##VIDEO ID:HIpb4fCjkqo## testing goodby okay thanks I don't think this is right I think somebody messed this up I always put this in line too right it's a new cord um that's in line you need a power where's the power the power is here power's the power is there oh so that oh I see yeah I just maybe this is too high let's see I don't think it fits getting the recorder working but otherwise should be fine I heard can you make sure I've got this it's a new cord I testing I always I always no they that was the wrong it doesn't go into line two goes in why is he making that noise is it I tried turning the volume down never Happ is the volume I don't know I think the volum was turned up okay all right thank you all right we're good to go rep okay fingers crossed well we've got backup uh recorder here today so we should be okay well good evening everyone happy New Year and welcome to our January 6 2025 regular meeting of the township of Montclair planning board in accordance with the New Jersey open public meetings act adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by posting a copy of the notice on the first floor of the municipal building and by sending a copy to the newspaper designated by the township for notices this meeting is being broadcast live on Channel 34 and is streaming live and will be available on demand on YouTube this me meeting is a quasi judicial proceeding meeting the board has powers and procedures resembling a court of law and we are obligated to objectively determine facts and draw conclusions from them in order to provide the basis of an official action any questions or comments must be limited to the issues of what the board May legally consider in reaching a decision and the deorum appropriate to a Judicial hearing must be maintained at all times fire exits are to my right in which is your left and in the back of the room where you entered and first up is roll call mayor Baskerville present Mr borof present Mr Campbell happy New Year Mr Graham here Mr IW here M counselor lochman here Mr f is excused Miss Willis is excused Mr nean here and Cher broock I'm here okay next up is our reorganization we have a report of the nominating committee well I think two out the three nominating committee members are here and I think unless Dr basille disagrees with me that we would go along with uh the appointees yeah okay okay thank you yes so the nominating committee nominates um as chair Keith brodu as Vice chair Mike Graham as secretary Janice tally and his assistant secretary Miss NZ Nasi is that correct is that how you say her name yeah has me yep yeah I think that's it right do we need a second or I need a second second all in favor I opposed extensions okay thank you congratulations thank you very much appreciate it uh next up we have approval of the minutes yeah we have the minutes from November 18th and December 2nd um I did not receive any comments on the November 18th minutes so is there a motion to approve the November 18th minutes it move is there second second all in favor opposed extensions I did receive some changes to the December 2nd uh uh minutes and Keith you were right I did I I followed the order of my notes and not the order that some things actually took place and so I have no problem changing it to the way it actually took place okay okay excellent um this is a question for you for you um there was a comment about whether or not the there's a need for an encroachment agreement or an easement agreement for the air rights where the antennas will extend over the property line I wrote down an encroachment agreement because it's encroaching that was what my notes reflected as well okay yeah I just wanted clarification because it's usually I've seen easement agreements not encroachment agreements so I ask the question okay thank you so other than that is there a motion to approve the minutes well do we as amended did we discuss uh councelor lachman's uh amendments as well or I didn't think yeah the other I didn't have any question about change so I I was okay with them as well I just wanted to make sure okay okay so I move the uh these minutes uh motion to approve as amended there you go and I'll second all in favor opposed extensions okay okay next up we have resolutions for our board professionals well before we even get to that there's a a somewhat unique resolution that I have not presented to the planning board before and that is to amend the 2024 contract with b pavano and that has to do with because of the litigation we didn't exceed the total contract amount which is $60,000 it's just more we spent more money on General services and less on the escrow accounts so we have to adjust where the money's coming from and we have money in the Professional Services budget to pay to increase that amount by $5,000 so uh essentially um in order for the CFO and the for the contract to be amended we need this resolution approved um councilor lochman sent me some changes today to clarify it and we work together on making those changes to the satisfaction of the CFO and the purchasing agent so um but really it's the intent hasn't changed it's really just to adjust where the money's coming from you know and my point and you know was just to add some clarity as a lay person reading this resolution say 5 years from now I wanted to be sure that that person would understand exactly what was happening right so that's why we worked on some changes but are the is the amended resolution what we're voting on now people yeah have people seen it oh I didn't see that I didn't see the you didn't see it okay I think it only went to myself and Miss lochman I saw it as well you saw you did I saw it as well no that's not it Tony there's did you did you see the amended one um that was that came today yeah it came today yeah it wouldn't come in a packet it would have come through email today no okay would you mind reading I'll read the CH read the changes into the we're going to eliminate paragraphs four and five and add a new paragraph four which will say where as after review of the proposals cost and other factors considered the board awarded a cont cont ract to bat pavano LLC to serve as board attorney for 2024 for initial term of one year for an amount not to exceed $60,000 this was composed of $25,000 for General Services budget line 01201 211 181028 and $35,000 for application reviews paid through Esco escro fees budget line 03 27056 0181 the 2020 4 General Services expenses have exceeded $25,000 because of unanticipated litigation costs therefore the amount in the contract paid from the municipal budget must be increased by $5,000 and the amount in the contract paid from the escrow budget line must be decreased by $5,000 that was it anyone have questions on the revisions so this is the year 24 versus what's the what's the year for the town it goes to June no um no it's it's the it's the calendar year so the contract ends for last year though yeah and so we just had we were almost at the end and we went over that the amount that was coming out of the G the Professional Services budget but we had money to cover it I I do have a question for you the amount that's the is it 35,000 that's in the escrow budget line that is something we get reimbursed for correct no the money's already there applicants post escrow when they submit their application so I and that's why it's a separate account each application has its own bank account yep and we draw we pay his bills from that separate bank account and if the escrow that they've posted is greater than it needed to be then it's some point it's subtracted from the escro budget line um um we well you give the money back to the app yeah we give the money the applicant or we ask for more money so the problem is when we do the contract at the beginning of the year we have to keep a a total amount to be paid through escrow that's part of the contract so it's a guess okay yeah I get it and then there's some adjustment made at some point I'm just asking because you know we'll be looking at the budget shortly I know I know well this is It's kind of this is really unique to board applications cuz other items the township to my knowledge don't have escro accounts you're not paying bills through these various various different accounts we are thank you okay so was there a motion to approve this say amended motion to approve as amended second all in favor I opposed extensions uh the next item on my list is a resolution to renew the contract with batty pavano for 2025 it's a again this is a little bit different than we've done in the past years um as we discussed last year the way we uh issued the RFP through competitive Contracting it allows us to enter into a contract for f for one year renewable for 4 years for a total of five so this would be uh the second year um and what this does is there's no change uh to the amount although I believe your your hourly rate went up for for uh applications by $5 an hour so that was the only change so if there's a um and it it just extends the contract to include 2025 are there any comments is there a motion to approve this contract this resolution second all in favor opposed extensions yes congratulations AR we have a resolution here to extend the contract with um Bernstein uh Eric Bernstein and Associates he's only been to one meeting I think because we haven't had that many con conflicts but again if there is a conflict we need to have a attorney to cover those meetings there is no change in in their rates um for 2025 so is there a motion to extend the contract for Eric Bernstein Associates so moved second all in favor I opposed abion can I just ask a question um so why do we get a separate Law Firm rather than using someone in arts office in who in arts office is there conflict you're the only one conflicted mym oh your firm is conflict oh okay thank you yeah yeah duh it's good question you need me to repeat that again my microphone wasn't on um uh the next resolution is to exp extend the contract with um neglia engineering to serve as board engineer for 2025 again there's been no changes to their rates fere motion to approve renewal second all in favor I I opposed extensions okay and the last one um is to extend the contract with uh level G Associates our parking experts who lucky for us we didn't have to bring them in for anything last year because it wasn't that busy there's been no change in their rates either so is there a motion to extend the contract for 2025 so moved second all in favor I opposed extensions okay that brings us to Old business with the continuation of application 293 1 Seymour Plaza good evening and happy New Year Mr chairman fellow members of the board once again for the record um Richard Schneider of the law firm of Vogal Chate Collins and Schneider on behalf of the applicant Verizon Wireless um as the board um will recall were before you back at the board's December meeting um at which time we presented two of our anticipated three witnesses that being Mr Andy Peterson the applicants RF engineer and Mr Frank kisero the applicants architect uh both of their uh respective testimonies were completed although the board did ask that both Witnesses return just in the event that there was any further questions they are both here this evening and have and have returned as the board requested um it was my intention this evening to hopefully conclude the matter by the presentation of our expert witness in professional planning Mr Dave carlback um which I intend to do the only um I think uh housekeeping item um which I think we um addressed uh as the board will recall without getting into all of the details there might have been some questions concerning the levels of um electromagnetic fields as it related to Mr Peterson's testimony relative to the fact that his original report referenced nine antennas whereas 12 is proposed and as requested Mr Peterson submitted a updated report dated December 11th 2024 confirming that it is the exact same measurement whether it's 12 antennas or nine antennas that was submitted they did uh December 11th 2024 uh I defer to the board whether we need to mark that as a separate um um uh exhibit and if you give me a second we should I think we're up to 14 that's what I was about to check A14 okay so we'll mark that as um exhibit A14 um and unless there's any questions in the interest of time I'm prepared to proceed with Mr carlback are there questions from the board on the updated report yeah I had one question um looking at the December 11th report uh you know this is maybe anyway you say that the FCC exposure limit at all ground level locations are such and such now um is that distinguished from levels that are higher up because this I'll let Mr Peterson answer that as compared to me Mr Peterson you recognize you remain under oath I do good so my concern is this you know the antennas are on top of this building and you're stating that the radiation levels at the ground level are such and such but right next to Seymour Street is an apartment building of maybe four or five story apartment building are the same or less levels of radiation um greater or lesser from if you're living in that apartment building on an upper story so I took a look in light of our discussion um at the last meeting I took a look at the neighboring buildings um there's the Wellmont Theater to the north the seamour apartments to the Southwest your microphone may not be on Mr Peterson I think it's on now sounds much better than should I go through for the record yeah so I did take a look at the adjacent rooftops um the Wellmont Theater see more Apartments um and then across um across the way there there's another 70 footish uh tall building um and uh the closest being the Seymour Apartments to the southwest and I looked at that um from a worst case type of scenario someone on the rooftop and I think that was some of the discussion uh last time someone who's up there is virt by virtue of their occupation um and um I did examine that rooftop it's about uh 50 or 55 ft tall but it does have a significantly increased ground elevation um so relative to our building um we we still um it is still lower than our building by about 15 ft or so or or than the antennas um so the vast majority of the energy is directed over the building um but there is um an elevated relative to the ground there's an elevated level on the rooftop um but still would be within strict compliance with the FCC guidelines right yeah you are very specific in saying ground level so that there is a difference then in what you're saying yeah there there is generally still fine yes it's it's still INRI range yeah okay thank you and would that hold true for residents of the building as well oh yeah yeah um it's there's a significant decrease as you then decrease in elevation um it's only when you are elevated close to the center line of the antennas um and and then within 10 or 15 feet of those antennas where you potentially um Can exceed the FCC guidelines for exposure so in this case we have a a lower rooftop um which is uh I don't know probably 30 20 30 ft away um and the antennas are actually pointed somewhat um they're kind of pointed Southeast there and that rooftop is generally Southwest so we're not in the main beam so there's a whole lot of contributing factors there but I did look specifically at that rooftop and the exposure is only the direction that the an Anna is pointed correct so if somebody's on the rooftop and the antenna is pointed away from them they're not exposed is that correct yeah if you're if you're on let's say you're on our rooftop um then you have uh basically the back lobe of the pattern which is which is significantly attenuated yes so on on a on a rooftop you know if you're on the rooftop where the antennas are the exposure is is generally uh very low and within those strict uh guidelines correct yes okay just so is it fair to say that the energy that is emitted from these antennas proceeds out in a more or less conical fashion it does yes that's a fair statement so counselor so you keep saying the building the rooftop of those buildings I'm kind of concerned about people who live in those apartments is so there's less exposure to to them living in the apartments and cuz no one's hanging out on the roof really so what we're concerned about is people who live in their homes there and we should sorry sorry we should not be concerned according to what you're saying here well the the the levels will be significantly lower than what I examined on the rooftop because we're now below you know we're now at a lesser elevation um and then there's significant Building Material um windows so Windows block out yeah to a certain extent but certainly I don't know anything about this so you're saying the windows block it out and the height matters yeah the height the height matters and if if you know The Logical question what if someone has their windows open sure um but you're still lower than than the rooftop which is which is what I examined which would be the worst case scenario okay thank you sure any other questions from the board I'll make the same point as you did before we're not empowered with um determining whether or not these are safe for people this is not our mission right so this is just FYI and we're just looking at the zoning aspects of this so this I mean we have the report so I you expect you read the report you have some questions that's all me with respect to what we're empowered to do I mean I think I think health and safety is when our purview it is yeah absolutely it's not the building department it is however this area has been essentially taken by the federal government right so as long as it complies with the FCC guidelines but if it were to be over it or a concern that would be something we could handle as a board if there were such a concern correct correct and it doesn't appear to be with this application I would say so so then from a regulatory standpoint does this if they can if they are you know the agency which handles it do I think I might have asked this question before do you make an application to them the FCC for approval no there's no um individual sight by- sight application made to the FCC they do however regularly audit uh Verizon's internal electr magnetic emissions compliance program oh the company right yeah so so they will with a concentration on the rooftop sites because they are um you know with towers and and uh more traditional sites the antennas are elevated from the ground there's not much around um but with rooftops with worker safety um so they are audited regularly and I just have one more and not the power out of this compared to a 5G on a relative basis this is much more power for I'm just totally curious about this because we have an ordinance um how much power comes out of this versus a 5G um installation so this facility will be equipped with with 5G be 5G on it yeah radio it's got other stuff too right yeah yeah it has some 4G some 5G um it's all relatively low power more akin to uh two-way radio operations like Public Safety than it is to let's say FM or or am or television broadcast um which can be tens of thousand of Watts uh we transmit with radio powers on the order of 100 Watts um 300 watts is the maximum power of one of the radios 320 Watts thank thanks for thanks for taking the time appreciate it of course I want to make sure everybody's questions are answered here I I do that raises another question with me yeah um you just said there are 5G installations on this rooftop and we just went through and approved a 5G ordinance does that ordinance apply to this at all no no the 5G ordinance has to it specifically addresses Wireless fac small cell Wireless facilities public right way this is on private property th those facilities are intended to deal specifically with the with the public right of way as distinct from a location on a private building right thank you and and focus here would primarily be for people outside and on the road and not residents living in buildings or anything like that right as far as for service improvement right well yeah I mean it will it will improve service for Verizon Wireless customers in a decent area surrounding the site including you know including residents that that could be in neighboring buildings and and folks working in neighboring buildings but yes the surrounding areas where folks are traveling folks are uh where they're pedestrians Etc but would provide relief within to those people working and residing in the buildings correct yes it would just one more question is it anticipated that there will be other um companies similar to Verizon that will be uh having their equipment co-joined with your or in the same location as yours or this is strictly Verizon or you don't know we I couldn't comment on what a competitor such as AT&T or T-Mobile would or wouldn't do we wouldn't be privy to specifically the the proprietary nature of their Network all I can say is that there would be nothing which would effectively preclude possib their use of the same building in fact it is not uncommon that uh competitors locate on the same rooftop and I think you may have that scenario elsewhere in in in in your town but there's nothing legally design wise or radio frequency wise which precludes or prohibits use of the same structure for multiple carriers but would they have to if that were to happen AT&T would they have to come to us or do they just have a separate relationship with the building owner they would come to you they would okay because that's the way it's written in the Redevelopment plan oh I see oh so that's what triggers them having to come to us nothing in our ordinances we put it we put we amended the Redevelopment plan with specific requirement for wireless facilities so they would have to come to you for for site plan approval just like this application did okay thank you just going back to the audit comment for a moment how would this board or the township be kept a breast of um like how what sort of standing Verizon is in uh with with respect to an audit yeah if you're in compliance out of compliance like how do we like what happens from here I mean in my experience um I don't know of uh a Verizon audit that has turned up anything out of compliance yeah I mean they so I I don't I don't know the answer to that okay um but Verizon is required by their lure to to maintain these facilities within compliance so if if there was something that audited was audited and failed an audit um they would address it immediately I'm I'm sure I appreciate the confidence I think it'd be helpful just as a measure of uh just awareness to to understand like how that process flows through we don't answer it now but I think it's just seems like it's pertinent information I'll do my best to to get an answer to that if so I guess is the question are individual site owners or or municipalities made aware of any or are those FCC audits made public available just even generally speaking if I may yeah speak I don't know I I don't know the answer to that but I can find out [Music] okay other questions from the board um yes Mr Peterson based on your experience the equipment that Verizon is using on this application has a certain level I think your letter says 0.14% are you aware of whether or not other companies use equipment where that that level is higher than that so the AT&T and T-Mobile equipment um and really Dish Network those are the three other providers in the marketplace they don't use the same equipment they may have a different equipment manufacturer that they prefer Etc um they may have different antenna manufacturers they prefer um but the output powers are all very similar for the radios um um the antenna gains are very similar um they're working with the same set they're working out the same toolbox essentially it's it's all the wireless infrastructure um equipment that's out there um so it may not be identical but it is very similar in in power and and gain of antennas so that would yield similar results for let's say another installation that was that was on the building so getting back to councelor Lan's question there wouldn't be a situation where if there were multiple antennas from all the carriers on in one location that would itself make the level higher or high enough to cause some sort of issue that people what be aware of I I wouldn't anticipate that no I and and similar to Verizon the other carriers have um internal audit processes I assume they'll have to provide a a compliance report uh to this body that demonstrates compliance not only with of of their equipment but what's existing so um no I wouldn't anticipate that thank you is is that output potentially likely to change as the system gets upgraded throughout the years well over the over the past 20 years um 25 years 30 years really at this point there there there's been a constant evolution in um in uh the technology and the frequency bands used um no one has a crystal ball obviously but if if Trends remain um Verizon will likely um seek out more radio waves more more licensed bands uh to transmit in um and that could marginally increase um uh the levels but um similar to the to the prior Point not to not to level that I would anticipate would exceed and again um there's the internal audit process there is uh requirements for compliance uh demonstration sure any other questions from the board no counselor Mr callback sir do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give it will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do would you please State your full name and business affiliation for the record my name is David carlback k a r l e p a c I'm the president of David carlback PP PC and my business address is to Executive Drive Fort Le New Jersey Mr carback um you are a licensed professional planner of the state of New Jersey uh yes and I have been licensed for 30 years okay and can you briefly provide the board with the benefit of your education and experience certainly I have a master's degree in city and Regional planning from ruers University as I said I'm currently licensed I provide planning testimony almost on a nightly basis here in New Jersey I've been before this board many times in the past and I'm currently the joint planning board planner in Rivervale New Jersey and obviously in uh conjunction with your capacity of having testified so many nights your testimony has been accepted as that of an expert witness in the field of professional planning more times than you care to remember yes uh probably yeah over a thousand times and also in Superior Court and federal court Mr chairman I offer Mr carback as an an expert witness in the field of professional planning we'll accept them thank you um Dave let me just take a couple of moments just to uh have you put on the record what you may have uh done and what you may have reviewed in preparation for your um testimony um you've had the opportunity to review the um site plan that has been presented before the board correct yes and you are familiar with the visual analysis that likewise has been submitted as part of this application correct I am I didn't personally prepare the exhibits but I have reviewed them uh with Mr Kon who did prepare them and I believe them to be accurate and correct okay and you are um familiar with the respective review reports that were issued by Miss tally as well as the HPC and other uh review memorandum correct yes that's correct okay uh and you've had the opportunity at least as it relates to the amendment to the plan the uh Seymour Street Redevelopment plan youve reviewed that at it relates to the recent Amendment permitting Wireless Communications correct yes okay and you did attend the initial public hearing yes I did okay um without me at least initially interrupting you for purposes of the record let's describe the site and uh the existing surround the surrounding land uses with the obvious understanding that the the board is uh I'm sure intimately familiar with both the site and the surrounding land uses right and we covered a lot of ground in the last meeting so I think I'm just going to iterate what the board planner said in her review memo to the board that this property is an interior lot located between the Wellmont Arts Plaza and the south poton parking lot and it is within the Seymour Street Redevelopment plan area uh the property does contain a five-story parking garage with two stories of offices above and that's occupied by uh Summit Health okay um with that background Dave um let's for purposes of the record at least from a planning perspective describe that which is proposed right I I think Mr kiser's testimony pretty much covered all the I guess the nuts and bolts of the system uh the types of antenas and uh ancillary equipment that are being proposed um I don't have much to add to that other than to I guess remind the board because you're familiar with these types of applications but for a macro cell site um this only contains one equipment cabinet which is unusual normally with an application such as this you'll see three four or five cabinets um so in terms of the the infrastructure that's acquired uh this is much less than you would see uh with similar type applications and also this facility uses electric service and telephone service similar to what you would see for a single family home and there's absolutely no site rating or tree removal required with this facility okay and um as I alluded to in my opening remarks and um critical for purposes of this application uh this property is in part of the Seymour Street Redevelopment plan and the relevant zoning as it relates to that is reflected in a Amendment to the plan to permit Wireless telecommunications specific on this building is that correct that is correct okay um and that is um I assume in Your Capacity as a professional planner uh a significant planning consideration with the obvious understanding that often times I'm sure you're coming before various boards Al be it not planning boards where you're seeking variance relief because the use is not permitted but the critical point here from a planning perspective is that the uses permitted by virtue of specific Acts undertaken by the township correct right so we're not wrestling with the question of whether or not this is an appropriate site uh for the use it it is the governing body has said so uh we're more looking at the C variations or SE variances which I consider to be minor in nature and uh certainly the design is in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance so I can review with the board those those deviations that are required um the first one is that the antennas mounted on the alpha and Gamma sectors will be flush mounted to the building and they're going to extend one foot above the height of the existing parit so a variance is required for each one of these antenna sectors um and both the alpha and Gamma sector antennas are located at the northwest corner of the building the second variance is that the height of the mechanical equipment is 84 ft from the ground elevation and the ordinance uh permits a maximum height of 80 ft above ground elevation for equipment and I believe we've added a a third variance uh since our initial hearing and that is that the bottom and the sides of the antennas are uh are required to be screened from public View and here I believe the bottom of the antennas are not proposed to be screened and Mr Kaliso reviewed with the board the I guess the logistic problems with that and that uh if you did put a a bottom panel across it could possibly collect ice water or debris and affect the efficiency of the system so that's really the three uh C variances that are being sought and I believe those variances are grantable under the C2 criteria uh as the board knows with a C2 variance uh there doesn't have to be any proof of hardship it's more of a benefits versus burdens test and because there's no public here I'm not going to get into a long discussion about what the requirements are for a C2 variance I'll just say uh what the the legal framework is and that is that the application must relate to a specific piece of property that the purposes of the m l use law uh would be Advanced by a deviation of the zoning ordinance requirement that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment of the public good that the benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment and finally that the variance will not substantially impair the intent purpose of the Zone plan so it's a modified version of the positive and negative criteria tailored to the uh the C2 variants so let's start with the purposes of the municipal land use law that would be Advanced from the deviation uh of the ordinance now ver Verizon Wireless holds an FCC license to provide service in this area so the positive criteria are presumptively met but beyond that in our Advanced techn technological Society there is a manifest need for improved Wireless telecommunications they now play a vital role in preserving the health and safety of all US citizens uh mobile phones are routinely used to report traffic accidents uh suspected crime activity drunk drivers uh they're used to report medical emergencies and other types of emergencies to the proper authorities so this advances uh the following purpose of the municipal land use law and that is to encourage the appropriate use or development of land in a manner which will promote the public health safety welfare uh and morals the second requirement is that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and the courts have found that generally speaking the negative criteria per turning to telecommunications facilities implicates Aesthetics now this application I believe presents no visual impact uh issues as evidenced by the photo simulations that have been provided to the board uh the color and the design of the concealment structures harmonizes with the architecture of the building and this facility is not immediately recognizable as a telecommunications facility uh by the public the antennas themselves the support structures the conduits the cables are all invisible to the public and the small size of the equipment is absorbed into the mass of this very large building uh the largest piece of equipment has been placed furthest away from the edge of the building in order to minimize its visibility and I believe the rooftop equipment will not be visible from a public right of way uh it may be visible from certain other locations but I don't going I don't believe it's going to be visible from a public Street uh this stealth installation does not cause any damage to the character of the neighborhood and I believe it does not change the visual quality of the site Dave let me just interrupt you you've given your view and I I I think it it's borne out by the by the visual analysis that there's essentially no adverse visual impact associated with the facility as a whole that that would specifically stand true you commented on the equipment but the one foot deviation from a visibility perspective it would not at least in in my view whether you share it or not would not be even noticeable to an average person you wouldn't be able to tell that there's a visual impact associated with the one foot deviation correct right I don't think it's uh it's noticeable and even so even if it it is noticeable there's a distinction between ibility and visual impact just because you can see something doesn't mean it's necessarily impactful I think you know a dumpster that wasn't screened certainly would have a visual impact but these uh antennas that exceed the height of the building by one foot no certainly not a visual impact I'm sorry that's okay now let's uh let's move away from uh visibility or visual impact issues and talk about some of the other types of impacts that we might expect now this proposal does not subtract from the sites parking Supply uh it doesn't disrupt the way uh this site functions or any other neighboring site might uh function uh the small increase in height that we're talking about does not disrupt any important views it doesn't block air or light onto surrounding properties um and this Bas station is an unmanned facility therefore there's no proposed increase in population or employment at the site uh the use requires very I should say it requires virtually no increased demand of Municipal Services uh it certainly doesn't require any sewer service or water supply and there's virtually no traffic impact associated with this use you only have infrequent maintenance visits by a uh technician also this use does not generate any noise vibration smoke odors dust fumes or any other objectionable influences it's it's a very uh passive use and you heard testimony it's going to operate within FCC standards for RF emissions um I believe the applicant has presented to the board the least intrusive method of providing service into the area um the third requirement is that the benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment and I believe this is the better plan for the property the one foot deviation is a product of the size the antennas needed for that optimal coverage and this minimal increase is barely detectable uh the 4 foot increase in the height of the equipment over the per permitted use or EXC I should say over the permitted height is a function of the height of the existing roof deck uh and the size of the equipment cabinets so nothing could really be done about that if you place the equipment on the roof it's going to exceed the 80ft height requirement the only thing you could do is attempt to locate it in an area uh that's uh not visible to the public and I think that's that's been accomplished and the benefit of installing the antennas and equipment with this minimal increase in height uh I think that uh that uh the benefit exceeds any perceived detrim with that small height increase uh this proposal provides the benefit of continuing to provide reliable service in the area this is a replacement site so you do have that continued enhanced 911 service safe secure and ond demand Wireless Communications increase work productivity and efficiency um and just enhance Public Safety so I can't identify any public detriments uh that would arise from the granting of these variances so I'm going to suggest to the board those public benefits that are conferred far outweigh any perceived detriment just before you leave that day then you would be of the opinion that the uh public public that the public benefits and not screening the bottom of the antenna those benefits for the reasons articulated by Mr kererto outweigh any de any detriments by not screening it correct correct I think the benefit would be only minimal it would be from only locations very close to the building with a passers by looking up at the bottom of the antenna uh so again only a minimal benefit there so I'll just conclude by saying the intent of the ordinance as I see it the way I interpret the ordinance the intent is to permit Wireless Telecom facilities within the Redevelopment area while minimizing visual impacts and I believe this has been achieved through the Strategic placement of the antennas on the facade of the building and the concealment of the antennas uh the variances again I believe are minor in nature and they're necessar to produce the best design solution for this uh stealth concealment structure lastly they just before we open it up to questions if any um you do place some I assume uh significant planning uh significance on the fact that the township was under no obligation to ultimately make this a permitted use but presumably recognizing the need for wireless and choosing this specific building made the legislative determination to make this a permitted use that's significant to you from a planning perspective oh yes I I think that uh you know both the the applicant and the governing body work together to uh come up with the best solution to providing or continue to provide that reliable service to the area so we do have that consensus building that planners uh hope to achieve and that's exactly what's been done here Mr chairman nothing further for Mr carlback Question from the board I do have one question it sounded like um the township came up with this we need this Wireless ordinance um we need the plan the Redevelopment plan amended to allow Wireless first before we got any bites from a Verizon or an AT&T to do this no recall there was a Verizon antenna on the property okay and then the property was redeveloped okay we ad and after we adopted the Redevelopment plan Verizon said you know we really need that site yeah so we amended the Redevelopment plan added the language particularly the stealth language which honestly Verizon was not supportive of it yeah but the township was pretty adamant that we wanted you know that it would be stealth and we wanted to limit the height of the antennas and the equipment so that's how we came to where we are today Y and when was the Redevelopment plan amended I have that answer it was uh July 26 2022 there you go okay thank you any other questions from the board any questions from the public of this witness you have you have to ask any question or any comments from the public about this application down door I I see none counselor would you like to sum up I would like to Yes uh first of all I thank the board for um the attention that it's uh given to this application and thank the board and its um professionals and before the application got here to miss tally specifically about her efforts collaboratively I think is referred to by most myself and Mr carlback in I think uh arriving at a at a good place um I um I want to take this brief opportunity to put the application in some some final perspective um it's not necessarily this application is not about what I think but what I can respectfully suggest to you is I I've been presenting Wireless applications for 35 years um and I I I must honestly say I think uh from from a visual perspective and a design perspective I think this is among the the better designed facilities that that I've seen and that process was not um uh arrived at um in any frivolous manner I think Janice just articulated the process as we went through it which involved us coming to the township we were originally on a different building the township suggesting that the West parcel was the more appropriate parcel and frankly holding our feet to the fire in terms of what the design should uh entail and I think what Mr carlback I think if we take aside from the articulation of the statutory criteria but if we take one thing or one conclusion from Mr carlb back's testimony um is the focus on all of these Wireless cases when you're looking at a roof a rooftop facility is what's the visual impact because I think anyone who looks at the application objectively is compelled to come to a conclusion that there are no other impacts the concern and the relevant inquiry is what's the visual impact and I think in this particular case I don't think by any uh stretch of the imagination we can conclude that there is no visual ual impact and not only and this is what I was trying to ask Mr carback not only is there's no visual impact with the design of the facility itself but there's no visual impact associated with the three deviations there's no visual impact associated with the location of the equipment there's no visual impact associated with the one foot deviation when you look at those the visual analysis which you all had the opportunity to look at very closely I myself you if you didn't know from the visual analysis that there was a one foot deviation I think you'd be hard pressed to find it and I don't think you can certainly find that there's a visual impact associated with the one foot deviation and lastly I I I do not think that there's any visual impact associated with the bottom of the antennas um not being screened from public good you would have to look up 70 feet in the air specifically to look for that to really search and find for a visual impact so if the focus and the Crux of the inquiry is is there an adverse visual impact is there a detriment to the public good I would respectfully suggest to you that there is no visual impact associated with the facility as a whole or with the deviations as to the need for the facility um I I would make two comments and one's a non-legal comment but for as long as I've been doing it I I say this to to respected members of the board if Verizon didn't need the facility why let's ask ourselves the very rational question why would Verizon be spending the significant resources both from a appearing before the board leasing renting the property and all of the costs that are associ it with the development of the site if it didn't need the site the reason we're here is because there is a a true legitimate documented basis because we're running out of capacity Mr Peterson went through that for about over an hour um and the reality is as much as we sometimes want to rail against uh people sitting at a restaurant looking at their mobile phone that's what that's the reality of our society nowadays with the increased Reliance on mobile communication um services and this is a uh a site that is necessitated by that because we've exhausted every possibility in conjunction with our existing sites so I think I've addressed visual impact I've addressed the need for the site let me conclude with three other comments um I do think it is most significant both from a planning and a legal perspective um that the Township in a collaborative process with the applicant made this a permitted use the reality of the fact is that if the township did not amend the Redevelopment plan we would have had no ability to get any relief to put Wireless Communications services on this property because you can't get a use variance or a d variance where there's a Redevelopment plan in place so the township made that decision and made it a permitted use that is significant from both a legal and planning perspective two final comments uh I don't take lightly um uh the positive review report from your historic preservation commission who issued a report that you all have essentially recommending approval of the application I think that's significant from a uh a visual and planning perspective and I think it represents an acknowledgment of the appropriate uh positive uh design that has been deployed in conjunction um with this matter and lastly um I know we've spent a lot of time on electromagnetic fields and and all of that and I sincerely hope that not because I I think we've gone beyond what we needed to do but I understand from a visceral reaction why you want to make those inquiries the the the fact is that no town no board can deny an application based on electromagnetic fields to the extent under the Telecommunications Act that such facilities comply with emissions that's the law but I think we've come here in good faith and I think proven to you um very clear and convincingly that we're we're talking about a standard here of 0.14 out of 100% to give you the the the Comfort level that we're in strict compliance so what I would urge you based on all of the forging and the expert testimony uh that has been presented uh is that uh you approve the application um as uh submitted um subject to the uh provision that um um we will enter into an encroachment um agreement which has been agreed to in in principle with the adjoining property owner that was identified by Miss tally I've had Communications with your Council about that and have as a courtesy given him a heads up that we have substantially arrived at that agreement subject to finalization and obviously subject to board approval I think that's the appropriate um condition um and I believe that there was and I I don't know that I advised your Council I believe that the HPC had made a recommendation that Verizon agreed to be responsible for the continued maintenance of the concealment during the life of the facility I frankly forgot to mention that to you this afternoon but we stipulate to uh conformance with that condition likewise that's it I'm sorry okay thoughts from the board techology it's good it's good for the labor market right I would just like to say we do appreciate I I've known Iris for 20 30 years so she she knows the Cadence Of My Voice by now I would just like to say that um uh well I don't recall the HBC recommending the uh the uh plan I do do recall uh a general consensus uh that um the visual impact was minimal and a general uh impression um that uh the commission was uh uh satisfied with the design and we do appreciate the stipulation of the continued maintenance of the site yeah I I mean personally I wish the bottom could be screened but I I because I do think there's a visual impact I I appreciate your point that you have to look up but I mean when I look at all the visuals that have been presented to us you can see it from ways off and you can see the bottoms of those antennas hanging out underneath the screening so I don't love that but at the same time health and safety of the people walking under it is more important to me than having the screen and you know I am I'm moved that I would not want ice and snow to build up under there and have that fall on somebody because I think that would be way worse than any sort of visual impact um I appreciate that it it does everything else with the screening does minimize the look and it does blend nicely with the building I I see the commission the the historic preservation commission did support the proposal I think was the language at least that was in the memo that we received so that gives me some comfort that um not only did do I find it that it it's visually works but you know the folks that have a lot of expertise and looks and also agree with that so with that I mean I would support the the application and if there's no more Comas I would move to approve the application with the stipulations you've made and with our normal conditions Mr n um I I I don't have my file I don't have my file but uh my recollection and I discussed with Council today that the board will get a copy of the encroachment agreement and uh get that and that encroachment agreement will be reviewed uh uh will be recorded um and uh I I don't think there was any other condition other than what you and I talked about this afternoon so to the extent my notes reflect an additional condition that we discussed I think you're not going to jump up and down if I include that in the potential resolution I haven't jumped up and down yet so I don't think I'm going to stop especially if I get an approval I would second the chair's motion oh pardon me May if you wanted no no no I was just getting ready to do the same thing so I I would I I second uh the chair's motion quick clarification before we continue sure those Provisions include the notion that if at for any reason Verizon falls out of FCC compliance that we're made aware Mr Schneider even though it's not likely I appreciate the the confidence I just want to make sure I understand I I I didn't hear what I'm sorry I want to make sure that that we're all clear not just me trust everyone would agree with this if in the surprise event that Verizon is out of compliance with the FCC that we have some mechanism of being made aware okay I think that's reasonable and I actually um I do remember one additional uh condition and that related to when you go to the building department that you will present an EMF report for each um each new facility I think is probably how I think we talked about the initial permit right the initial building permit will submit a report right but if you if you have to go back to the building department for any additional you you have to you're going to have to provide that provide the department with an updated version so when you switch out antennas right I'm sorry when when you switch out antennas you know 10 years down the line I can see switch out or add either could be either I mean probably to come back report well I I guess my point is if I switch out Model A for model B and it's the same am I going to have to do an a new EMF report every time I use a new updated model well you know what would help if you if you submit a letter saying that the output is the same I think you accomplish that okay because the lay person probably wouldn't know that Janice what's an EMF report electromagnetic uh frequency oh that's what we're talking about here EMF acronyms I know okay I think we've got clarification so I'll amend my motion to include all those items we just discussed I will second all in favor I opposed extensions okay thank you all right have a good evening thank you okay we don't have any new business I do we have any committee reports I I have a question Mr chair sure mayor um yes please so we were all presented with um I believe an extensive report from the Housing Commission so I just wanted to know under um new business is there anything that we should discuss here or um acknowledge that we received it or uh what what should we do with the extensive report um I know they're very excited to try to um work with us in terms of affordable housing things and I look through here and I'm just not certain is there anything in here that would be helpful for us to talk about or mostly it looked like a lot of things maybe that would go to zoning or other areas but I just wanted to you know find out your opinion I know Janice you you serve on that committee as well the Housing Commission is well aware of the work that we're doing in terms of preparing a new housing element fair share plan and I think that report was their recommendation to the planning board on some of the things that they think that the planning board should consider as they work on the plan more than that though right because as I read there's a lot of things in here that I'm not sure that are in the perview the planning board and that's why it also went to the council because they took this as an opportunity to let you know what some of their ideas are um and they they want to work with both boards um uh the Plenty there's some larger issues but they also know and we all know that the housing plan is time critical so that's obviously the priority what sorry it's time critical MH the council has a resolution that they're going they have to approve this month by January 30th be submitted to the state yes you know accepting the the the housing obligation of 135 units that need to be rehabed that's the first critical yeah 132 okay yeah that's documents so that's the first step but then there's a series of steps but the the big thing is we have to submit the plan by June 30th but I think a lot of this stuff isn't I mean it's presumed that we don't have an obligation for more and you have to rehab the 132 so that's pretty straightforward right right that's but there are I mean I if we're open to I have I certainly have views on some of the stuff that I'd be happy to discuss yeah if you'd like same so I don't know when we will get a chance to um speak about I mean some of the stuff is good and some of the stuff I think is not good so well maybe what we should do is first of all I know thear you had asked for information and reports and I have a whole binder full of reports which um I spoke to our director um Tony fan today the director of uh uh information technology and information and we're going to put all those reports rep s for anybody who wants to read them uh on a share drive for the planning board my office we're also working on updating um the data in terms of uh the Census Data there's new America Community survey data that's that has become available for 2023 so we're updating our charts to include that and we'll we'll start the discussions and perhaps we um schedule a series of meetings um um maybe the second meeting with the planning board of the month to talk about housing issues as we move ahead there's a lot of pieces to this puzzle as um the focus the past week or two has been transferring all of our affordable housing files from our administrative agent into my office and dealing with maintaining the records and training and how we're going to move forward with our various programs so that's one piece you don't get involved in that um but that's just one component and how we manage our affordable units but I think it's pretty important because clearly we have an investment in our affordable units in Monclair and uh we want to make sure that those units continue to provide quality housing uh for the people of Montclair that we expand it where feasible how does uh the step that we're at now I guess with your office how does that reconcile with with the resolution that's on the ccil council's doorstep like does the timing align or we it's just a that's just a binding resolution that the council accepts the number because this is the issue with a housing plan is it's a the document is adopted by the planning board but it has to be approved by the council so it's we have to work hand in hand yeah so uh it's a little bit unique it's not like a land use plan which is really the jurisdiction of the of the planning board got it so um that's where we are uh now that we're here with the new year we'll start scheduling some of these discussions and and moving forward and CH it's just a question so it's just a proforma for the council to accept the numbers by the DCA there'd be no debate about it correct I would hope I can't speak for the council so I we should do that sooner rather than later so that we're not I submitted it I think it's on your for Tom you want take action that's fine if you want to discuss it that's fine but yes it's on for tomorrow number one this is a new process after 35 40 Years of affordable housing we've got a whole new process so I can't tell you if it's proforma I think it should be yeah particularly since I think our number is reasonable and achievable and not a huge burden to the municipality so so Mr chair I appreciate you for um recognizing me um uh planner tally I appreciate you and so if I understand correctly we're going to move forward and we will start scheduling some of these things maybe at the second meeting of the month or something so that we can have some discussion about the concerns that were presented here the suggestions that okay thank you so much and it sounds like we're going to have some more information as well to look at which I think will be helpful so thank you Mr Campbell for raising that as well thank you mayor for raising the question and Janice had um asked for what's her name catcha to give me the ruter reports did she give it to you she did so you're copied on that that's interesting information as well you might want to include that binder so this will be done by the full Council not any subcommittee as we look at this is that true I think I think it's a big enough issue yeah at this point and if we can schedule it for the full board yeah I prefer to do it that way I would yeah should we include the recommendations from the zoning board that they send out annually in those conversations okay no I that's another I don't want to that doesn't have to be a part of the housing plan that's more of changes to the zoning ordinance we're working on it sure um but I I don't I think I let's separate the two that is important but I think it's more critical that we address the housing issues because again we have a deadline yeah more time critical yes yes time critical okay yes I think you you passed around some of the stuff before but uh it's really really small print on the bottom of the letter um it there's some footnotes I would assume that you I think you've circulated some of this stuff already well that's what I had just mentioned I have some of the stuff the blin stuff she gave me so that's why I think if I'm going to create a shared drive and I'll have links to all those articles there's a lot of I get I get information almost you know on a daily or weekly basis there's a report that came ac across my desk today from the Harvard Joint Institute of housing I might have screwed up the name but they do some excellent research and their latest research is that come over the next 10 years the number of new households forming is going to start to decline housing demand is anticipated to decline so you know we have to not just plan for you know what's been occurring over the last 10 years but in anti anticipating that we're not going to have this housing bubble it's going to end so it just puts a different curve on this whole discussion of Housing and housing demand and designing for it so is that region is that specific to different regions of the country or is it uh just in general it's in general okay because I could see that nationally maybe being a trend but perhaps certain certain areas it's demographic like people are getting older and they're dying off and you know that's what's and people are having less children so of course it's but certain areas will probably continue to beair will be one of them that will be a desirable location it also added changes in Immigration patterns and if immigration patterns decline as they very well may it's going to the number of new households and housing demand is going to decline significantly more so than it has in probably the past 30 years so it's some really interesting data you know and I will post all this information for those of you who want to read it and Janice the ultimate goal of the the housing plan we're calling it what is that in a nutshell I think is to have a comprehensive housing policy number one you know affordable housing is but that's only a small part of it it's not just the only thing is not affordable housing maybe I'm that's all we really have to do is the affordable housing part of it but I think it's part of a bigger issue you know the need for starter homes you know we've heard about that um how you look at housing policy in terms of demographic Trends and and and forecasts so I wouldn't say normally most towns just say okay we have a housing obligation where are we going to put it you know where we I think that we can have a more robust discussion and say what are our housing needs not just you know for low-income households and moderate income households but for seniors you know and for missing middle missing middle right M okay and it doesn't have to be a huge these don't have to be huge numbers we are looking at through through GIS we can identify where which blocks have a higher percentage of two family houses existing Zone for one family and maybe that's an opportunity to look at that block and change it into a two family Zone to help address that missing middle so it's it's very incremental it's not huge changes that we're talking about here so I think that what you want to do is um identify the needs and the trends and the forecasts come up with the policy that meets those but also preserves you know Mont Clair for for what it is it's a very uh unique attractive town a community and neighborhood for everybody so okay and I'll shut up now we any other committee reports or any committee reports I I had a question about um the planning board committies now that Jeff is not here you need to replace him I guess you had sent out the U planning board committies for 2025 but Jeff is on there under planning board revisions committee on the oh yeah we Jeff is on the revisions committee so we need a new person for the revisions committee and we have an opport an empty spot on the bylaws committee so I don't know if you want to fill that spot right now there is an an opening on the planning board so we can think about it yeah I um just with respect to that opening I've asked the um um clerk to give me all the most recent volunteer forms that have been submitted where people have the uh planning board as their number one choice okay so that we can look at who wants to be on the board as their number one choice and then the council will have to figure out good who they want to I just would suggest that we move Jake up to I agree second alternate I would suggest that 100% I don't know that the council quite understands that but we need to make sure that they do yeah I appreciate that and I also um spoke to Janice before we uh got started with the meeting about the possibility of an individual um who's interested in joining the planning board who would also be interested in serving on the environmental um commission and so um that's that's something that I'm looking into too because I understand that that there's a need to do that and I'm trying to get that done so this might be that time sounds good okay can we go back to the housing thing for a moment sorry it's like a passion area for me do we in your experience or in your experience do you believe that we can make our way across the Finish Line in these meetings like even if we schedule it out is like yeah how feasible is it in your opinion I think absolutely we can do that okay the the difficulty is I think you we'll be able to do this we're going to have to coordinate with the council got it because and that's why I want to get this done sooner rather than later I'm sorry what was a question I how feasible is it that we can make our way across the Finish Line in like these housing conversations whether we don't have a choice that's the thing when you have a de when the state law says it must be submitted by June 30 yeah we see yeah that means it has to be a a submission that we're proud of right not just submitting something right right yes if we need to we can always convene an ad hoc subcommittee of this body okay to you know if if we're getting to the point where we don't feel like we're going to make it as a board we have a lot of opinions and and you know we like to debate things which I think is good that's one of my favorite things about this board quite honestly but if we start looking that we're not going to make that deadline or we're not going to be happy with the document yeah we'll create a subcommittee of folks to Hash through it and bubble things up to the full board quite honestly you know you adopt the plan if a year out you want to make an amendment to it because you had time to study and aspect of it you can always amend it got it I don't we're not locked into it okay nope because you don't have a new construction obligation I don't think we were going to have the pressure and the controversy that some other municipalities have good point there's no threat yeah so Janice it strikes me it's up to you to start giving us the data right yeah so that's kind of the first thing we have to digest this been working on it yeah I know I again the 2023 data became available in December so um so we're working on that okay sounds good thank you thank you bills is there a motion to pay the bills well bills did appear in order Mr n so I would make a motion to approve the Bills second I'm so glad our bills were in order this month as opposed to other month okay Mike with that I would move to a journ all in favor I oppos exensions happy New Year have a good night everyone good night