April 2, 2014

Mr. Weston asked Mr. Pryor if there were any other witnesses necessary to present testimony for the Application. Mr. Pryor indicated he had an expert witness to testify regarding radio frequency. Dr. Bagoff asked if radio frequency regulations had changed within the last year. Mr. Pryor indicated there had not been any changes to federal rules; he said all proposed equipment was in full compliance with federal regulations. Michael L. Bohlinger, PE, was sworn in, stated his credentials, and was accepted by the Board to be an expert in civil and structural engineering. Responding to Mr. Pryor’s inquiry, Mr. Bohlinger confirmed he had not inspected the tower but had familiarized himself with the circumstances of the application. Taking into account the proposed, existing and reserved antennas, the structure had adequate capacity. It was his opinion that there was no need for additional bracing; the structure could handle the maximum 100 mile per hour wind and ice load capacity. Mr. Russo advised the Board that he did not believe Mr. Bohlinger was the preparer of the structural report, nor was the report prepared under his guidance. He stated that at the prior week's Zoning Board meeting; that Board refused to hear Mr. Bohlinger’s testimony. Mr. Pryor said the engineer (who prepared the report) was not present, but Mr. Bohlinger was familiar with the tower and the structural report. Mr. Pryor said he had subsequently received an email from American Tower Corporation stating that Scott Wirgau, the author of the structural report, had no objection to Mr. Bohlinger testifying. Mr. Dwyer advised the Board that it was cleariy hearsay; strict rules of evidence did not apply in the hearing. Dr. Bagoff questioned whether the Board could render an opinion without the testimony of Mr. Bohlinger, but solely on the written report. Mr. Russo opined that in essence, Mr. Bohlinger was an engineer who had reviewed the report; he could give his opinion of the written report; but could not testify to its actual content because he was not the author. it was decided that the Board could question Mr. Bohlinger to the contents of the structural report; and would weigh his opinion when deliberating. Dr. Bagoff asked Mr. Bohlinger about the maximum load of the structure; at what percentage was the structure currently, and what would it be at with the proposed antennas. Mr.

nion when deliberating. Dr. Bagoff asked Mr. Bohlinger about the maximum load of the structure; at what percentage was the structure currently, and what would it be at with the proposed antennas. Mr. Bohlinger opined that with ail existing, approved and proposed antennas; the maximum load of the overall structure would be in the 99" percentile. He noted that the maximum load percentage varied at different height angles. Mr. Eben asked about the angles or pieces of steel that are at the maximum load; did Mr. Bohlinger think they should be replaced or repaired; Mr. Bohlinger said the current safety was more than 100%. Mr. Klein said he recalled some reports from previous applications indicated some repairs were in order - bolts and rust issues. Mr. Bohlinger said he had been at the tower that day; he had examined it in detail and did not notice any severe rust. He opined the tower was in good shape. Vice Chairman Weston asked Mr. Bohlinger if based on his reading of the report, how far away did he think the tower was from being maxed out; what was the threshold. Mr. Bohlinger said there was no real threshold; it could continue to be reinforced. Mr. Russo asked Mr. Bohlinger if based on his reading of the report he thought there were any public health, safety or welfare issues. Mr. Bohlinger answered in the negative. Responding io inquiry from Mr. Grygiel, Mr. Bohlinger confirmed he was a professional engineer licensed in the State of New Jersey. NAPLANNING. BRD\WPAMINUTES|20 1 4\4-2-14 Minutes.doc