May 7, 2014

TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 7, 2014 The Township of West Orange Planning Board held a regular meeting on May 7, 2014 at 7:30 P.M. in Council Chambers, 66 Main Street, West Orange, New Jersey. Chairman Heller called the meeting to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. It was announced that notification of this meeting was given to the Township Clerk, and posted on the Township Bulletin Board on November 21, 2013 in accordance with the requirements of the “Open Public Meetings Act”. PRESENT: Chairman Ben Heller, Robert Bagoff, Joanne Carlucci, Jerome Eben, Tekeste Ghebremicael, Gerald Gurland, Lee Klein, Council President Susan McCartney (7:41 P.M.), Vice Chairman Ron Weston, William Wilkes Il ABSENT: Jason Lester ALSO PRESENT: Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Acting Township Planner, Frank Russo, PE, Omland Engineering, Patrick J. Dwyer, Esq., Board Attorney, Robin Miller, Board Secretary, Debbie Dillon, Audio-Digital Transcription Service PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Heller requested all attendees stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Robert Bagoff, Joanne Carlucci, Jerome Eben, Tekeste Ghebremicael, Gerald Gurland, Chairman Ben Heller, Lee Klein, Jason Lester, Council President Susan McCartney, Vice Chairman Ron Weston, William Wilkes II ANNOUNCEMENTS A Planning Board Special Meeting will be held on May 21, 2014 in Council Chambers at 7:30 P.M. The next Planning Board regular meeting wiil be held on June 4, 2014 in Council Chambers at 7:30 P.M. Per Applicant request, PB-14-04/Essex County Country Club, will be carried to the June 4, 2014 regular meeting. ADOPT MINUTES The minutes of the March 5, 2014 and April 2, 2014 Planning Board meetings were unanimously adopted. SWEARING IN Paul Grygiel, AICP, PP, Acting Township Planner Frank Russo, PE, PP, Consulting Engineer 5-7-14 Minutes Approved

RESOLUTIONS PB-14-01/Communication Infrastructure Corporation Block: 84.01; Lot: 22; Zone: B-2 10 Marcella Avenue Conditional Use Site Plan to install telecommunication antennas to existing tower; install new cabinet and platform for equipment. DISCUSSION None. The Board voted on the Resolution as follows: Motion:Vice Chairman Weston Second: Ms. Carlucci Bagoff: - Carlucci: Yes Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Yes Gurland: Yes Klein: Yes Lester: Absent McCartney: Absent Weston: Yes Wilkes: Yes Heller: - PB-14-03/Valley Road Residential, LLC (Former Harvard Press Site) Block: 9; Lots: 1, 7, 44, 50 and 56; Zone: MUBR 22-26 Central Avenue; 9-15 Mitchell Street Final Site Plans DISCUSSION Mr. Dwyer advised the Board the draft resolution had been revised to correctly identify the Application to be a Final Site Plan. The Board voted on the Resolution as follows: Motion: Dr. Bagoff Second: Mr. Eben Bagoff: Yes Carlucci: Yes Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: - Gurland: Yes Klein: Yes Lester: Absent McCartney: Absent Weston: Yes Wilkes: - Heller: - APPLICATIONS PB-13-19/Sirius XM Radio, Inc. Block: 84.01; Lot: 22.01; Zone B-2 12-16 Marcella Avenue Conditional Use Site Plan replace existing antenna, add new antennas and replace existing cabinet and equipment. EXHIBITS A-1 - Site Plan Sheet No. Z01, signed by Stephen A. Bray, PE, KMB Design Group, revised 3/25/14; A-2 - Elevation Sheet No. Z04, signed by Stephen A. Bray, PE, KMB Design Group, revised 3/25/14; A-3 - Photo Simulations: 1-Existing conditions view from 510 Prospect Avenue; 1A-Proposed development view from 510 Prospect Avenue; 5-7-14 Minutes Approved

A-4 - Photo Simulations: 2-Existing conditions view from Mt. Pleasant Avenue; 2A-Proposed development view from Mt. Pleasant Avenue; A-5 - Photo Simulations: 3-Existing conditions view from terminus of Marcella Avenue; 3A-Proposed development view from terminus of Marcella Avenue; A-6 - Photo Simulation: 4-Existing Conditions view from Mt. Pleasant Avenue. DISCUSSION Reginald Jenkins, Esq., Price, Meese, Shulman & D’Arminio, P.C., attorney for Applicant gave a brief description of the Application that involved the removal of Applicant’s existing antenna with new antenna on existing 310’ lattice tower; the installation of a new ground mounted small gps dish antenna, and replacement and installation of new equipment cabinet. Ekata Shah, PE, KMB Design Group, LLC was sworn in, stated her credentials, and was accepted by the Board to be an expert in civil engineering. Referring to Exhibit A-1, Ms. Shah described the existing conditions of the site; the property was a little over a quarter acre in size; the existing 310 ft. lattice tower supported various antennas including existing Sirius antennas and equipment cabinet. Two legs of the tower were on higher ground, two on lower ground; measuring from the lower ground, the maximum height of the structure was 310 ft. Referring to Exhibit A-2, Ms. Shah said Applicant proposed to remove their existing 5-ft. diameter antenna located at 212 ft., and replace it with new 38-inch diameter panel antenna at same height; a new 4-inch gps antenna would be installed on a 10-ft. pole at ground level adjacent to existing tower; Applicant’s existing equipment cabinet would be removed and new cabinet installed. The height of existing tower would not increase. Ms. Shah said that all improvements would comply with building codes; she noted that the Structural Analysis Report prepared by Consolidated Engineering (dated 5/28/13), indicated the existing tower was not structurally stable. The Applicant would comply with all recommendations of the report. Mr. Jenkins explained the tower had a new owner who was working on its structural integrity to make it code compliant. Council President McCartney indicated Mr. Jenkins had answered her question regarding the procedural sequence of the repairing the tower structure; Mr. Jenkins said the Applicant would comply with all building codes; he explained the existing structure was not

ed her question regarding the procedural sequence of the repairing the tower structure; Mr. Jenkins said the Applicant would comply with all building codes; he explained the existing structure was not structurally stable; the tower had a new owner who was working on its structural integrity. Dr. Bagoff asked the height of the gps antenna and why was the existing cabinet going to be replaced. Ms. Shah said the height of the gps antenna pole would be 10-ft.; the cabinet was being replaced to meet the needs of the client. With regard to replacing the cabinet, Mr. Jenkins advised Dr. Bagoff that the next witness would be able to reply to the inquiry. Mr. Weston asked if the new panel antenna was physically smaller, visually smaller and lighter weight than existing antenna being replaced; Ms. Shah said the new antenna was approximately 3-ft. in diameter, the surface area was slightly more, maybe 10 percent; but the visual impact would be less than the existing antenna. Referring to the Consolidated Engineering report (dated January 16, 2014), he asked if the report had been conducted for the Application, he was concerned about the load capacity of the structure, which indicated it was over one-hundred-fifty percent; the structure was deficient and the load was significantly over capacity. Ms. Shah said the report was prepared for the Application using previous information, she noted that page 6 of the report listed all recommendation to address deficiencies for structural repair that would be done prior to installation of new antennas; those repairs would bring the load capacity down to one-hundred-five percent. 5-7-14 Minutes Approved

Referring to Exhibit A-2, Mr. Eben asked Ms. Shah to clarify who provided the inventory list; he also asked what would be done with the existing cabinet when it was replaced. Ms. Shad said the Engineer had provided the inventory list; Ms. Shah and Mr. Jenkins said the existing cabinet would be demolished and removed from the property site. Referring to the Consolidated structural report Dr. Bagoff inquired as to who was responsible for the foundation issues of the structure. Mr. Jenkins said the tower owner was responsible for addressing foundation issues and the Township Construction Official was responsible for inspection to make sure the issues had been addressed. The Township professionals and Public had no questions for Ms. Shah. The Public Advocate was not present. Brian Damstrom , P.E., Sirius XM Radio, Inc. was sworn in, stated his credentials, and was accepted by the Board to be an expert in radio frequency. Mr. Damstrom gave a brief overview of Sirius XM Radio, Inc. operations; he confirmed the company was licensed by the FCC; he explained why the site was an important link carrying line-of-sight signal to Manhattan. He said the current Omni antenna was causing signal interference between New Jersey and Manhattan, the proposal was to point new antenna in a westerly direction away from the mountaintop. He further explained that Sirius and XM had merged; the reason for the cabinet replacement was to upgrade system to merge signals. The overall plan of the company was to merge all Sirius and XM signals; depending on the area — they would eliminate some existing sites and add some new sites. {The} ground-mounted antenna was a VSAT {very small aperture terminal) dish, which pointed to satellite, received signal and then rebroadcasted information. Mr. Damstrom explained that a ground-mounted antenna was easier to service; he opined that all operators prefer ground mounted antennas; the VSAT antenna was sensitive to wind speeds resulting in lost satellite reception due to shaking; the ground location was more efficient. Dr. Bagoff asked where the ground antenna would be located, would it be on the structure or contiguous ta it, would its size trigger a site plan. Mr. Damstrom said the antenna would be off- structure; Ms. Shah said the pole would be mounted on a concrete base, Mr. Damstrom added it would be similar to a fence post; Mr. Jenkins said the

te plan. Mr. Damstrom said the antenna would be off- structure; Ms. Shah said the pole would be mounted on a concrete base, Mr. Damstrom added it would be similar to a fence post; Mr. Jenkins said the Board had been provided materials showing the actual size of the antenna. He said the Applicant’s planner would discuss what the antenna looked like. Mr. Gurland asked if the antennas would be sending and/or receiving signals from a satellite or other antennas. Mr. Damstrom said the transmitting antenna would be mounted on the tower; it would pick up the signal from the VSAT {ground mounted) dish and then transmit signaj; the VSAT dish would be the antenna receiving the satellite signal. Mr. Klein asked what was the purpose of the gps on the antenna; Mr. Damstrom said it was strictly for timing; it facilitated the complicated satellite and terrestrial networking system. The Township professionals and Public had no questions for Mr. Damstrom. Meghan Hunscher, PP, was sworn in, stated her credentials and was accepted by the Board to be an expert in planning. Ms. Hunscher advised the Board she had visited the site; reviewed the Applicant’s plans; reviewed previous Zoning Board approvals for the site; had reviewed the local ordinance Conditional Use criteria; and reviewed the photo simulation prepared by her colleague David Karlebach, PP, PC; (Exhibits A-3 through A-6); she stated that all federal and state requirements had been met. Ms. Hunscher described the existing property site conditions and adjacent area; she said the area was generally mixed use with a concentration of utilities and numerous towers. She opined that from a 5-7-14 Minutes Approved

planning perspective, there was little to say; the tower antenna would be upgraded, a new ground mounted antenna would be installed. There was no through traffic on the site; the proposed antennas would be located behind a gated property. She stated the FCC regulations pre-empted State and Local statutes. Council President McCartney asked if the photo simulations of the existing conditions showed all approved equipment or might there be approved equipment not yet installed. Ms. Hunscher said not to her knowledge. Regarding the statute’s description of collocation, Dr. Bagoff requested Ms. Hunscher interpret what it meant. Ms. Hunscher said that it typically antennas would be located within an approved site location. She opined that in the proposed Application, a ground antenna would fit the interpretation. Dr. Bagoff said he was concerned about the soundness of the structure; Ms. Hunscher said the recommended improvements would make the tower structurally sound. Citing MLUL {40:55D-46.2.), Mr. Dwyer clarified the issue of collocation; he said the placement of the ground antenna within the gated area of the property was permitted. Mr. Weston inquired if the Applicant had coordinated the photo simulations with World Class Wireless, LLC (“WCW”); Mr. Grygiel advised the Board that the Technical Review Subcommittee (meeting of March 13, 2014), requested WCW coordinate submittals with Sirius since both Applications were scheduled to be heard at same regular meeting. Mr. Weston asked Ms. Hunscher if it was her opinion that the replacement and installation of the new antennas would constitute any undue clustering or concentration of antennas from a visual standpoint. Ms. Hunscher opined there was no negative impact; the Application was for equipment upgrade only. Mr. Grygiel had no questions for Ms. Hunscher; however, he stated that with regard to Dr. Bagoff’s inquiry to the issue of collocation, he said that there was also a secondary section of the federal law that pre-empts the issue of collocation; he said he agreed with Mr. Jenkins citing of the federal regulation; the ground antenna was not collocation in the traditional sense; the antenna was less than two meters in diameter, zoning could not regulate its placement. The Public had no questions for Ms. Hunscher. The Public had no comments for the Board regarding the Application. Mr. Dwyer asked Mr.

two meters in diameter, zoning could not regulate its placement. The Public had no questions for Ms. Hunscher. The Public had no comments for the Board regarding the Application. Mr. Dwyer asked Mr. Jenkins to describe the relationship of Consolidated Engineering to the Applicant. Mr. Jenkins said Consolidated Engineering had been commissioned by Sirius to perform the structural analysis; they were a third party entity not owned by Sirius. Mr. Eben said he was concerned about the site conditions; he opined the tenant should demand the site owner maintain the property. Mr. Jenkins said the onus was on the structure owner and property owner. Dr. Bagoff and Council President McCartney discussed conditions of approval to include site maintenance and confirmation by the Building Department that structural improvements to the tower had been completed. Conditions: 4 The Applicant shall comply with all applicable Township, County, State and Federal laws, ordinances, regulations and directives, including without limitation, obtaining all applicable local, state and federal approvals and/or permits. Without limitation of the foregoing, prior to 5-7-14 Minutes Approved

the signing of the approved site plans, and prior to the commencement of any land disturbance or construction, the Applicant shall submit to this Board, with a copy to the Board Engineer, proof that it has obtained all required governmental approvals. 2. if another governmental entity or agency grants a waiver or variance substantially affecting the plans and/or exhibits submitted by the Applicant, this approval or the conditions attached to it, then the Applicant shall re-apply to this Board respecting the same and this Board shall have the right to view that issue as it relates to this approval and these conditions and modify and amend same, if appropriate. 3. In the event that any other required regulatory approval conflicts with the terms and conditions hereof, or materially alters the same, or the terms and conditions hereof are materially altered by any change in applicable law or regulation other than those municipal regulations for which change is prohibited by the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), or in the event Applicant or its successors or assigns construct or attempt to construct any improvement in conflict with or in violation of the terms of this approval, the Board hereby reserves the right to withdraw, amend or supplant the instant approval. 4. All construction, use and development of the property shall be in conformance with the plans approved herein, all representations of the Applicant and its witnesses during the public hearing, all exhibits introduced by the Applicant, and all terms and conditions of this resolution. 5. The Applicant shall pay all outstanding taxes, tax liens, application fees and technical review fees, as well as any inspection fees that may be required hereunder. The Applicant shall pay any additional fees or escrow deposits which may be due and owing within thirty (30) days of notification or this approval shall be deemed withdrawn. 6. All notes included in the approved plans, including notes required by this Resolution, shall be deemed conditions of approval having the same force and effect as conditions expressly set forth in this Resolution. 7. Applicant to submit evidence of compliance with the recommendations contained in the report of Consolidated Engineering, Inc. dated January 16, 2014 for improvements to the structural integrity of the tower prior to Applicant commencing work on the proposed changes

ns contained in the report of Consolidated Engineering, Inc. dated January 16, 2014 for improvements to the structural integrity of the tower prior to Applicant commencing work on the proposed changes which are the subject of this application. 8. Applicant to confirm that the foundations of the existing tower are structurally sufficient to support the tower per the report of Consolidated Engineering dated January 16, 2014 at page 5. 9. Applicant to remove all of its unused equipment and antenna from the site. 10. Applicant to notify the site owner that the site needs to be cleaned up and to provide proof of such notice. No building permits shall be issued until the site has been cleaned up. The Board voted on the Application as follows: ; Chairman Heller : Dr. Bagoff Yes Carlucci: Yes Eben: Yes Ghebremicael: Yes : Yes Klein: - Lester: Absent McCartney: Yes : Yes Wilkes: Yes Heller: Yes S-7-14 Minutes Approved