September 22, 2011

minated. Mr. Buechler stated that Mr. Carp bought his property knowing that the 30% restriction was there and he has difficulty accepting the reason she is offering. Ms. McKenzie stated that mistakes were made along the way and Mr. Carp realizes that and the neighbors benefit from the attractiveness of his property, Chairman Neuer stated that does not explain the impervious hardship; he is not concerned with the detriments but with the benefits that she is explaining. Mr. Buechler stated that Mr. Carp does landscape the property and that’s a fact. He said the issue is the positive and negative criteria. He agreed that no one is going to raise an issue with Mr. Farley’s access or the fence; the issue is impervious coverage and should the tennis court be moved. He continued to say that part of the problem is that the Board has to make sure the land use law is being followed. Ms. Borg stated that Ms, McKenzie was the first witness to say that they can remove the back of the tennis court area plus the encroachment area on the Seton Hall property

Chairman Neuer stated that they will recess until 9:30pm. He also stated that he heard Ms. McKenzie say that there is no problem carving off the back of the tennis court area. He went on to say that they all heard her say that they would comply and Ms. McKenzie said that she misspoke. The Board recessed at 9:22 pm. The Board resumed at 9:32 pm. Chairman Neuer stated that the Board will probably not reach all of the applications on the agenda. Mr. Carmen Campanile, attorney for Vincent Longo, approached the podium and requested to be cartied, without noticing, to the October 27, 2011 meeting. Chairman Neuer stated that application ZB-11-40/Longo is adjourned to October 27, 2011 at or after 8 PM and there will be no further notice, Chairman Neuer stated that the attorney for the applicant, Giga Beam, has informed him that they will wait to see what happens, He also said that the applicant, Slomack, will wait. Ms. Borg asked if they would consider changing the surface of the driveway to a pervious surface. She said instead of the macadam, they could make it blocks. Ms. Borg also stated that the only hardship there would be finances for Mr. Carp. Mr. Lorber asked if the Municipality permitted pervious pavers for a driveway. Mr. Buechler stated that some do not but many people have made pervious driveways to avoid a variance. Chairman Neuer stated that it’s a private road and less traffic travels on it, He continued by saying that if they did change the driveway to a pervious surface then they would not need a variance. Mr, Lorber stated that they didn’t know that was an option and that they appreciated the suggestions. There were no further comments or questions for Ms. McKenzie. Mr. Lorber summarized by stating that the tennis court has been here for 22 years. He also stated that the transcript he submitted to the Board proved that the summons was dismissed because no permits were required at that time. Mr. Lorber stated that Mr. Carp will reduce his fence to 8° if the Board would allow him to put some netting up. He also stated that, at this point in time, there would be too much disruption in the neighborhood if they were to tear up the tennis court. Mr. Lorber stated that the only neighbor that can see it has testified that he is fine with it. He also stated that the application needs to be amended to include the impervious variance. Chairman Neuer

Lorber stated that the only neighbor that can see it has testified that he is fine with it. He also stated that the application needs to be amended to include the impervious variance. Chairman Neuer asked Mr, Lorber if his client will take Ms. Borg’s suggestions and he replied that they will meet any conditions. Chairman Neuer stated that the Board does not react positively when one comes before them to ask for forgiveness rather than first seeking permission in accordance with the law. He continued by saying that no one on this Board harbors any ill feelings towards Mr. Carp because

of the Seton Hall application. The Chairman stated that they would never punish him and we do not operate that way as a Board. Chairman Neuer stated that as for the application itself, it is fairly benign. The netting on the top of the 8’ fence would be ugly. He will recommend the 10” fence to the Board and make a condition that any impervious surface that can be made pervious that they do so to get it down below 30%. Chairman Neuer stated that he wants to give them an alternate condition which would be to bring the fence further onto Mr. Carp’s property and not more than 3’ into the side area. The Chairman stated that Mr. Carp has to make a decision ten (10) days before the 10/27/11 meeting. The Board agreed with Chairman Neuer’s suggestion. Ms. Borg suggested that the Board include a condition making a set time for the work to be completed. She also suggested that the net must be taken down and the tennis court must not be used, The application was approved with a side yard set-back; 10° high fence surrounding the tennis court and reducing the impervious coverage to 30% and bringing everything off of the Seton Hall property or the alternative of bringing the fence further onto Mr. Carp’s property and not more than 3” into the side area. The approval will be in the resolution with options. Mr, Buechiler stated that an email must be sent to Ms. Borg by 10/17/11 informing her of what option they have chosen so the resolution can be made. Chairman Neuer stated that the work must be completed by 5/31/2012 to comply with the resolution and all required permits will be obtained. He also stated that the other condition will be that the net will not be installed and the tennis court not utilized even for virtual play. CONDITIONS: ° Work completed by 5/31/2012 ° All required permits will be obtained . The net will not be installed . Tennis court not utilized even for virtual play . Make any impervious surface pervious to get it down below 30% or . Bring the fence further on Mr. Carp’s property and not more than 3? into the side area

Chairman Neuer made a motion to approve; Mr. Buechler seconded, The vote was as follows: Bullock: Yes Steinhart: Yes Gabry: Yes Sussman: Yes Chairman Neuer: Yes Weiss: Yes Quentzel: - Buechler: Yes 2. ZB-11-09/Slomack CARRIED FROM 7/14/11 Block: 112.01; Lot: 20; Zone: R-1 1 Long Brauch Way, Llewellyn Park “D” variance for height on newly constructed house EXHIBITS A-1 Colored grading plan A-2 Variance Report prepared by Nicholas J. Wunner dated 6/27/11 DISCUSSION Mz. Lance Slomack, applicant, approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Chairman Neuer stated that the Board already knows what the applicant is requesting because the members read the application, Nicholas J. Wunner, engineer for the applicant, approached the podium and was sworn under oath. Mr. Wunner stated that he is a licensed engineer and planner in the State of New J ersey. He stated that he has testified in many towns before, as an expert in his field, but never in West Orange. Chairman Never accepted his credentials as a licensed engineer and professional planner. Mr. Wunner stated that Mr. Slomack is here applying for a “D” variance because the house they are building is 8’ too high. He said that only one part of the house is too high because the walk out basement is causing a low spot. Mr. Wunner stated that, in order to fix this, they would have to take out all of the windows on the bottom and that would leave an 8° drop off if they did. Mr. Wunner pointed to a site plan and Chairman Neuer asked that it be marked as Exhibit A-1. Mr. Wunner began to describe the details of the house and noted that the garage was not low because they would get water in it if it was. Mr. Wunner explained that he interpreted the ordinance height from the roof to the lowest elevation of the house which creates the variance. He stated that the rest of the house is maintained in compliance. Mr. Wunner went on to explain that part of the house slopes off and becomes a litthe low. Chairman Neuer asked if any elevation exceeds the 35’ and Mr. Wunner stated only on the east side; the basement windows cause it to exceed by 4°. 10

Mr. Wunner stated that his report explains how they tried to fit the house in the existing area and Chairman Neuer asked that his report be marked as Exhibit A-2. Mr. Wunner went on to say that the house fits in with the existing houses in the neighborhood and the height is in the back of the house and cannot be seen. He stated that the walk out basement caused them to be in violation of the code. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Wunner to state for the record that his report says that the house fits in with the neighborhood; there are similar houses to the one Mr. Slomack is having built; that it would be a hardship to reconstruct the house and that Mr. Slomack took all of the necessary steps to get permits. Mr. Buechler asked what the heights of the other houses were in the neighborhood. Mr, Wunner stated that it would be impossible for him to measure the height of other houses but some appeared to look higher than Mr. Slomack’s house. Mr. Buechler asked Mr. Slomack if he is still working with the same architect. Mr. Slomack replied that they are not working with him but they do speak to him. He stated that the only reason they chose him as the architect is because he is from the area and they figured he knew the regulations. Mr, Slomack stated they now have a project manager. There were no members of the public that wanted to speak. Chairman Neuer asked if there were any questions or comments. Ms. Borg stated that she agrees with their planner. Mr. Buechler stated that the applicant went to Town Hall to get building permits and, through no fault of the applicant, got short changed from the contractor. He stated that exhibit A-2 shows that the criteria was met and even though they took the roof down two feet it still never complied. Mr. Buechler made a motion that the Board approves this application with no conditions. Mr. Sussman stated that the house was beautiful and with the size of the lot, the scale of the house will have very little impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Steinhart seconded it. The vote was as follows: Bullock: Yes Steinhart: ‘Yes Gabry: Yes Sussman: Yes Chairman Neuer: ‘Yes Weiss: Yes Quentzel: - Buechler: Yes 11

3. ZB-11-15/GigaBeam CARRIED FROM 7/14/11 Block: 84.01; Lot: 22; Zone: B-2 “D” variance for use to place two (2) six foot dish antennas on an existing tower and necessary equipment to be cabinet mounted on H-frame at ground level. EXHIBITS A-1 Antenna site RF Compliance Assessment & Report dated 8/17/11 DISCUSSION James K. Pryor, Esq., attorney for the applicant, approached the podium. Mr. Pryor stated that the applicant is proposing to place two (2) dishes on an existing tower at 10 Marcella Avenue. He stated that it’s a conditional use and requires a variance. Mr. Pryor explained that this is not a cellular dish but a discreet network; point to point transmission from Newark to Marcella Avenue across New Jersey to the Midwest. Mr. Pryor then stated that they transmit only data and Giga Bearn has been contracted to build the network for their customer. Chairman Neuer stated that the Board needs to know who Giga Beam is, who Midsummer Capital is and who owns Midsummer Capital. Mr. Pryor stated that he will have that information for them at the next meeting on 10/27/11. Mr. Buechler asked why the H-frame is needed and why can’t they use the existing building for their equipment. Mr. Pryor stated that he has witnesses that will also testify to that at the next meeting. Chairman Neuer stated that Ms. Borg’s report states that she would like to see the dishes camouflaged. Mr. Pryor stated that they will provide testimony that explains these dishes are designed the way they are for technical reasons. Mr. Pryor stated that his first witness, Dan Collins, will testify regarding the FCC regulations, He also stated that he will have a witness at the 10/27/11 meeting, who is from California and will discuss the operation. Mr. Pryor stated that the site engincer is here and can testify tonight. Chairman Neuer asked if he was suggesting that this was an inherently beneficial use and Mr. Pryor stated that he is just saying the site is suited for this use. Chairman Neuer said to note for the record that in Ms. Borg’s report the tower is 200 feet high and not 2000 feet high. Mr. Pryor called his first witness and Dan Collins approached the podium and was sworn under oath, Mr. Collins stated he is an FCC compliance expert and Chairman Neuer accepted his credentials as an expert in that field. 12

Mr. Collins began his testimony by stating that he prepared a report and the dishes will be installed according to FCC standards. Giga Beam is proposing to install two (2) 6” point to point transmission dishes mounted on an existing tower. He also stated that all antenna operators are subject to be in FCC compliance with signal exposure. Mr. Collins stated that Giga Beam calculated using a six (6) gigahertz band and then explained the formula they use for this. He also stated that 95% of the energy transmitted does not reach the ground. Chairman Neuer asked to have a copy of Mr. Collins report marked as Exhibit Al and told Mr. Pryor to send it them via email. Mr. Collins continued his testimony by explaining the reason for the 6° dishes is because that’s the minimum size they can use in microwave congested areas to get the signal out. He went on to explain that these systems need this kind of antenna to transmit to Newark to Summit to Chicago. Ms. Weiss asked where in Summit was the dish located and Mr. Collins stated that it’s not constructed yet. He said that if they do not get permission to construct it in Summit then it will be in Randolph where it was already approved. Ms. Weiss stated that the photo they have makes the dish look small but in reality it’s huge. Mr. Collins stated that on page 11 of his report he has pictures of 10’ dishes. Chairman Neuer asked if they went to Marcella could they see a 10° dish and Mr. Collins replied yes; the large dishes that are there now are 10° dishes. Ms. Weiss stated that she only asked so they could go out and see it before the next meeting. Mr, Sussman asked if it had to be a point to point precise beam and Mr. Collins replied yes that it has to be accurately pointed. Ms. Weiss asked if they were denied, where would they go and Mr. Pryor said they would find another spot. Ms. Borg stated that there are other towers, specifically in East Orange. Chairman Neuer stated that it would be helpful if they knew if there were other spots. Mr. Pryor stated that it was researched and Marcella is the best location. Mr. Bullock asked the identities of the parties at the different addresses in the application. Mr. Pryor stated that, at the 10/27/11 meeting, they will explain the entire background of Giga Beam. There were no more questions for Mr. Collins. Chairman Neuer stated, for the record, Giga Beam did not give

tated that, at the 10/27/11 meeting, they will explain the entire background of Giga Beam. There were no more questions for Mr. Collins. Chairman Neuer stated, for the record, Giga Beam did not give permission for an extension. Mr. Pryor asked to have it carried over to the next meeting on 10/27/11 thereby granting the extension of the statutory time for decision. Chairman Neuer stated, for the record, that this application will be carried over to the 10/27/11 meeting and no further notice will issue. 13

ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Neuer at 10:56 pm. September 22, 2011 opty Y RoseDeSenan 7 = 7 Zoning Board Secretary 14