Borough of Brielle, NJ
| November 11, 2008
November 11, 2008
|The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, November 11, 2008 at 7:30 pm in the Brielle Borough Hail, 601 Union Lane. After a moment of silent prayer and a salute to the flag, roll call was taken:
Present -- Mayor Thomas B. Nicol, Thomas Condon, James Harman, Thomas Heavey, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, John Visceglia (arrived 7:55), Terre Vitale
Absent Councilman Frank A. Garruzzo, Susan S. Brady
Also present were Ken Fitzsimmons, Board Attorney, Alan Hilla, Jr. of Birdsall Engineering and Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary. There were approximately 35 people in the audience.
Vice-Chairperson Condon then called the meeting to order and declared a quorum. He announced that, in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, notice of this Body's meeting had been sent to the official newspapers of the Board fixing the time and place of all hearings.
The Minutes of the October 14th meeting were not ready and will be considered for approval at the December 9th Board meeting.
A notice was received from the NJ D.E.P. for Block 107.01, Lots 15.02 & 15.06, 1120 Shore Drive, owned by William & Arlene Rathjen, to legalize minor discrepancies in existing waterfront facilities.
The Board received a copy of a letter written to Howard & Linda McKeon regarding Block 104, Lot 15, 20 South Tamarack Drive, violation for removing trees in Tree Save Area, this written by Alan Hilla, Jr. Mr. Hilla explained to the Board that he had received new information on the removal of the trees in this easement, this restriction was put in place by CAFRA and falls under their jurisdiction so this becomes a matter for the State to enforce; mitigation is the only option available. Mr. Fitzsimmons agreed and stated that there is nothing more this Board can do.
On file in the Board office: Monmouth County Demographic & Economic Statistics.
Received the afternoon of this meeting (and, therefore, not on the agenda) was a letter from Michael Ping complaining about the new hours of operation of the Dance for Joy Studios in the Alpha Property Management building on Route 70, they are now
starting at 7:00 a.m. on Sunday morning and are again leaving the back security door open for ingress & egress. Both Mr. Fitzsimmons and Mr. Hllla deferred this matter to the Code Enforcement Officer Mr. Langenberger, also a Board member.
The Board then turned to the approval of a Minor Site Plan Resolution for Block 100, Lot 9.02 & 9.03, 405 Osprey Point Drive, owned by Marianne Zipf, to allow more than two feet of change in elevation. As there were no corrections or comments on this, the following was presented for approval:
"WHEREAS, Marianne Zipf (the "Applicant"), having a mailing address of 15 Oakview Road, Cedar Knolls, N.J.07927, has applied to the Brielle Planning Board (the "Board") for minor site plan approval pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-46-1; and
WHEREAS, proof of service as required by law upon appropriate property owners and governmental bodies has been furnished and determined to be in proper order; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 14, 2008 in the Borough Hall, at which time testimony and exhibits were presented on behalf of the applicant and all interested parties having been heard; and
WHEREAS, the Board makes the following factual findings and findings of law:
1. This property is designated as Block 100, Lot 9.02 & 9.03 on the municipal tax map.
2. The property is located in the R-2 zone.
3. Applicant proposes to demolish an existing single-family residential home and related structures on this property, and construct a new single-family home and related site improvements.
4. The following variances had been applied for: ITEM REQUIRED PROVIDED
Soil Fill Added fill cannot grade changes up to
exceed 2% of the 4 feet in elevation
total lot area impacting approximately 4% of the total lot area
5. Zoning Officer Alan P. Hilla, Jr. prepared a report to the applicant dated August 29 and September 22, 2008. The Board adopts the findings in that report and incorporates that document in this Resolution by reference.
6. William F. Voeltz, P.E. & P.P., of the firm of Lindstrom, Diessner & Carr, P.C. provided expert testimony on behalf of the applicant. The witness explained that the property owner intends to demolish existing structures on the property, and construct a new single-family home with related site improvements. The property owner also proposes to add fill to the existing driveway area in order to bring it up to grade. Mr. Voeltz testified that his engineering firm prepared a document entitled "Plot Plan of Zipf Residence, Lots 9.02 & 9.03, Block 100" dated July 17, 2008 and last revised on September 19, 2008. He stated that all of the proposed improvements will comply with all provisions of the municipal land use ordinance except for Section 21-9.16 requiring site plan approval if the quantity of fill to be added to a lot exceeds 2% of the square feet of the lot and if the proposed amount of fill changes the elevation by 2 feet or more.
Mr. Voeltz testified that the square footage of the existing impervious area is approximately 4,780 square feet and the proposed impervious area is approximately 6,351 square feet. He opined that the proposed infiltration trench will have the capacity to store, at a minimum, the additional runoff from the proposed improvements at this property. The witness concluded that the proposed improvements will adhere to applicable stormwater management practices required by governmental entities having jurisdiction over this property.
7. No objectors appeared in opposition to this development application.
8. The Board finds and determines that:
a, Proposed grading and/or stormwater mitigation measures will ensure that no stormwater will discharge to adjacent properties.
b. The proposed amount of fill will allow the existing driveway to be brought to the existing grade of the property without adversely impacting this site or adjoining properties.
c. The proposed infiltration trench will have the capacity to store, at a minimum, additional runoff resulting form the proposed improvements to the property.
d. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan of the municipality.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Brielle Planning Board on this 11t'' day of November, 2008, that this application be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall apply for and receive approvals from all other municipal, county, state and federal agencies having regulatory jurisdiction over this development application.
2. Applicant shall pay all real property taxes through and including the calendar quarter of the date of this Resolution.
3. Applicant shall file all required performance bonds, maintenance guarantees and post all applicable engineering and inspection fees.
4. Applicant shall complete revise all architectural plans in keeping with revised sheet 7 and applicable provisions of the Municipal Land Use Ordinance. The plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Board Engineer.
5. This development approval shall be null and void unless applicant commences construction of the proposed improvements within three years of the date of this Resolution.
6. Certified copies of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the applicant, Borough Construction Official, Zoning Officer and all other parties in interest."
A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mr. Sigler, seconded by Mr. Langenberger and approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Thomas Condon, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, Noes: None
Ineligible to Vote: Mayor Thomas B. Nicol, James Harman, Thomas Heavey, Terre Vitale
The Board then turned to approval of a Resolution for extension of filing time for a Minor Subdivision for Block 22.01, Lot 1, 110 South Street, owned by Liam Boland.
As all Board members, as well as Mr. Boland, had received a copy of the draft Resolution and there were no changes or recommendations, the following was presented for approval:
"WHEREAS, the Brielle Planning Board (the "Board") adopted a Resolution on May 13, 2008 granting Minor Subdivision approval to create two residential building lots to Liam Boland (the "applicant" or "developer"), the owner of Block 22.01, Lot 1, as designated on the official tax map of the Borough of Brielle, and
WHEREAS, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-47 provides that approval of a Minor Subdivision expires 190 days from the date of municipal approval, unless within that period a plat in
conformity with such approval and the provisions of the "Map Filing Law" is filed by the developer with the County Recording Officer; and
WHEREAS, the subdivision map was not filed by the developer as required by law within 190 days form the date of Minor Subdivision approval; and
WHERAS, the developer has requested that the Planning Board re-approve this Minor Subdivision so that the plat may be filed with the County Recording Officer within 60 days of the date of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has examined its Resolution dated May 13, 2008, and has determined that the requested extension is appropriate and in conformity with the municipal zoning and subdivision ordinances of the Borough of Brielle:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brielle Planning Board on this 11th day of November, 2008, that the Minor Subdivision approval previously granted to Liam Boland be re-approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions in the Resolution adopted by the Board on May 13, 2008, which is incorporated in and made part of this Resolution.
2. Applicant shall pay all real property taxes through and including the calendar quarter of the date of this Resolution."
A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Heavey, and approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Thomas Condon, Thomas Heavey, James Harman, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler
Not Eligible to Vote: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Terre Vitale NEW BUSINESS:
The Board then turned to the application for a Minor Site Plan for Block 99.03, Lots 2 & 2.01, 932 Cole Drive, owned by Kevin & Carolyn Harms, to allow more than two feet change in elevation.
The fee of $300 was paid, taxes are paid to date and the property owners as well as the newspaper were properly notified.
At this time Keith Henderson, Esq., came forward to represent the Harms family. He explained that this application is identical to the one heard last month for the Zipf
family; there will be a change in grade by more than two feet and site plan approval is needed.
Mr. Charles Gilligan then came forward and was sworn in; the Board was very familiar with Mr. Gilligan and accepted him as an expert witness. He said this property is located on Cole Drive and has access to the Manasquan River; the project has already received CAFRA approval and is now before this Board, the change of fill has been approved by CAFRA as well as a cabana and pool. There will be two retaining walls proposed for the pool, drainage going down to the river and there will also be a recreational area. All the details on this project will be handled by the Building Department.
Mr. Henderson asked if there would be any negative impact on the neighborhood and Mr. Gilligan said no and no problems for the adjacent neighbor as the water runoff will flow towards the river.
At this time the hearing was open to the public for questions to Mr. Gilligan; as there were none that portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Henderson summed up by stated that the application should be granted as there will be no negative impact to the neighborhood or environment. The hearing was again open to the public for general comments and, again there was no response so that portion was closed.
Mr. Langenberger noted that the Engineer's report cited 8 items and he asked Mr. Hilla to go over them. Mr. Hilla said item #1 will be taken care of at time of building permits, #2, same, #3, the cabana - he asks that it be fully conforming with the current Ordinance, same with utilities (#4); #5, done at time of permits, #0 - detail for fences -he would like to see the plans but Mr. Ratz, Construction Official, can address this; #7, drainage should not impact other properties and #8, the backwash is to go to the river.
As all Board members were satisfied with the application, as presented, and there were no further comments or questions, a motion was made by Mr. Langenberger to approve this Site Plan application, this seconded by Mr. Heavey and approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Thomas B. Nicol, Thomas Condon, Thomas Heavey, James Harman, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, Terre Vitale
OLD BUSINESS (cont'd):
The Board then turned to the continued hearing for Minor Site Plan/Use Variance for Block 110, Lot 2, owned by Alpha Property Management, LLC (Applicant - Omnipoint Communications, Inc.) to allow the construction of a 100 foot telecommunications monopole, disguised as a flagpole, and ground level equipment on a 4'x20' concrete pad on property known as 1023 Highway 70. Mayor Nicol and Mr.
Heavey excused themselves from the dais for this application and Mr. Visceglia had arrived to take his seat on the Board.
Mr. Michael Learn, Esq. came forward to continue this hearing and said there was a lot of engineering testimony at the last meeting and he had Mr. Colagrande back tonight to continue his testimony. They had submitted revised exhibits and knew that Mr. Hilla has not had time to do a report of them, however, there will now be more revisions and Mr. Colagrande will address this. The Planner for this application will also be giving testimony this evening and that will be the end of the experts. He knew that the representative attorney from Wall Township as well as the public will have their case to present. He had spoken to Mrs. Brisben and saw a future problem as one Board member had been elected to Council and will be leaving the Board after December and one member may be retiring, so they hope to get this hearing done before then and were willing to have a special meeting in December to finalize this by the end of the year; if there is a cost for this they will be willing to pay it. If any Board member had plans of retiring, perhaps they can stay on the Board until this hearing is done. Again he said they plan to finish tonight other than the change on the parking plan.
Mr. Fitzsimmons noted that if there is going to be a change it will have to be addressed before a vote can be taken by the Board. Mr. Condon asked if all the testimony is done tonight can the Board hear from Wall Township and then go back to this and Mr. Fitzsimmons said yes, the Board will just have to keep the public portion open. This application has taken 5 months so far so it would be helpful if this can be concluded by the end of 2008.
At this time Mr. John Colagrande came forward and he was reminded that he was still sworn in. Mr. Learn noted that the next exhibit number would be A-20 which would be the revised parking plan (which is to be revised again) and Mr. Colagrande said these new plans included parking spaces, etc. changes. This exhibit is called "Parking Plan No. 2, revision #4, dated 10130/08. This plan summarizes the proposed changes based on the last meeting comments and show new parking spaces, landscaping along the rear of the property which will be small evergreen trees, also shrubbery and red maples; on the west side from the evergreens will be arborvitae. So now the parking spaces will have low landscaping which will be heavier to screen the parking lot. However, the owner of the property wants to amend this to eliminate shrubbery by the entrance way due to a garage being there and this shrubbery may impede access to it. The other issue is in the middle of the large parking area - he would like to leave the center island along as he is concerned with delivery trucks turning around. One thing they did add was to the entranceway for a circular pattern, they will put in curbing from the nlw corner of the property; this will promote a circulation pattern so there will be no illegal U-turns.
Mr. Condon commented it would be a good idea to put in curbing but questioned if a U-turn was indeed "illegal". Mr. Colagrande agreed that the word may not be a proper explanation and used a "prudent way to turn". He did not want to make that turn from Ramshorn Drive. Mr. Learn commented that this "tweaking" of the plans may
mean losing a space or two, they will take a look at this and may need to ask for a variance for 11 or 12 spaces instead of 10.
They went to the Lighting Plan, dated 10/30108, Drawing LR-1, which was marked as Exhibit A-21. They needed the revision to change the lighting spill to Old Bridge Road, they are taking out any lighting to the municipal boundary which will mean -0- lighting to the properties across the street. There is an area in the west corner of the lot which does not meet the code of .3 candle, a small area in the corner. Mr. Learn asked if the landlord is changing any lighting and Mr. Colagrande said one pole mount light will be eliminated due to the island staying, they have to look at this and work on it to maintain the minimum requirements.
They then went on to the Landscape Plan, #LS-1, dated 10/30108 which was marked as Exhibit A-22. This shows the landscape along the rear of the property, junipers will be about 3 feet tall and there will be provided walkways through that area, in between the cars. Mr. Colagrande could not see this as an impediment to anyone; Mr. Sigler said he could envision them getting trampled, but Mr. Colagrande said there will be 8 paths to cross without stepping onto any plants.
As this finalized the testimony from this witness, the meeting was opened to the public for questions and Dan Healy of River Road, Wall, came forward and asked if this is denied does the parking still have to be adhered to? Mr. Learn said if the Board approves this application, yes; if they deny it, no. Guy Barbageletta from Wall Twp. asked if he could see the new plan and Mr. Fitzsimmons said it has been on file in the Planning Board's office for 10 days before this evening. Mr. Barbageletta then asked if the shrubbery will be against the building or on Old Bridge Road and the answer was Old Bridge Road. He then asked if that satisfied the Ordinance and Mr. Colagrande said no, variances are needed for this. Mr. Barbageletta then asked if the lighting values are estimated or measured and Mr. Colagrande said they are all estimated and, as there will be changes to some of the lighting, it needs to be redone, their figures are based on computer models. Mr. Barbageletta asked if it is based on light from its source and the answer was that wattage comes into value. He then asked if there will be anything on the large white wall that is in the back of the building and Mr. Colagrande said yes.
A man from Wall Township asked what is the wattage and will it go to the property line or across the street. Mr. Colagrande said the foot candle value is to the other side of Old Bridge Road which is an Ordinance requirement, .3 ft. candle on the property with a .5 foot candle average. Kerry Reilly of Fox Lane asked if this will shine into Wall and Mr. Colagrande said it is within the lot with spillage into Old Bridge Road, the highest here is about a .04 foot candle. Ms. Reilly then tried to make a comment but Mr. Fitzsimmons reminded her this time is for questions only and the rules have to be followed. She then asked where the turn area will change and Mr. Colagrande referenced Exhibit A-20, the curbing runs parallel to Ramshorn Drive to Old Bridge Road, they want to put in curbing so they enter from Old Bridge Road.
Mr. Joe Martone of Wall Twp. came forward and asked if they have contacted the Brielle Police to see if they think this would create a legal or illegal turn and Mr. Colagrande said no. At this time Mr. Michael Elward, the Wall Twp. attorney, came forward and said he needed time to see the plans. Mrs. Brisben asked to speak and told the Board and Mr. Elward that she had called his secretary as soon as she received the plans and told her who to call to get copies, she did not have enough to send her. Mr. Elward denied this and said his secretary told him they would be receiving sets, however, Mrs. Brisben again explained her conversation with his secretary and that she gave her the phone number to call, as well as the plan numbers and dates of them so there would be no confusion in ordering these.
Michael Clayton of Wall Twp. came forward and asked how many existing variances were on this site before this application and Mr. Colagrande said he was not sure. He then asked how many variances they were asking for and was told that is a question for the Planner. He then asked if Wall Police had been contacted for any input on this and the answer was no. Mr. Clayton then asked if they had taken any accidents into consideration and the answer was no. He then asked if Mr. Colagrande thought this plan was better and he replied yes.
As there were no more questions, that portion of the hearing was closed and Mr. Timothy M. Kronk, a Licensed Professional Planner, came forward and was sworn in. He gave his address as PO Box 465, Mendham, N.J. He has a BS from the University of Massachusetts and has 20 years in Land Use in N.J. He is a Licensed Planner and AICP and has been accepted as an expert witness by this Board on previous occasions as well as many towns in Monmouth County; he has been a Wireless Application Expert for the last 10 years. The Board accepted him as an expert witness.
Mr. Kronk said he had reviewed the application, engineering drawings, surrounding area, the Land Use Ordinance and Master Plan; he also reviewed this for Wall Township as well as their Wireless Ordinance and has traveled through Wall Twp. and Brielle_ The cell tower does required a D-1 Use Variance for this use that is not permitted anywhere in Brielle and this is the only variance related to the tower; he reviewed the Ordinance in regards to the height of the tower but that Ordinance refers to building heights with a roof and his reading of this definition does not meet the definition of the tower.
Mr. Learn spoke and said they also need bulk and parking variances and Mr. Kronk agreed and the final amount of spaces had not yet been determined, however, all these are existing non-conformities and none are exacerbated by this application; actually, this application helps the non-conformities.
Exhibit A-23 was then marked, an aerial photo (1" = 100') dated 3118104, which shows the Manasquan River, Highway 70 going towards the northeast and in the center is the subject property and Old Bridge Road between Wall & Brielle. The C-3 Commercial Zone is shown along a dotted line and all the streets are labeled as well as the zone lines with a black arrow on the subject property. Mr. Learn asked what the
four yellow dots were and Mr. Kronk said they are the photo locations of the balloon tests done this summer. Both municipalities here would be considered primarily residential neighborhoods and along the Route 70 corridor are the commercial properties (5 of them in Brielle and 1 in Wall); it is common to see commercial zones with residential zones behind them.
Mr. Learn commented that sometimes the major highway comes along after the development and Mr. Kronk agreed. He said the first thing a cellular company looks for is a structure to use, there were none in this neighborhood in the commercial zone, so they then look for an area to erect one. He then showed a compilation map of Brielle and Wall's zone and this was marked as Exhibit A-24. This shows where the radio frequency range would be; the yellow colored area is the search ring area or place that needs to be covered. The map is outlined with read and yellow for the inside and blue highlights for the C-3 zone.
Mr. Learn said the Land Use Ordinance does not address wireless telecommunications so this would be a D-1 Use Variance all over Brielle. Mr. Kronk agreed but Wall does have such an Ordinance and does conditionally permit this use in two zones, the G-1 Zone and the 011-10 Zone; neither of these zones are in the area they need, the closest one is by Allaire Airport. Mr. Learn asked if there is anything in Wall's Ordinance that permits wireless communication equipment outside this zone and Mr. Kronk said yes, they can put them on property owned by the Township as stated in Ordinance 140:144D-1, General Requirements. He felt this makes this use permissive as their search ring goes into Wall Township.
In Brielle there are the R-2 and R-6 zones as well as the C-3 zone in the area; in Wall they are R-15, R-30 and a portion of OP-10. None of the properties in the OP-10 zone here are owned by Wall Township, he did not check the R-15 & R-30 zones as they are residential and this application is applicable to a commercial zone; so there is no way to avoid the D-1 variance.
Mr. Kronk went on to say that the Courts have directed the cell companies to encourage the towns to adopt a wireless ordinance, but if there is not one a variance is required. The standards were set by "Smar vs. Borough of Fair Lawn" and the Courts decided this should be done by SECA balancing tests for inherently beneficial uses, 4 steps:
1. The suitability of the FCC license that the carrier possesses that will promote public welfare. There is a need for a good location and this was testified by the Radio Frequency Expert at an earlier meeting. In this case, Mr. Villeco gave a very clear and concise explanation that there is a gap of coverage here and installation is needed here to cover this deficiency gap of a mile north and south on Route 70 and along the river, both in Wall and Brielle. Besides the radio frequency aspect, the site is also suitable as the property is
in the search ring as well as in the Commercial Zone. The one property in the Wall Twp. OP zone was contacted and did not reply to the certified letter that
was sent; all properties in the C-3 zone in Brielle were also contacted and no one else was interested. They also contacted Harpoon Willies in Wall and they, too, were not interested, so this left only one landlord, Alpha Management on Route 70.
Mr. Kronk said there are 125 permitted uses in the C-3 zone and they are more intense than this cell tower; there are also conditional uses which, too, are more intense. Mr. Learn said the structure will be unmanned and there will be no vehicular traffic to the site. He also said that a Conditional Use allowed is a Public Utility Use and the courts have held that wireless is akin to a public utility; if it's okay for a utility then it's okay for wireless. Mr. Kronk went on to say the site is also on a 11/2 acre lot which is the largest lot in this C-3 zone. This will be a concealment flagpole and there will be room for one additional carrier which goes along with a 1996 law that says provision should be made for other carriers.
2. They have to identify detrimental uses. This is a benign commercial use with no negative impacts, it is unmanned and will be visited every 4-6 weeks for diagnostic tests with no impact on traffic and parking. The site does not require water/sewer, only electricity and telephone for FCC and DEP compliance for emissions of radio energy. The only impact will be visibility, the antennas need to see which is why the height is needed.
A balloon test was performed, one in 2007 and was done in the front yard on Route 70, then one on 6110108 due to the moving of the structure to this new location on this property. Mr. Learn commented that they eliminated some issues by moving the pole to another location off the Route 70 Right-of-Way as per the suggestion of the Board Engineer. Mr. Kronk then presented 5 boards which were marked as Exhibits A-25 through A-29. The balloon tests were done by floating a three foot weather balloon at 100 feet and then photos were taken to show the height visibility. The first Board, Exhibit A-25, is the site of Ramshorn Drive and Route 70, one with a balloon and one
without with the flagpole inserted into the photo instead of the balloon to show the height and how it will look. (Note - all photos were passed around to the Board and then to the audience). Exhibit A-26 is the intersection of Old Bridge Road and Ramshorn Drive, again two photos, one with the balloon and then a computer photo to the flagpole at the same height. He noted that
the flagpole structure is the best type to use due to the residential area as the antennas are not visible, they are inside and concealed. Exhibit A-27 is a
view from 2640 Fox Lane, again two photos as explained above. Exhibit A-28 is at the intersection of Route 70 and River Road, two photos. Exhibit A-29 is Old Bridge Road adjacent to the Parking Lot and is geared to the compound itself, this shows the bare lot and then the compound base of the tower. Mr. Learned noted that these photos are without the proposed landscaping which will add buffering.
At this time the Board decided to take a 5 minute break, recessing at 9:20 and resuming at 9:25; Mr. Condon said the hearing will stop at 10:00 p.m. After this recess the Board reconvened and Mr. Kronk went on to Step three of the SECA Balancing Test:
3. The Board or applicant will ameliorate negative aspects -- Omnipoint feels they have done this by eliminating some of the non-conformities and putting in landscaping, proposing a concealment flagpole for the best opportunity to minimize any impact and they are being sensitive to both Wall and Brieile's residential areas. Granted this is oversized but it looks like an oversized flagpole.
They did prepare one additional simulation of nautical flags with an added yardarm, which was marked as Exhibit A-30. Mr. Kronk thought the Board may like to see this rather than a large American flag, this looks like a ship's mast. Mr. Sigfer commented that this would not have to be lit up at night and Mr. Kronk agreed. Mr. Learn said this idea came up due to the proximity of the Manasquan River and marinas; Mr. Kronk noted they came up with this last year but it took awhile to find someone who could make this as there is no other structure like it. Mr. Learn felt this may make more sense and Mr. Kronk said they can go with whichever flag the Board wants and this mast structure will still permit an additional carrier.
Mr. Learn asked Mr. Kronk if he had an exhibit on the tower location to the surrounding buildings with this new idea and Exhibit A-31 was shown, this was done by using the Google Earth base map and it depicts the proposed tower location and the distance to the surrounding buildings. Mr. Langenberger asked for the distances and Mr. Kronk said the closest building is 131 feet, it is 201 feet to Old Bridge Road, 220 feet to Fox Lane, the building to the right is 440 feet, these are as far away as you can get from this site and this is the best space to use.
4. The last step is the actual balancing test which is telecommunications services vs. negative impact. The wireless service is needed, over 50% of 911 calls are done by wireless phone, many homes are not even using land lines anymore and are relying on cell phones. The FCC realized people needed to be able to transfer their land line numbers to cell phones and this use does promote the general welfare. The negative is visibility but there will be no antennas, etc. and they feel this application enhances the general welfare and the benefits outweigh the negative.
Mr. Kronk then summarized his testimony and finished by again stating there will be no detriment to the public good. Mr. Michael Elward, the attorney representing Wall Twp. asked if Exhibit A-31 is to scale and Mr. Kronk said no, this is an artist's rendering and they can provide more work on this design if the Board is interested; the structure is still the same just adding a yardarm. Mr. Learn then presented Exhibit A-32, a balloon
test for the nautical flag pole. Mr. Kronk offered to add another dot to the site plan to show where this test was done and he put a red dot instead of a yellow one on Exhibit A-23. At this time Mr. Fitzsimmons asked the Board if it was okay with them to accept the exhibits as marked and they said yes.
Mr. Visceglia asked if there are any photos of the actual pole as every photo has the pole blocked in some way. Mr. Kronk said the closest one is the last one of the nautical flags but if you were driving down Route 70 you would not see the whole pole. He said the cameras they used are the ones that most replicate the human eye. Mr. Visceglia felt the pole will be seen driving down Route 70 and Mr. Kronk said they were trying to show different areas where the pole will be seen. Mr. Visceglia still felt that coming down Route 70 you will see more of it.
Mr. Learn commented on another application, by the Marlton N.J. Elementary School, they are proposing a 130 foot flag pole without a flag as this area is by a historic district. Mr. Kronk said the flag will be 20x30 feet, this set by the VFW and American Legion.
At this time the hearing was opened for questions only to Mr. Kronk. Mr. Dan Udovic of Wall Township came forward and asked if any studies were done of Brick and Point Pleasant and Mr. Kronk referenced Exhibit A-24 which showed the radio frequency needs, the municipalities across the river could not be met by them, this according to Mr. Villeco's testimony. Mr. Udovic asked the distance between the cell tower and Route 70 bridge and Mr. Kronk said he did not measure it but he can scale it; from the pole to across the bridge is 1700 feet and is outside the search ring. Mr. Udovic then asked if they had considered any icing issues and Mr. Kronk said that questions would have to be deferred to the site engineer, his opinion was if there is ice on the pole there is ice all over. Mr. Udovic asked if ice fell from this pole would that not be dangerous and Mr. Kronk said you would have the same problem with utility poles and this pole is made better. Mr. Udovic asked if other carriers present data on dropped calls and Mr. Kronk felt that was not a very accurate technology and is not really used; he relied on Mr. Villeco's testimony.
Mr. Udovic then asked if Verizon testifies on dropped calls and Mr. Kronk said not all the time, he has represented Verizon. Mr. Udovic then asked for the size of the pole and Mr. Kronk said it will be 28" on top and 4' on the bottom, spotlights will be on the pole. Mr. Udovic then asked about other carriers using this pole and Mr. Kronk said it will meet the needs to be used by another carrier.
Mr. Visceglia said he had looked at a bunch of sites and wondered what would happen if there were no places willing to have a cell pole; Mr. Kronk again said that question would have to be answered by the Radio Frequency Engineer.
Mr. Jeff Foster of Wall came forward and asked how many parking spaces are there and Mr. Kronk said 64 but the numbers are not finalized as yet. Mr. Foster noted that Mr. Hilla's letter said 54 in October and he was confused. Mr. Condon told Mr.
Foster that they were deficient by 10, this number may change to 13 spaces less. Mr. Foster then asked if other uses here would be more intense and the answer was yes. Mr. Foster said he was waiting for a loading zone and wanted to know when the final plan will be available and Mr. Learn said it will be ready for the December meeting and will be forwarded to the Wall Twp. attorney.
Mr. Lawrence Clarizio of Horseshoe Drive, Wall, came forward and asked if they had looked at real estate values changing in the area due to this. Mr. Kronk said there has to be a detriment to affect real estate and he did not see one here. Mr. Clarizio said he looked at the balloon test photos and wanted to know if this will affect the value of his home; Mr. Kronk said he did not know of any court case that addressed real estate values. Mr. Clarizio then asked Mr. Kronk if he had to pick either trees or a pole by a house, which would he choose and Mr. Learn objected to this question but said Mr. Kronk can answer if he wishes. Mr. Kronk said if it were a tudor home, which he doesn't like, he would object. They used to bring real estate experts to court but it was never addressed so they stopped bringing them.
Kerry Reilly of Fox Lane asked what tests or studies have been done to say there is no value detriment. Mr. Kronk said there are cases on this, Mendham vs. Verizon, TMobile, etc.; this is a recent case. Ms. Reilly then asked about Exhibit A-27 where the flag looks the same height as the tree in the photo. Mr. Kronk explained that the tree is in the foreground and the 100 foot tower is a ways behind it.
Mr. Joe Martone of Fox Lane asked if they ever tried to locate other properties by the river and Mr. Kronk said they asked all in the C-3 zone and OP Zone in this area, as well as Harpoon Willies. Mr. Martone asked if McCarthy's Marina was contacted and the answer was yes and also that no one in the residential zones was contacted. Mr. Martone asked if the Brielle waste water station was contacted and Mr. Kronk said no as that building is in the R-2 zone. Mr. Martone asked if the power goes out do they need a generator that will make noise. Mr. Kronk said if that happened it would be for a short term, there is a DEP regulation for emergency situations and generators could be brought in; that is not part of this application. Mr. Martone asked if any noise studies have been done and Mr. Kronk said this will be in complete compliance with all DEP and FCC regulations. Mr. Martone finished by asking if Mr. Kronk has every heard Spring Lake's huge flag on a windy day and the answer was no.
Mr. Michael Clayton of Wall Twp. asked if the applicant could or would be able to provide a noise study on emergency generators & flag waving. Mr. Kronk said if the Board wants they can switch to the smaller nautical flags. Mr. Clayton then asked for clarification on the statement this is not in a residential area and Mr. Kronk said the C-3 and OP Zones are all commercial. Mr. Clayton asked if Mr. Kronk felt that 90% of this area is residential and Mr. Kronk replied there are homes within this corridor and it may be about 35% residential. Mr. Clayton asked about within the search ring and the answer was at least 90% is residential which is the area that is needed to be served. There were then a few questions about "beneficial & inherently beneficial" and then Mr.
Clayton asked about using State land along Route 70 on the other side of the street and Mr. Kronk said that is a residential zone.
Mr. Dan Healy of Wall asked about Step 4 of the SECA test and the positives outweighing the negatives and the positives is cell phone use for public benefits. How is the public benefitting here as there are other users in this area? Mr. Kronk explained that T-Mobile needs this site for their public. The new E-911 system is required, from the FCC, that phone manufacturers be able to locate a phone user between 10 & 20 feet; if you make an E-911 call the system will triangulate your location and is a big public benefit. Mr. Healy asked if the public has a right to go to what carrier they want and Mr. Kronk said an Act of Congress auctioned off licenses and told the carriers to get sites and be competitive. Mr. Healy then asked about a vacated property on Old Bridge Road and if Mr. Kronk knew who owned that. Mr. Kronk reasoned that if it was a vacation it must have been owned by the municipality and asked Mr. Healy if he had contacted them. Mr. Healy said it was only part of the road and Mr. Kronk noted that this is shown as a right-of-way on the map. Mr. Learn said the road would be half and half, the owner on one side would own the half on his side and the same would be for the owner on the other side.
As the hearing had now gone over the time by %2 hour (it was 10:30), Mr. Condon said it this will be continued at the December meeting. Mr. Learn said that Mr. Kronk will be back to answer any remaining questions as not everyone in the audience had the opportunity to speak. Mr. Elward, the attorney for Wall Twp., said he will need time to speak also. Mrs. Brisben suggested meeting at 7:00 on Tuesday, December 9th to allow more time and this was agreeable to the Board.
As there was no other business to come before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Visceglia and unanimously approved, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 pm.
Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary