March 4, 2015

Chad Schwartz, PE, Malick & Scherer, PC, was sworn in; he advised the Board he was a New Jersey licensed professional engineer with expertise in wireless design. Vice Chairman Weston noted that a different engineer, Neil J. Kuplic, had signed the original plans; he asked Mr. Schwartz‘s to describe his professional relationship with Mr. Kuplic. Mr. Schwartz explained that Mr. Kuplic worked for American Tower Corporation, the owner of the facility where the equipment was to be located. He said the equipment serviced his client, McKay Brothers. Vice Chairman Weston asked if Mr. Schwartz had prepared any documents for the Application; Mr. Schwartz said he had not; but he had reviewed them. Vice Chairman Weston opined that while it was unusual to have a witness testify who was not a representative of the firm that submitted documents to the Board, Mr. Schwartz could proceed as an expert in engineering and offer his professional opinion based on his review of the submitted documents. Mr. Schwartz gave a brief description of the Applicant’s communications technology, a high-speed microwave data network with a point-to-point system going through numerous towers; the system is faster than fiber networks. He said he was familiar with the site; he had designed a project for another client at that location in 2010; he had most recently visited the site that day. The current Application proposed six (6) dish antennas at 106 feet elevation and two (2) dish antennas at 172 feet elevation. The antenna cables would be fed through a cable ladder at the center of the tower, across the rooftop of adjacent building, and then fed in to cabinet located in a building at the far end of the site. There would be no increase in the existing tower height or footprint and no ground disturbance, In response to question from Mr. Jenkins, he confirmed the existing equipment building would have enough room to house the new cabinet. He said he had been inside the room for his previous project; he presented a letter with photograph showing the interior space of the existing equipment building written by Kyle Faust, PE, the site design engineer for American Tower Corporation, dated January 2, 2015. Mr. Jenkins requested the letter be submitted as an Exhibit to the Application; Mr. Dwyer advised the Board that a representative from American Tower was not present to testify to the contents of

015. Mr. Jenkins requested the letter be submitted as an Exhibit to the Application; Mr. Dwyer advised the Board that a representative from American Tower was not present to testify to the contents of the letter, the letter was heresy; the Board should take it for its worth. Vice Chairman asked the purpose of the letter; Mr. Schwartz said the Omland Engineering memorandum dated December 8, 2014, Comment #1, had stated that testimony from previous applications had indicated there was no additional space within the equipment building and there should be proof that there was space inside the building. Vice Chairman Weston opined he did not think the letter was necessary; the Board would base its decision on the Applicant’s testimony that there was room inside the building. Mr. Schwartz concluded his testimony. Mr. Jenkins advised the Board he had no additional witnesses. Councilwoman McCartney asked if Applicant would be removing any old equipment for the new high-speed network; Mr. Schwartz said the Applicant did not have any old equipment on the tower. Councilwoman McCartney asked if with the proposed equipment had the tower reached its load capacity; referring to the Structural Analysis Report from American Tower Corporation (dated August 26, 2014) that was submitted as part of the Application, Mr. Schwartz said the analysis showed the tower usage currently at 90%, which was 10% under maximum. Dr. Bagoff asked for clarification regarding the Structural Analysis Report, what equipment was included in the report to indicate 90% capacity; Mr. Schwartz said the analysis was based on leased equipment already installed on the tower; approved leased equipment yet to be installed as of the date of the report; and the Applicant’s proposed equipment.