July 9, 2013

Brian El Seidel, PP, RLA, AICP, Seidel Planning & Design, was sworn in, stated his credentials and accepted by the Board to be an expert in land use planning. Referring to Exhibit A-2, Mr. Seidel described the existing conditions of the site at the time the photos were taken. He testified that it was his opinion the proposed antennas would have minimal impact on the area because several tall structures were already in the vicinity of the site including a water tower and PSE&G equipment. Dr. Bagoff asked Mr. Seidel if he thought the proposed antennas would result in a visual clustering of equipment. Mr. Seidel answered in the negative Mr. Weston stated the Exhibit -2 photos had been taken several months ago. He inquired if Mr. Seidel knew how many antennas were currently on the structure; he said the photos being shown were different from the current conditions. Mr. Seidel said that he had considered all prior approvals by the Board and it was still his opinion that the visual impact would be minimal. Mr. Gurland asked if Sheet Number Z-2 of the Site Plan reflected the list of all current approvals; Mr. Pryor said the plan did not reflect the most recent approvals. Daniel J. Collins, Chief Technical Officer, Pinnacle Telecom Group, LLC, an electrical engineer specializing in radio frequency was sworn in and accepted to be an expert witness in FCC compliance. Mr. Collins advised the Board that the proposed antennas would comply with all State and Federal regulations for radio frequency; the antennas would not generate significant radio frequency levels. Mr. Collins referenced his report date August 28, 2012; which indicated that if all the antennas on the tower were at full power, they would only reach approximately .076% of the FCC limit. Mr. Collins said that State requirements were less stringent than Federal requirements. Mr. Collins explained how microwave frequencies travel and the importance of having antennas in each other's line of sight for proper transmission. Mr. Pryor said he had a report from Mr. Jernigan, PE, Tower Engineering Professionals which indicated that all necessary tower maintenance had been completed based on his review of the previous analysis prepared by Mr. Haldane dated March 14, 2013. He requested Mr. Jernigan’s report be submitted. Chairman Heller asked Mr. Dwyer for a determination; Mr. Dwyer said it was an engineering

vious analysis prepared by Mr. Haldane dated March 14, 2013. He requested Mr. Jernigan’s report be submitted. Chairman Heller asked Mr. Dwyer for a determination; Mr. Dwyer said it was an engineering issue. Mr. Russo said he had no problem with it. Mr. Weston said the previous report did not include the most recent approvals; he inquired if a second independent engineering report should be required. He opined the Board really needed to validate the integrity of the structure. Council President McCartney said that the documents indicated a new inspection was due. Mr. Russo said the last Applicant for the site testified that one-hundred percent capacity for the structure was not the breaking point; it would be more like one-hundred-five percent; the type of structure on the site could continue to be reinforced. NAPLANNING. BRD\WPIMINUTES|2013\7-9-13 Minutes.doc 7