April 2, 2014

could not force the property owner to maintain the property. Mr. Weston asked Mr. Dwyer to note that a condition of approval would be the property owner must maintain the property. Mr. Eben asked Mr. Keenan if there was any way to get the correct height of the structure; there was conflicting testimony (from previous applications); the height varied from 200 ft. to 193 ft. Mr. Keenan said his elevations were based on recorded plans; he said it could be surveyed with reflector-less equipment. Responding to inquiry from Mr. Weston, Mr. Keenan amended his previous testimony to say that the tower was approximately 200 ft. in height. There were no questions for Mr. Keenan from the Township Professionals, Public Advocate or the Public. Brian Seidel, PP, RA, Seidel Planning & Design was sworn in, stated his credentials and was accepted by the Board to be an expert in planning. Referring to Exhibit A-2, Mr. Seidel said the aerial photograph depicted the overall site and the various locations from where photographs were taken of the tower. The photos identified as View 31 were taken from Marcella Avenue and depicted four different scenarios: the existing conditions, as approved with previous applications, the proposed approval, and the ultimate build out representing the current conditions, previous approvals and proposed approval. Mr. Seidel opined that the proposed antennas would not create an undo concentration of antennas, the application did comply with all standards of current ordinance; he believed the plan met all requirements. Dr. Bagoff asked what Mr. Seidel considered an undo concentration of antennas. Mr. Seidel said it was a subjective observation. He did not believe there was a clustering at the site; the visual impact of the Application was negligible. Council President McCartney asked Mr. Seidel to clarify the photo simulations. Mr. Seidel said the “as approved” simulation was based on report of all previously approved antennas, including carriers other than Communication Infrastructure Corporation. Mr. Ghebremicael asked about the structural integrity of the tower. Mr. Seidel said that was not his expertise. Mr. Pryor said his next witness would address structural integrity. Mr. Weston asked about the visual impact of the new antennas — from a planning perspective, would adding additional antennas to the existing tower be preferable to building

ress structural integrity. Mr. Weston asked about the visual impact of the new antennas — from a planning perspective, would adding additional antennas to the existing tower be preferable to building an entirely new tower structure. Mr. Seidel answered in the affirmative; he said it would be far less intrusive to the community to add to existing tower than to buiid a new structure. Mr. Grygiel asked if Mr. Seidel knew if there were any existing unused antennas on the tower that could be removed. Mr. Seidel said he did not know; he was unaware if that was a situation. Mr. Grygiel said that the issue had been a concern of the Board during previous hearings on this type of Application. There were no questions for Mr. Seidel from the Public Advocate or the Public. Referring to the (Acting Township) Planner’s report dated March 14, 2014 regarding unused antennas, Council President McCartney asked if the site could be visited monthly to ensure that unused equipment was removed. Dr. Bagoff opined that as a condition of approval for all antenna applications going forward, it be verified by the property owner that all unused or inoperable equipment had been removed from the structure. Council President McCartney added that the property must be cleaned of debris. Mr. Dwyer advised the Board that as a tenant, the Applicant had limited control over the site. WAPLANNING.BRD\WPWINUTES|201414-2-14 Minutes,doc 4