##VIDEO ID:q58pasnbSSQ## you're on record I'm on record okay the meeting of the township of precip Troy Hills planning board from Monday December 2nd 2024 at 7:30 p.m. announcement is made that adequate notice of this meeting has been given that is being conducted on in accordance with njsa 10 colen 4-6 at SEC of the New Jersey open public meetings act Nora would you call the role Please Mr did yeah Mr diero here Mr mey here Mr Napolitano here Mr Shaw here Miss Smith here chairman dinmore here we have a board planner miss winter our board engineer Mr kiano and our board attorney miss dley all right if we could do the Pledge of Allegiance please iedge of to the flag of the United States America and to the repblic for it stands one nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all all right this meeting is open to the general public is there anyone here who has something that is not on our agenda that would like to speak to us tonight hearing and seeing none um I'm not aware of any resolutions that we have to do so that bring this right to our agenda application number 24 colon 529 T-Mobile 1269e 46 blot 729 uh lot 6.01 Zone 03 minor sight plan with c variance to construct a temporary monopole with antennas and electric service good evening chairman ladies and gentlemen of the board Jennifer caner from Price me shman and de on behalf of the applicant TMobile can you guys hear me okay yes you could speak is it all right if I if I sit it's most important for you to yeah I think if I should I I'm closer to the [Music] microphone Mr chairman yes uh just there technical issues there's a this is for 24 colon 529 some of the plannings we have here are for 23 colon 533 and then you go further along and it's 24529 again just want to make sure everything is is is the same that that was the prior um application for this same property it was um from last or from earlier this year um it was application number 23 colon 533 but it's the same proper thank you yeah well a lot of what you're going to hear from the board members that were here back in April is going to be the same testimony cuz we're just Li locating the tower from one corner of the property to the other but understanding we got to put our proofs on and we're happy to do that this evening so I'll um do a brief introduction and get our Witnesses on so you know we can all get home and get warm because it's very cold out today uh so T-Mobile has an existing approved and operating Wireless facility at the existing building which is now demoed at 1269e 46 T-Mobile is proposing to deploy a temporary facility at the subject property the proposed facility includes a 49 ft monopole installation of nine temporary antennas on the temporary pole and to extend temporary electric service to the equipment being installed it should be noted that T-Mobile received approval way back in December 1997 specifically to install three roof mounted antennas and an accessory equipment cabinet at the top of the existing building now that the buildings demolished and as a result we're seeking approval to operate a temporary facility it should also be noted that we recently obtained approval for a temporary facility back in March of 2024 we're now seeking to relocate that facility on on the site we're seeking in terms of variance relief this evening minor site plan approval to permit the temporary Tower in the O3 Zone other Associated variance relief required um and as per noted per your board planers report is minimum front yard setback or 75 ft is the minimum permitted and 27.1 is proposed we also have minimum side yard setback where 75 is minimum permitted and 35 .3 is proposed and finally location of the facility proposed in the front yard were only permitted in the rear and backyard it is respectfully submitted that the location chosen for the temp facility is particularly suited and my planner will testify to that given the fact that it is adjacent to the uh what was the existing Tower and that is being replaced it allow T-Mobile to use its existing equipment that's currently there and it's far removed from any Residential Properties located in an office home and as my RF will testify the height of the temporary Tower is required to provide Reon comparable service during the duration of construction and Redevelopment of the site I have three Witnesses with me this evening Mr Josh contrell of French and pillo Associates he'll be testifying as in his capacity as a professional engineer I have Daniel cze of pure cons Solutions who'll be testifying in his capacity as an RF engineer and lastly I have Matt Flynn of John mcdna Associates who will be testifying in his capacity as a planner I did receive just want to make sure there's no other reports um arh associate planers reports from October and most recently November 15th and also the GPI engineers's report dated October 29th 2024 I don't believe there are any other reports I just want to confirm that okay we did file an exemption request from the N sex County Planning Department we had one from the last approval um however we're still awaiting receipt of same so that's still pending um if there's no other it to be addressed I can bring out my first witness we have some waivers so just go through quickly got ahead of myself so you already mentioned the Morris County planning board approval um then most of these are related to The Limited area of the plan and we take no objection um so for the scale of the map uh that it contain no more than 50 50 ft to an inch uh Contours post spot elevation existing proposed utility services including septic systems existing and proposed sight illumination um location description of existing proposed landscaping again scale um and Contours and Utility Services again um as long as there's testimony provided related to any changes sure the prior approvals we take no issue with any of those Okay so we've got a number of waivers requested that are outlined in the arh report uh what's the date on this November 15th November 15th do I have a motion I'll make a motion Mr D Pierro do I have a second second Mr napalitano all in favor say I anybody opposed hearing and seeing none counselor great thank you very much can I ask a question first before we start as I recall was there the intention of when the new building that golf building goes up you're going to move back to an a structure there well a structure within the vicinity of of the property we don't have a signed lease you don't have a signed lease here your intent is to go to one of those buildings that are going to be built um well within the vicinity might not be on the subject property but we do need to get a permanent site eventually back up yeah this is just to fill the gap for now while we while we look for that okay thank you yeah no problem okay um actually my first witness is going to be Daniel cze on for RF testimony and he has a couple exhibits that were not submitted with the application so I think we need to Mark those in [Music] [Music] yeah I'm going to first swear you in you want to move that little further back so they can see it oh they can't see it I think we can see enough right if you please raise your right hand do you swear affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth please state your name spell your last name and provide your address for the record uh my name is Daniel check last name CZ e c you need to speak into the microphone [Music] uh Daniel check last name CZ uh address is 10 Park Place Building 6C in Butler New Jersey thank you Mr Chuck will you please provide the board with the benefit of your qualifications and experience for the record yes so I have a bachelor's degree in engineering from NGIT uh with an emphasis on communication systems I'm experienced running propagations propagation analysis for wireless carriers I've calculated several RF emissions for FCC compliance and I have over a dozen certifications in RF training and I've been accepted as an expert before the board of cataway Woodbridge and planfield this point I'd like to qualify any questions on the qualifications of the witness hearing and seeing none counselor great thank you very much okay you may proceed uh so we provided an EMF report dated October 8th uh 2024 not sure if that was marked in in this exhibit um but in this analysis we had compile compiled with uh FC standard and these FCC standards are a conservative nature of standards and the New Jersey standard New Jersey radiation section act standard and the methodology we use for our analysis is should I shut that worst case shut the door so that the uh sound of the waxing of the floors thank you and I I don't have a copy of the report so if you could just describe it and then we can mark it as exhibit A1 uh sure um the main purpose of the report was the calculations that are you know entailed inside of it but uh these pertain to the FCC standards and the New Jersey radiation protection act standards and the way that we conduct our test is uh we use the worst case and this assumes that all antennas are on actively transmitting and that there is no cable loss which gives you the worst possible case um in RF emissions and our analysis reported that the T-Mobile facility would emit uh 15.78% of the FCC allowable limit that is 6.3 times below the limit and 3.16% of the New Jersey maximum permissible exposure limit and uh that's 31.7 times below the limit so this confirmed that the site it will be well below any emissions limits okay thank you very much and you prepared some exhibits for this evening uh yes I have could you just briefly uh describe them and I think we're going to work those in yeah so the report is just an EMF report dated October 8th 2024 is that correct yes that correct prepared by your office yes that's pure con Solutions soltions correct okay and then I get you a copy of that okay thank you then we'll do exhibit A2 [Music] so there's three slides just take the microphone sorry uh so there's three three slides that I have here so uh 82 for the first one [Music] and in this first uh slide we have it's titled T-Mobile's existing LTE 2100 megahertz coverage and we could see in dark blue circles we have T-Mobile's existing on air sites and in the center of the map we have the site in question the site that is coming off air that is NJ 06 0496 sorry 06 049 C and this site is coming off air but we can see that coverage is uh shown on this map in a green queue and coverage areas depict in building Service as we can see this area this site provides coverage along uh US 46 and I80 as well as uh commercial buildings as well as residential buildings in this area and then if we move on to the next slide um that'll be [Music] A3 so this slide is titled T-Mobile's existing LTE 2100 megahertz coverage without NJ 0649 uh see and as you can see the site is no longer present in the center of the map and we can see that there is a reduction in coverage shown here along uh us46 I80 um as well as some residential buildings that are located there um and now moving on to the third slide that'll be A4 yep here we have the slide titled T-Mobile's existing LTE 2100 megahertz coverage with NJ CLT 89 this is T-Mobile's uh name for the temporary site that they plan to uh that they were proposing and we can see that this site is shown with a pink dot on the center of the map and we can see that coverage is now once again restored to this area providing an adequate uh replacement site for the previous existing site showing that um this site will indeed provide the same coverage if not better than was was previously existing thank you Mr check and just a few followup questions um the height of the tower proposed is 49 ft and that's U the minimum that we would required in order to meet the coverage needs that are current existing now correct yes that is correct um and the facility will help provide reliable coverage during the Redevelopment of the site that is correct and lastly we have no concerns for interference with other electronics in the area we operate at a license frequency correct that is correct T-Mobile is licensed thank you very much I have nothing further of this witness the members of the board that have any questions Andrew do you have anything um is the height the same as the height as the the existing one that was the existing temporary one that's in service now yes yes yes okay yeah thank you propose at 49 and this one's at 49 too the antenna center lines are at uh 45 feet on these sites yes Michael you had a question yeah this new site I'm not familiar with it there's no residential in that area is there it's all commercial for the mo for it's in an office zone so so that that's correct for the most part I believe there was some residential areas off of uh 46 that are captured with that yes the there I don't believe there are a large sum of uh homes that are would be affected by this site but I I believe what are we talking in terms of the it's the same site it's just it's the same same LW as per same different it's on the west side instead of the if you're looking at it instead of if you're looking at the plan of the left corner it's now proposing the right corner same same law as before all right thank you other members of the board of questions I do uh thank you just want to double check these are just radio waves that are being given off by this Tower uh yes all right because it seems like that's going to be about the same height as the third level of a top gole D just making sure there's no danger to anyone that's in Top Golf whenever that opens up whether or not that's your permanent site or not just wouldn't be just want to know yeah so um not sure as I haven't done those calculations to you know verify that they are will be safe depending on uh the distance between the site and yeah it looks like that with your site that's there and if top gol was to be that in that direction that's where the restaurant area and players would be and Route 46 would be the end so that's where all the people would be just want to be uh again that's I think that's I don't know their exact height of top go I'm going to say the third level is probably 50 ft up uh they are quite High yeah and I mean people are gathering there and you know eating and playing and if this thing setting off radio waves I don't just want to make sure it's safe for them I'm not sure if this site will uh it's planed to be still on that's I'm saying if if it's still there yeah yeah I I believe that there there will hopefully be a permanent location all before this toward end yeah Mr kiano yeah this maybe for the attorney so we had is this app but this U witness going to answer our engineering comment number seven regarding duration and timing of this temporary facility that be my engine yeah that would be the Josh the next witness he testified previously on the last one regarding the duration all right other members of the board members of the public have any questions of this witness on this testimony at this time hearing and seeing none counselor okay great thank you very much my next one this is Mr Joshua catrell from FPA Associates those are much more fun with the clear cells rather than the uh we just throw the new the new coverage over the old coverage yeah please raise your hand do you swear affirm the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do all right please state your name spell your last name and provide your address for the record short to Joshua catell c t t r e 1800 Route 34 Wall New Jersey thank you Mr KRA will you please provide the board with the benefit of your qualifications and experience keeping in mind that you testified back in April sure I I hold a valid uh professional engineering license in the state of New Jersey testified numerous boards including this one back in April and your license is still in good standing it is yes this point I'd like to qualify if that's okay there any questions on the witnesses qualifications hearing and seeing none councelor thank you very much okay I'm just going to reference plans that were submitted to the board as part of the application uh they were last revised October 4th 2024 [Music] um I'm just going to flip to the second page in the sheet which is the proposed site plan under current conditions um and these are actually a little bit out of date um currently there well previously there was four buildings on the property um they were all set to be demolished um the two buildings to the South along Route 80 have been demolished the building along 40 on the west part along 46 is mostly demolished there's still a portion of the building there and the office build building the other office building along 46 is gutted shelled but it still stands as it holds the current T-Mobile antennas on top and that's still on air uh we were previously granted approval for a temporary site at the southeast corner of the property of the tract I should say because it consists of two properties uh along Route 80 we are now proposing to put the temporary site on the other side to the west still along Route 80 um and in back of the property and that's because of the uh development of the top golf site I believe there's a a stormw management basing going in on this corner so we had to move it over to the other corner so we did not interfere with the top golf development uh if I flip to the next sheet which is one which is sp1b it shows the site with the top golf substantially completed or or completed um as you can see we're proposing it in where the proposed corner of the parking lot for the top golf facility the bay uh this again area was selected by the top golf developers as it will not interfere with her uh construction um I'm just going to jump to to uh sheet sp4 which is the elevation page so what T-Mobile is proposing is a uh ballast frame at the that sits on the grade and it's basically large concrete blocks um that provide weight that supports a 49 ft tall monopole structure steel structure on top of the monopole T-Mobile install their nine antennas at a center line elevation of 45 with the top elevation at 49 ft above grade at the base of the tower they'll install the equipment cabinets on top of the concrete blocks and then they'll enclose the entire thing with a chain link fence um the only utilities that T-Mobile will need is electric and we are proposing to extend that up through the uh North Western property line with temporary utility PS from Route 46 that is actually shown on the site PL sheet so from Route 46 all the way back to the Western Property Line back to the site on temporary utility polls Josh can you just go through the three variances that are required just the front yard side and location uh sure so if I just flip the sheet at sp2a um so again Route 80 is along the top uh going left to right along the top of the page um our set back to the route 80 Frontage is 27.1 Ft um from the fence facility to the RightWay um I believe um I don't have the report I believe it was one and a half times the height of the tower that's required yes yes yes so we obviously don't meet that same thing with the side property line um we have 35 about 35.3 ft to the side property line so we're requesting a variance for that and the third variance was what for Jennifer uh front yard minimum side yard and location in the front yard rather than the and obviously height um no we meet the FED sight requirements 6ot yep the plan stays 6'2 in we can we can the last one I think got a fence height variant I didn't see that in the prior resolution I don't remember just want to make sure when I go to get permit is that the right yeah what happens that the temporary fence is they sit on a base shoe yes they're not permanently into the ground and that kind of raises it two more inches but we can we can modify the fence post so that it stays at to 6 in uh six foot elevation that's fine um as far as maintenance and visits uh cell technician visits a site once every four to six weeks just for routine maintenance um obviously during construction they're going to want to get as close to the tower as they can without interfering with the ongoing construction and maintaining their own safety um so the parking spot during construction might vary as the construction goes on different stages um once the parking lot is substantially completed then they'll just use the parking lot for the top golf to to park um and again that's only once every four to six weeks there was a question raised by the engineer regarded duration that we would have need the temporary Tower up for yeah if I could just Chim in so just to be clear just make sure the board understands how this differs in variances in height in location from what was approved back in April and and was and what was improved in April is has that been installed and is that up and running so what was improved there's no changes to the actual physical structures um between the approved application and what we're asking for today it's the same setup the same Tower the same antenna the same equipment the only difference is it's moved over a few hundred feet to the other property Corner the approved tower has not been installed the existing site is still on the building up in front by6 I wasn't clear on that yes and they're waiting well I'm assuming they're waiting for this to get approved and installed before they can demolish that building you man had another question of to continue the coverage yes yeah so the the the the service the T-Mobile service that's in the existing building that slay it to be demolished once this one is up that can that building and that T-Mobile facility that's in the existing building can will be taken out of service is that the game that that'll be taken out of service whether it's the same day that they put this one in service or not is that changes but um the idea is to use the same equipment for the temporary they'll just move it over hopefully in the same day if they don't think they can do it in the same day they'll probably just bring a new equipment and once that's on air they'll take down the old equipment from the building okay can you this board the blowup version of the site plan where your improvements are going on this site I think that may be helpful is that is that the sheet that's up there right now so it's in the it's in the the rear of the parking lot uh no that's the existing condition show under the proposed condition when they when because you're the the top golf application they're currently building top golf now guess they're on the so this is what it looks like it's in the rear of the parking lot there and it's taking up one two three how many parking spaces well let take that 1 two three four five because this won't be accessible so five we can probably adjust that um so we can limit it to four and is it intended to be taken out of service before Top Golf is fully operational or is it intended to stay in service for some period of time while to golf is fully open because it comes to the question of parking well I'm not I'm not familiar with the terms of the lease they have with top golf but ideally this will be gone before Top Golf opens but I I I can't because if it's not gone then you you you'll be blocking the parking spaces and I would suggest you need relief for those parking spaces since they won't be available at least temporarily till this yeah I you know I went through the prior approvals for the top and I know in your report you noted that it was um 366 spaces where 369 were provided so they were just above what was required in terms of parking but I saw in another resolution for the top golf because it was by for cated application that they were proposing 385 spaces so in that case if I guess my point is if you're going to be reduced in the parking spaces below what's was a was required and approved then I I you know you should be asking for the relief for those couple of spaces what is the time period that you're requesting for the temporary location what is the you requesting the board for how long how long is temporary basically well that was a question last time that the board had um and I believe you wanted us back you know within six months to say whether we have permanent or whether we're filing an application for a permanent um you know as soon as we get a permanent location you know we want to be in we want to be before the board and get this down you know as soon as we can so it's not to interfere with the top golf operations U but unfortunately you know I don't if I could you know make a lease appear I would but you know it's not the easiest trying to get a um a permanent location in this in this area we've been but we've been trying though it's not like we have we have a couple of um potential landlords that are interested and hopefully we can make it happen sooner the leader what was wrong with the the other side you said originally you you planned it on the other side and you moved it a couple hundred feet I guess that's towards the West storm was a stor Management Facility in that corner over there that's being proposed we're trying to stay out of top way so that they can develop you know their project while also keeping coverage for sure the users of the area I see so do you know if you need relief you have 360 360 or from this uh review your prior application at 366 were required will you be below 366 taking these three spaces out that's the question well from my understanding from the resolution there was 385 proposed so um we would be at 380 still well above the 366 that was required and how many parking I see a note here you have you're saying you have 365 proposed I believe it was 385 in the resolutions correct yeah 3 in the resol the top golf resolution um it mentioned a proposed 3 so you're not going to be going down the 36 below the required 366 B that's correct okay and and if that is the case if it does go below then additional approvals will have to be of course yeah we would have to seek an amendment understood all right any other members of the board have questions on this testimony at this time do you have anything I'm just going to ask about the parking okay I think did we cover it you covered it great any members of the public have any questions on this testimony at this time hearing and seeing none counselor uh thank you very much Mr chairman uh my next and last witness is Matthew Flynn thank [Music] if you please just raise your right hand you swear affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yeah I do please state your name spell your last name and for your address for the record Matthew Flynn f l YNN business address is one01 Gibralter Drive Morris Plains New Jersey thanks uh thank you Mr F could you please provide the board with the benefit of your qualifications and experience for the record yes my education comes from Ruckers I have my master's degree in planning and public public policy I have my professional planers license in the state of New Jersey as well as my national licenser which is the aicp license I have testified before this board in the past as well as over 20 other boards in Morris County and uh several others across the state then your license is still a good standing correct this point I'd like to qualify him any members of the board have any questions on the qualifications of this witness hearing and saying none counselor thank you very much sure so the exhibit that was just passed around you got to mark it sure was that A5 correct yes and it's a 10 page so will we do uh A5 is a 10-page exhibit or do you want to do that's fine sure um so exhibit A5 is a uh an exhibit prepared by prepared by TK Design Associates and really the point of this is just to show the board what this uh proposed uh technology will look like from multiple different Vantage points um I'll walk the board through it very uh quickly if the board has any questions please uh feel free so page one shows the uh the view basically from next door on Route 46 um showing the we have this red arrow pointing to where the technology will be located the next page shows a rendering of the the technology once it would be installed um important thing to note here is that we do have these much higher white fixtures associated with the the ball fields I think it's the the Smith the Smith Field next door there um so clearly not going to be overpowering in the sense that we do have light fixtures that extend much higher next door um sheet three is now showing from uh the shopping center at Route 46 the Target shopping center again we see that red arrow that points again to the proposed location and then the next page which is sheet four just shows again a rendering filling in that space with the with the technology again here it's barely visible and again uh we do have much higher light pictures on this property so it's not going to stand out as being um an anomaly in that sense flipping along to sheet five uh here we're on the bridge over Route 80 from South beverick Road here there's actually no visibility so we actually don't see anything there sheet six is now looking from 236 Route 46 showing existing conditions and if you squint your eyes a little bit you can see the uh that red balloon in the back um over by that that tree canopy in the back um and then the next page is sheet six which again fills that in with the the rendering of the technology uh sheet seven same deal uh now we're looking at throughout 46 in West Summit Street we see the balloon um pointed at with that red arrow and then sheet 8 fills that in with the the rendering and finally the last page if the board wants to I guess flip back and forth we can see um we have these numbered circles here 1 2 3 4 and five which correlates to those images that we just flipped through so um the board can get a better uh orientation of as to where those photos were uh taken from uh so with all that being said if there's any if there's any questions again please feel free um by way of background we are requesting three C variances with this application in relation to the application uh for the previously approved fixtures um or Tech uh Wireless technology we actually eliminated one variance for the setback to the adjacent B1 Zone uh if we have adjacency to an different Zone District than the one we're in we need 300 ft of Separation to that um other Zone here we're now proposing 450 ft whereas that other application actually had close to to 40 ft so from a planning sense this is actually a more compatible uh application in that regard other than that the it's essentially the same relief that was proposed by with the uh the previous application we're just flipping that uh that technology over to the other side of the property requesting the same front setback side setback uh relief so just to uh list that out now to have this in the front yard is actually a variance it's required to be in either the side or the rear yard um here we are looking at a through lot that does have Frontage on Route 80 and Route 46 so we do have a property that has two front yards um which does necessitate that variance um it is somewhat of a of a hardship in that sense uh the next variant will be front setback to Route uh Route 80 we're proposing 27.1 ft whereas 73.5 ft is required again again we do have those two front yards um so there is somewhat of a of a difficulty finding a compliant location in terms of front setback in terms of side setback again it's the same variance that was required and approved previously 35.3 ft um as opposed to 73.5 Ft again again we're just flipping that uh technology over to the other side requesting the same exact variance now for the other side in terms of the negative criteria I'll hit first first um I think that we can see based on exhibit A5 here that in terms of visibility this is not going to stand out as being incompatible or otherwise obtrusive um from an aesthetic standpoint it is remote from residential we are in the O3 Zone um and I think Council mentioned it we do have a height of 49 ft whereas 125 ft is permitted in this zone so we are proposing something that's much lower than what would otherwise be permitted for this type of use here um and I I I I think it's it might be uh useful to note that for principal buildings in the zone up to 45 feet is is permitted for height so we're essentially just there for what would be permitted for a building but again much lower than what's permitted for this type of Wireless technology in terms of the uh project benefits or the positive criteria we look to the municipal land use law the purposes of zoning set forth therein uh purpose a promotion of the general welfare uh we heard from the expert uh before me that this is necessary for continued uninterrupted cell service um which is for the uh the benefit of of residences in the area purpose G variety of uses in appropriate locations again this is a use that has been previously approved at this property again we're just talking about shifting it to the other side purpose eye desirable visual environment again I'll fall back on exhibit A5 showing that that visibility and finally purpose m offic use of land I think in the grand scheme of things this is a substantially compliant application um again we are looking at a project that has two front setbacks which does I think uh result in these front setback variances but again this is a temporary structure and uh and I think it again when we look at the visibility this is not going to stand out as overdevelopment or anything like that that we usually like to to limit in these types of applications uh so all said I think this is an appropriate application and I think we can look to the C2 balancing test all those benefits that I just went through substantially outweigh any potential detriments um in this case I believe there are no potential detriment and I think the board has asked all the appropriate questions at this point and I think there's no outstanding issues so with that unless there's any redirect that's that's my testimony thank you very much do you have any uh questions or comments I don't have any questions I generally agree with um Mr Flynn's analysis all right are there members of the board that have any questions on this test I do thank you now it just rings a bell now now I remember this project uh and I was actually worried about it being closer to Smithfield and I was happy where it was going now I know what going this way is there any danger to any uh kids playing in at Smithfield being that it's looks like 240 ft closer than where it was before should it be higher than the 49 ft should it be higher yeah just I'm I'm just right about the say of the the kids in the area playing and that's all I'm worri about understood I guess I would I would have to fall back on it isly so that we don't really see that there is dis safety threat to anybody well below the the limit for the FCC and JY limit thank you any other members of the board um any members of the public have any questions on the planner's testimony at this time hearing and seeing none counselor um I could do a brief summation if that's okay all right or you want to just go to vote normally we ask for comments from the public if there are any comments and then sometimes council's Reserve there summation for after the comments from I know there's nobody out there for from the public so are there any members of the the public who wish to comment on this case at this time they're all from Top Golf those guys positively or negatively hearing and seeing none I'll I'll be brief uh you heard testimony from our engineer regarding slay plan overall design and we he addressed any concerns raised you also heard testimony from our RF engineer confirming the need for the temporary installation due the due to the decommissioning of the wireless installation on the existing building you also heard testimony which was a concern raised by one of your board members regarding emissions from the fac facility being well within all state federal standards and that the site will operate well within the law for frequency exposure pursuant to FCC guidelines finally you heard testimony from our planner regarding the positive benefits of improved Wireless telecommunication service and that this site is particularly suited for a wireless facility when there is already existing facility on site we submit that we have met the statutory criteria for the granting of minor s plan approval with the associated variance relief for side yard setback front yard setback and location of the proposed facility in the front yard in weighing the evidence presented in support of the application and based on the proofs presented to the board we would respectfully request approval of the application and ask the board Grant approval for same as testified to throughout the hearing this evening closes the evidentiary portion of tonight's hearing um is there a motion to approve Mr chairman Mr math Mr math Mr muy getting my m friends up a motion to approve application number 24 colon 529 TMobile 1269e 46 block 729 Lots 6.01 Zone 0-3 minor site plan with C variants to construct a temporary monopole with antennas and electric service second we got a motion in a second but there's some subject twos here that I want to make sure that yes just that the applicant will comply with the 6t height uh for fence requirement the applicant will seek additional approvals for parking if needed um the applicant will comply with all fccn and New Jersey limits and permitting requirements for the facility and will comply with um any prior conditions unless of the previous application unless it's contradicted by this application they're going to return in six months yeah I think that was one of the prior one of the prior conditions was that from the date of memorialization of this approval that you would come back um mons in six months either with a permanent or a new location or updates about this temporary structure we're trying all right those those were the conditions you put in there and the second are agreed to that too okay very good Nora would you call the role please yes yes yeso yes yes Smith yes yes thank you very much everybody happy holidays all right we see you back in six months is there anything else that needs to come back before this board at this time or hearing and seeing none nor you have nothing eh nothing I would like to wish everyone on happy and healthy holiday thank you indeed I hope everybody had a wonderful Thanksgiving and sorry is there a motion to adjourn motion tojn I have a second second anybody no this clean application it was once explained to be by an RF engineer that