October 24, 2012

APPLICATION(S) PB-12-22/Converge Towers, LLC Block(s): 84.01; Lot(s): 22; Zone: B-2 10 Marcella Avenue Conditional Use Site Plan to install two antennas on an existing telecommunications tower. EXHIBITS A-I — Board of photo simulations (11 photos total) depicting proposed antennas on existing tower located at 10 Marcella Avenue. A-2 ~ Board showing two photo views from site looking at neighboring site; southerly direction. DISCUSSION Richard 8. Schkolnick, Esq., attorney for Applicant, appeared before the Board. Mr. Schkolnick advised the Board the Application was for an Amended Site Plan to install two antennas to an existing tower structure; the Applicant was asking for “c” variance relief for side-yard setback duc to lack of space for appurtenant equipment inside an existing structure adjacent to the tower. The equipment would be located on an existing concrete pad measuring approximately sixty square feet; located on the property adjacent to the structure. Mr. Schkolnick introduced the Applicant’s Planner, David Karlebach, PP, PC, Mr, Karlebach was sworn in and accepted to be an expert in planning. Referring to Exhibit A-1, Mr. Karlebach advised the Board that although he did not prepare the Exhibit, he believed the photo simulations were accurate; he said the majority of the antennas depicted on the simulation had been approved, but had not yet been installed. Mr. Karlebach confirmed the number and height of the proposed antennas, one to be located at a height of 100 feet, the other at a height of 145 feet. Mr. Karlebach stated he had read and agreed with Mr. Grygiel’s report dated October 16, 2012; he said the Applicant’s engineer was present to testify regarding the soundness of the tower structure. Referring to Exhibit A-2, Mr. Karlebach described the existing conditions of the property; he testified to the proposed location and size of the appurtenant equipment. Mr. Karlebach stated that placing the equipment on the existing concrete pad was logical and would not be a detriment to the existing area. The equipment was described as cabinets approximately the size of a small refrigerator. The routing of the cabling would not be visible from the street; they would be located along the facade of the existing building structure. Mr. Schkolnick advised the Board that changes to the plan had been incorporated, per Mr. Keller’s memorandum dated

e street; they would be located along the facade of the existing building structure. Mr. Schkolnick advised the Board that changes to the plan had been incorporated, per Mr. Keller’s memorandum dated October 15, 2012. Mr. Keller stated that the photo simulations gave the Board a clear depiction of the site with the proposed antennas, including those already approved but not yet installed. The Board asked Mr. Karlebach for details regarding the existing elevations depicted in Exhibit A-1, and for clarification regarding which of the proposed antennas in the simulation were those of the Applicant. There was discussion regarding the existing conditions of the property including sidewalks, the presence of construction equipment on-site; the condition of the concrete pad; and whether any in-active equipment was currently on the structure. Mr. Grygiel and Mr. Keller advised the Board that the Applicant had satisfied all comments pursuant NA\PLANNING.BRDIVPMINUTES201210-24-2012 Spectal Meeting Minutes.dac 4