The T-Mobile proposal involved the installation of nine panel antennas on the roof of an existing three-story building, with a center line height of 36 feet. To reduce visibility, the antennas were moved back 10 feet, necessitating an increase in height by two feet. This adjustment required a variance, a point acknowledged during the detailed technical discussions. Jennifer Caner, representing T-Mobile, explained that these modifications were important to avoiding obstructions to the antenna pattern and ensuring adequate service coverage, particularly for in-building service, which is currently lacking in the area.

Public interest and concern were evident as residents, such as Steve Pasha and Ray Gomez, questioned the placement of the antennas. Queries focused on whether the antennas could be relocated to minimize visual impact while maintaining service quality. T-Mobile’s RF consultant emphasized that the proposed adjustments were necessary to maintain coverage, especially for in-building services, a known shortfall in the region.

Health concerns were also a topic of discussion, particularly regarding the potential impact of the antennas on individuals with health devices like pacemakers. T-Mobile responded with an FCC analysis, assuring compliance with all federal and state regulations. However, some audience members remained dissatisfied, seeking further clarification on the health implications.

T-Mobile’s representatives reiterated that while side mounting of antennas was technically feasible, it would reduce coverage.

The technical dimensions of the application also involved a discussion on the antennas’ structural requirements. The board sought clarity on the rooftop space occupied by the installation, which was estimated to be around 20% of the roof area. Ballast frames were proposed to stabilize the antennas, accommodating the building’s existing mechanical equipment without interference.

The meeting’s discussions expanded to the broader implications of antenna placement, including potential sharing by other carriers like Optimum, which could affect service provision in the area. The need for additional approvals before any relocation of the antennas was acknowledged, including RF, structural, and landlord consent. Ultimately, the board decided to defer the application to a future meeting, allowing T-Mobile to explore alternative options and address public concerns more thoroughly.

Beyond the T-Mobile application, the meeting addressed other matters. Timothy Kelly sought a variance for an addition to his home on Noble Street to make it accessible for wheelchair use. The board advised Kelly on potential stormwater management requirements due to increased impervious coverage, prompting him to defer his application for further investigation with the township engineer.

A separate application by Joseph O’Neal for a one-story foyer addition on North Bevwick Road included a request for a D variance due to an undersized lot. O’Neal’s application highlighted ongoing issues related to conditional use standards.

Other applications included Mohammad Hassan’s request to expand his driveway on Graham Court, which had been constructed too close to the property line without prior permission. Hassan agreed to consult with the municipal engineer to address this issue.

Luis Aldana’s application for legalizing a rear covered patio and other structures without proper permits was also discussed. The board advised Aldana to consult with the engineer regarding stormwater management concerns due to increased impervious coverage and to consider removing some constructed elements for compliance.

Lastly, the board reviewed an application by Dollar Tree for a C variance to install a second wall sign on Route 10. The board approved the application, contingent upon the sign being illuminated only during store hours.