You're taking the jagger. >> Jagger meister. >> Yeah, >> you got me there. Um, so there's an
interlying property between the Jagger lumber property and they have another commercial building there and then Klein Court. So we we show the existing uh tower there. This is meant to show the potential worst impact. And then the new tower you can see is is slightly taller
but largely unchanged. They're both still visible, slightly taller. Um picture number four. Uh this is taken on on Gford Court. Um this is to the south and east of the subject property. There's there's no visibility from the
street line. The the rear yards of these properties likely see the tower. Um however you can see the very top of the tower now u from from Gford court and then and then finally um the final
location I'm butchering some of these names I'm sorry from place uh this is now moving up more closer to Morris Avenue again there was no visibility and then you can see just again the very top of the tower so largely it it was it's my opinion as a as a planner that the
the changes visually are really somewhat minimalistic here. Um these the towers in the area, it exists. Um when we weigh that in terms of the benefits of this application, I think it's clear that the the benefits here um uh outweigh the
detriment. When when we look at the the negative criteria, um I've already established that this is a these uses, you know, promote the general welfare of the community. When we look at the negative criteria, um these are these are passive land uses. um cell towers.
Um they don't create new population, not like other like a used variance application. They don't create much traffic. Um they don't create noise with the exception in an emergency or if you have to cycle a generator um from time to time. Um they don't create school
children or population. The only potential negative impact associated with these facilities is their visibility. And that's why we prepared the photo simulations that show that there's no substantial visual impact. So um in terms of the the C2 criteria for
the bulk variance relief um first and foremost the applicant does suffer from a minor hardship due to the narrowest shape of the rear of the property but also in terms of the C2 criteria that we can show that it promotes the purpose of zoning. This pro promotes purpose a
promotes a general welfare and that also um that the variances from the negative criteria can be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good naming the surrounding property owners without a substantial impairment to the zone plan. You also have to factor in by adding this colllocated facility is the
least obtrusive means of providing the coverage because if this tower did not exist in it and it was eliminated, you'd have to find another tower in this search ring area that AT&T has used for a while. And we think this is uh the best location uh considering that it
this area has already largely absorbed any visual impact over time from this tower and it it functions well as indicated by the by our radio frequency engineer of providing the coverage for for the residents as well. >> Did I miss anything or
>> you covered it all? Any questions from the board? >> Any board members with questions for Mr. Ricky? Hearing none. Are there any members of the public that would like to come forward and question the testimony this witness has provided?
Hearing none, councelor, do you have any more witnesses? >> I do not, unless there are any other questions from the board. >> Are there any comments from the board or from the public? Hearing none, would you like to sum up? >> I would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, in summary, AT&T respectfully requests that
the board grant the preliminary and final site plan review as well as the five bulk sea variances uh to allow the construction and operation of this important facility in order to maintain crucial AT&T coverage and provide the public safety benefits from FirstNet.
Um, and we thank the board so much for your time and if you have any other questions, we're happy to answer them. >> Thank you, councelor. At this time, I believe we can counsel this. Mr. Bentegna, would you like to begin, please? >> Sure. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh,
based on the testimony tonight, I think this is a good application. This is a permitted use, so I think it's well suited and I'll be voting yes. >> Miss Scott, >> um, good evening. I thought the
professionals did an excellent job um, educating. I'm not sure how many people up here were so familiar with exactly how the cell towers work, but I learned a lot. So, I appreciate the education on it and um you you did a very good job. It's extremely useful and I had
questions of my own about you know when people drop calls and how we don't have sometimes signals and all that kind of you know stuff. But thank you for the um you know kind of shining some light on that and I appreciate it. So yes, I will also be voting yes. >> Miss Martins. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm going to
have to agree with my colleague, the professionals did an outstanding job this evening. Um, I don't see this as a negative impact to the site. It actually a more positive impact. Um, very clean, straightforward application. So, I will be voting yes as well.
>> Miss Little back there. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I concur with my colleagues and I think this is a good plan and I will be voting yes. >> Mr. Wy. Uh yes, Mr. Chairman, I agree my
colleagues. Uh I don't see a problem with this application. I think it's a good and clean application, minimal negative impact. Uh and I think it'll be a benefit for those who need this type of service. And I'm going to vote yes, >> Miss Ricketts.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too agree with my colleagues, um the experts. Great job presenting. I will be voting yes. and Mr. McNeel. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I
I would also agree with with my colleagues uh and also thank the professionals for thorough presentation. Uh the site is well suited for use and I will be >> as for myself based on tonight's
testimony approved and justified both the negative and positive criteria. Uh, this proposed telecommunication facility will definitely benefit the community by providing improved and continuous service and I too see no negative impact on the surrounding properties. And again
to concur with my colleagues, the uh witnesses did a really professional job, a really good job. So at this time, can I have a motion and a second? >> Mr. Chairman, I move that the board
application and the council's directed resolution consistent with the board's decision. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Wy, >> yes. >> Miss Martins, >> yes. >> Mr. Bentega, >> yes. >> Miss Scott, >> yes. >> Mr. McNeel, >> yes. >> Miss Little, >> yes.
>> Mr. Champy, >> yes. >> May May 13th, council, it'll be on the board's agenda for the adoption of the resolution. May 13th. >> Mr. Chairman, there being no further business coming before the board, I move that we adjourn.
All in favor? Opposed? So moved.