May 7, 2014

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