January 2, 2013

35 feet, the other at 76 feet; both within the footprint of the tower. Mr. Eben asked where the cable tray would be located and at what height; and would excavation be necessary. Mr. Pazden responded the tray would be flush with the ground; the slab would be 4 feet by four feet flush; there would be minor excavation similar to a deck footing. Mr. Weston said he wanted to know how close the existing fence was to the property line; and would the antennas generate noise. Mr. Pazden said the fence was almost adjacent to the property line, noise levels would be within the industry guidelines. Chairman Bagoff noted that the existing fence was ten feet from the property line. Mr. Gurland asked if the Eagle Ridge Complex was within 200 feet of the property. Mr. Jones indicated that Eagle Ridge management had been noticed; all documentation had been submitted to the Board Secretary. Mr. Gurland stated Alcatel did not own the tower; Mr. Jones responded American Tower owned the structure and MCI Telecommunications owned the property. Mr.Gurland responded that at some other towers, maintenance had become an issue; he had not inspected the tower, but was concerned about it rusting. He said that as a condition of approval he would like a letter issued to American Tower indicating the tower must be maintained. Chairman Bagoff interjected that the Township’s Engineering Department did tower inspections. Mr. Dwyer inquired if the Applicant would stipulate that the structure owner (American Tower) would maintain the tower. Mr. Jones answered that Mr. Gurland’s request was very general. Mr. Weston asked if it would be a precedent to condition an Applicant to maintain a structure they leased. Chairman Bagoff proposed the condition would be to have the lessee get a letter from the owner stating the owner would maintain the structure. Mr. Pazden advised the Board that the tower was inspected every three years; the tower was stainless steel; rust was not an issue. Mr. Eben interjected that he remembered that a structural report had been submitted with a previous Application for the site; it was very important to have the structure maintained. Councilwoman McCartney opined it was not incumbent on the Applicant to maintain the property; it was the responsibility of the tower owner. Mr. Klein stated he agreed with Councilwoman McCartney. Mr. Gurland then inquired if the antenna

not incumbent on the Applicant to maintain the property; it was the responsibility of the tower owner. Mr. Klein stated he agreed with Councilwoman McCartney. Mr. Gurland then inquired if the antenna bolts were made of stainless steel. Mr. Pazden said that typically, the bolts were stainless steel; he then advised the Board that pertaining to the structural analysis, an updated structural report would be provided. Mr. Grygiel said there might be and issue with the plan; the revised plans indicated the proposed antenna at a height of 35 feet was beyond the footprint of the tower structure; it would project beyond the base of the tower approximately 2.5 feet. Mr. Jones said the Applicant would amended the plan; the antenna would be raised to a height to keep within the footprint of the structure. Mr. Weston inquired if the Structural Analysis Report dated February 29, 2012 was NSPLANNING. BRD\WAMINUTES\201311-2-2013 Draft Minates.doe ‘