MINUTES OF THE
MENDHAM BOROUGH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
Garabrant Center, 4 Wilson St., Mendham, NJ


CALL TO ORDER

The regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Mendham was called to order
by Chairman Santo at 7:45 p.m. at the Garabrant Center, 4 Wilson Street, Mendham, NJ

CHAIRMAN'S ADEQUATE NOTICE STATEMENT

Notice of this meeting was published in the Daily Record and Observer Tribune in accordance
with the Open Public Meetings Act on January 13, 2005 and was posted on the Phoenix House
bulletin board on the same date.

ATTENDANCE

Mr. Santo, Chairman - Present

Mr. Schumacher - Present
Mr. Wynne, Vice Chairman ­ Absent

Mr. Seavey ­ Present
Mr. Andrus - Present




Mr. Smith - Present
Mr. Peck - Present




Alternates:




Ms. Rulle ­ Absent






Mr. Badal ­ Absent




Also
Present:
Mr.
MacDonald,
Attorney







Mr. Ferriero, Engineer
Dr.
Eisenstein,
Telcom
Consultant














######



APPROVAL OF MINUTES

It was moved by Mr. Peck, seconded by Mr. Andrus and carried that the minutes of the regular
meeting of November 1, 2005 be approved as written.






CASE HEARINGS

Raimondo, Brett & Rachelle ­ Hardship Variance

Location: Block 303, Lot 4, 15 Country Lane

Mr. MacDonald, Esq. reviewed the public notices and advised that there was a deficiency
in two of the applicant's notifications to property owners. The application would need to
be carried to the next meeting to assure proper notification. He advised a member of the
public present that in the interim, the application is on file at the Board Secretary's office
should they care to review it in advance of the January 3, 2006 meeting.

######

New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC: Continuation

Location: Block 801, Lot 11, 8 Cold Hill Road

Present:
Michael Lavigne, Pitney Hardin, LLC - Attorney for the Applicant


Vishal Kataria, Bectel Communications ­ Radio Frequency Engineer


Mary Ann Adams, Veritext - Court Stenographer

Exhibits:
A-1: Base Map: Neighboring Site RF Coverage Antenna Height
100 Feet at -85 dBm

A-2: Transparent Overlay: Individual Site RF Coverage Antenna
Height 100 Feet.

---

December 6, 2005
Board of Adjustment
2

A-3: Colorized Base Map: Existing Site RF Coverage Antenna Height 90 Feet.
Neighboring site 457 turned off. Site: 458 ­ St. Johns, 82 West Main St.
(New Cingular at 100 ft.); Site 457 ­ Proposed Verizon monopole 172 Route
24, Mendham Township (140 ft. w/Cingular at 100 ft.)
A-4: Transparent overlay: Base Map: Individual site Coverage Antenna Height
90 Feet: Neighboring Site Turned On.
A-5: Base Map: Neighboring Site RF Coverage Antenna Height 100 Feet
Two Signal Strengths -85 to -95.
A-6: Transparent overlay: Individual Site RF Coverage Antenna Height
107 Feet
A-7: Transparent overlay: Individual Site RF Coverage Antenna Height
100 Feet. Two signal levels.
A-8: Photo Simulations of Monopole
A-9: FR Exposure Report Dated September 22, 2005

Mr. Schumacher recused from the Board.

Mr. MacDonald, Esq. advised that the notices had previously been reviewed and that the Board
has jurisdiction. The application was carried from a previous meeting.

Mr. MacDonald, Esq. introduced Dr. Bruce Eisenstein who would be serving as telecommunications
consultant to the Board. Dr. Eisenstein presented himself as a consultant to the Board.

Mr. Lavigne, Esq. stated that New Cingular Wireless was presenting an application for a wireless
telecommunications facility located at 8 Cold Hill Road in the Limited Business District. The
structure is a 100 ft. galvanized steel monopole with base and cabinet equipment. The Borough of
Mendham does not have any ordinances that indicate where monopoles are permitted, nor is it a
conditioned permitted use. He summarized the witnesses that would testify to the Board including a
Radio Frequency Specialist, Site Acquisition Specialist, Civil Engineer and Land Use Planner. He
stated that he could also call a Health and Safety expert; however it has been determined that the
Board could not deny the application based on health factors. It is the responsibility of the provider
to demonstrate that they are aware of the Federal Communications Commission guidelines and that
proposed facility would comply. Some Boards have chosen not to hear testimony.

In terms of the request for the use variance, Mr. Lavigne, Esq. stated that as the carrier is a licensed
FCC telecommunications carrier, cases indicate that by holding the license and providing the
wireless service that the carrier advances the general welfare. The applicant must demonstrate,
however, that the site chosen is well suited for the type of use and that it does not affect the zoning
and the sensitivity of the surrounding land uses. They do need to satisfy the negative criteria as the
facilities have not been declared inherently beneficial uses by the courts of New Jersey.

Mr. Lavigne, Esq. stated that he had worked with Mr. Seavey in a prior business dealing in
Mendham Township. Chair stated that it should not affect this hearing.

Mr. Vishal Kataria, Radio Frequency Engineer, presented his credentials. Board accepted Mr.
Kataria as an expert witness. Mr. Levin, Esq. marked and entered Exhibits A-1 through A-7 that had
been prepared by Mr. Kataria. They included exhibits previously requested by Dr. Eisenstein.

Utilizing Exhibit A-1, Mr. Kataria testified that there are two neighboring sites shown. One is
located in Mendham Borough, the St. John's Bell Tower and is turned on with a threshold of -85
dBm. A proposed site, #457, Verizon, if approved, is also turned on to show threshold of -85 dBm.
The site is located in Mendham Township. Site 093 is the proposed site at Moros Autobody, the
subject of the application.

Mr. Kataria continued describing a white area as a gap at -85. The white area represents a signal less
than -85. That signal level is the minimum a person traveling in a car , "in-car coverage", requires to
hold a call. There may be a problem initiating and holding a call, or it may have poor quality. They
are trying to cover the gap with the proposed site. The proposal would provide coverage along
Route 24 as well as some along Tempe Wick and Talmage Roads, and Mountain Avenue.

Addressing the location of the proposed tower, Mr. Kataria stated that they try to find existing
structure on which to locate antennae whenever possible. That reduces their cost and time and
usually works well with the towns. In this case, there is not a height of 100 ft. that would be
available. They did not find an existing structure.

Referring to Exhibit A-2, Mr. Kataria testified that it represents the coverage only from site W093
identified in pink. It indicates that at 100 ft. they can achieve the goal of providing additional

---

December 6, 2005
Board of Adjustment
3
coverage. Responding to the Board on why there was still a small white area indicating a gap, Mr.
Kataria stated that traveling west on Route 24, there's a big uphill elevation change.

Utilizing Exhibit A-3, Mr. Kataria demonstrated the coverage if the MendhamTownship tower (457)
was turned off. He pointed out the area currently being covered by the Bell Tower in Mendham
Borough. He stated that more than one tower is needed. Responding to a Board question on the
number of towers proposed for Mendham Borough, he stated that there is only one site being
proposed for Mendham Borough and most of the coverage gap they are trying to fill is in Mendham
Borough. Responding to Dr. Eisenstein's question on the where the coverage is coming from in the
North, Mr. Kataria stated he thought it might be coming from the Mount Freedom flagpole.

Mr. Kataria used Exhibit A-4 to demonstrate the coverage from w093 if the tower were reduced to
90 ft. The gap begins getting larger along Route 24. They require a minimum of 100ft. to achieve
the required coverage.

Responding to the Board's question on whether more than one carrier could use the tower, Mr.
Kataria stated that carriers need to maintain about a 10 ft. differential. If the height of the tower,
were lowered, other carriers would not want to collocate under them.

Demonstrating coverage at -95 with two neighboring site turned on in Exhibit A-5, Mr. Kataria
stated that a person standing in the open would receive a signal, but would not if they were located in
a car. This is referred to as "outdoor coverage". The lower the number the stronger the signal.
Below -95 is a bad or poor signal. They attempt to achieve a signal of -85 so that a person with a
phone in the car using a hand-free set should be able to continue their call along Route 24 without
dropping it.

Addressing a Board question on whether the elevation was a major factor in determining the range,
Mr. Kataria explained that range and elevation are factors. The elevation does vary. Also there is
two way communication. Tower to cell and cell to tower. The power must be balanced. It is both
topography and distance.

Continuing with his explanation of A-5 for the Board, Mr. Kataria stated that they developed two
scenarios with the twelve antennae mounted. One is an irregular tower with the antennae mounted at
a certain height. The other is flush-mount, six and six antennae at two heights. They also increased
the height to 107 ft. to obtain more coverage along Talmage Road. Dr. Eisenstein clarified that the
antennas were flush mounted at both 100 and 107 ft.

Addressing Exhibit A-6, Mr. Kataria showed the individual coverage that they would obtain from
w093 at a signal threshold of -85 and -95 at a height of 107 ft. He stated that the mounting style of
the antennae is different than what was proposed before. Two flush-mounts of six antennae and six
are proposed. It is referred to as cluster mount as well. Chair requested a description of "flush
mount". Mr. Lavigne entered Exhibit A-8.

Dr. Eisenstein stated that if flush-mount provides the same technical results, the flush-mount is
aesthetically preferred. He continued that the carrier would probably testify that a greater height
would be required for flush-mount as the antennae take up more room and the other carriers would
not want to co-locate under them. He has advised Boards in the past that they would be better off
taking a little bit extra height and accept the flush-mount as it cuts down the visual aspect
enormously and also provides room for co-location.

Mr. Kataria stated the flush-mount provides the same RF, but the tower height would typically
increase by 10 ft.

Responding to the Chair on how the homes that utilize cell technology might be affected, Mr.
Kataria stated that for in home use -75 is usually required given the obstruction of the buildings.
Along Route 24 there should be in house coverage where the signal is stronger. Continuing, Mr.
Kataria stated that the site would support multiple technologies apart from GSM, the global system
for mobile communications. It will also support UMTS, Universal Mobile Telephone System, which
is a technology for high-speed data transmission which includes emails. It also includes radio
transmission at a high bit rate. It will support additional devices such as PDAs or laptops with
modem cards.

Mr. Kataria described Exhibit A-7 as showing the individual coverage from site 93 at 100 ft. with
additional signals at -85 in orange and -95 in yellow. It is a flush-mount configuration. Some of the
gap is filled in along Talmage Road.

Addressing additional questions from Mr. Lavigne, Esq., Mr. Kataria testified that there would not
be any permanent employee staffing. It is remotely monitored. In terms of nuisance characteristics,

---

December 6, 2005
Board of Adjustment
4
there is no heat and no noise. The only maximum noise will be at the back of the cabinet where the
fans are located to cool the cabinet. In terms of the maximum permissible exposure levels that have
been established by the FCC, Mr. Kataria testified that they have completed a report that provides
the values. Cingular has a license for both 850 megahertz and 1,900 megahertz or BCM cellular.
Considering the combination, the threshold will be less than one percent of the limit, the 100 percent
being the maximum prescribed by the FCC. Mr. Lavigne, Esq. marked the Report dated September
22, 2005 as Exhibit 9. It had previously been supplied to the Board.

Responding to a Board question on the edges of the colored areas, Mr. Kataria stated that the map
edges that are represented in green show a pressure of -85 dropping to -86 at the edges. Anything
poorer than -85 is the edge. That range is -85 to -95. A call can be lost in that area if you are
traveling in a car. Board questioned that since there was just a very small driving distance between
457 and Cold Hill Road would the issue be inconvenience and how bad might it be. Mr. Kataria
stated that the inconvenience might consist of crackling in the call or bad reception. It could be
garbled speech or bad quality. Addressing Mr. Lavigne's question on the data transmission quality,
Mr. Kataria stated that closer to the tower, the rate is faster. In the white area, errors could be
received. A call could still be connected, but the data rate would be prone to errors.

Addressing a Board question on whether the change in technology over the last five years has
required an increased number of towers, Mr. Kataria stated yes. The conversion of analog to digital
has improved the quality. There is more usage and the power between the cell phone and the tower
must be balanced. Dr. Eisenstein stated that the requirement was for coverage not capacity. If they
moved the discussion to capacity, there would be additional requirements for testimony. Board
questioned what will happen 5 years from now in terms of the number of towers required. Mr.
Kataria stated that subscribers would increase in the future and in downtown areas they may run out
of channels. He did not see that in this area.

Board questioned whether a tower of this height was the only technology that could transmit from
one place to another. Mr. Kataria stated that there was satellite technology. It is costly and does not
provide good indoor coverage. Cellular or PCS technology is less expensive. He continued that
towers of the height proposed are needed to clear the trees and building that can obstruct the signal.
Board again questioned whether signals could not be transmitted from lower towers to higher
towers.

Dr. Eisenstein clarified for the Board that the towers do not communicate with each other. The
towers only talk to the hand held devices and the towers communicate by underground phone lines.
They do not have to be line-of-site. One could use micro-cells or mini-cells. It may not be the
appropriate solution in this case, but satellite technology is not the only option.

Elaborating for the Board on micro-cell technology, Dr. Eisenstein stated that they are smaller
towers. In an urban area such as Manhattan, there are buildings that obstruct the signal. Lower sites
are used to cover a smaller area. Micro-cells, small sites, are placed on traffic lights or light stands.
They may also be seen in sports arenas to cover the large demand. The technology is not adapted to
covering a somewhat rural area where there is not sufficient capacity to justify it. As more sites are
required the likelihood is that they are going to use the lower sites for fill in coverage. Dr.
Eisenstein expressed his opinion that Mendham would not have capacity issues. The extended use
of data services would require more sites and they could be lower. They do not have to be a
monopole.

Dr. Eisenstein also explained that analog phones communicated at a fairly high power at about 3
watts. The new hand held phones are .6 watts. While the range is better on the new phone, the
power has been substantially reduced. Coverage is lost.

Responding to the Board on the height of tower 458, Mr. Kataria stated that is 111 ft. He did not
know how many carriers occupy the pole. He continued that the bell tower is 130 ft. And that they
are located in the steeple. He did not know if anyone was located above them. Responding to the
Board on the height of site 457, Mr. Kataria stated that it is around 140 ft. They are not at the top of
the tower. It is a Verizon tower and Nextel and Sprint are above them. They are at a height of 100
ft. on the pole. He stated that it is likely that other carriers would want to co-locate on the proposed
pole 93 with them.

Addressing the Board on whether someone could approach to co-locate at 120 ft. if the tower is built
originally at 100 ft. , Mr. Lavigne stated that was dependent on the approval. The tower would need
to be extended. He continued that the foundation drives the extent to which the poles are co-
locatable or extendable. The foundation needs to be designed such that the tower could be extended.
Chair noted that St. John's was originally proposed at a lower elevation and other carriers
approached the Board to co-locate. Dr. Eisenstein stated that he usually recommends that in

---

December 6, 2005
Board of Adjustment
5
applications of this type, the foundation be designed for 120 ft., but the tower be built to 100 ft.
Later, an extension could be added.

Board noted the correlation between coverage and height. Responding to a question on whether
making tower 457 higher to 140 ft. would alleviate the need for a tower in Mendham Borough, Mr.
Kataria stated that it would not completely eliminate the need, but it would provide more coverage.
They are restricted to 100 ft. on pole 457. The elevation changes restrict the height on 457. There
would still be gaps.

Mr. Kataria clarified for the Board that the coverage was based on a formula, not on actual readings.
It is a predicted mapping, but the signal strength is shown with actual drive test coverage. The maps
are prepared by computer-generated model. A digital elevation is overlaid by the sites, heights and
power. Drive tests are then added to the model. Every carrier predicts their coverage in this manner.
GSM technology is used.

Responding to the Board on whether the antennas are the most current technology for achieving
coverage, Mr. Kataria stated that they try to maintain the network with the latest technology and
antenna replacement. The latest antennae are used at almost all new cell sites.

Addressing the Chair's question on whether 458 and the soon to be on line 457 could be enhanced or
modified in such a way as to negate a need for 93, Mr. Kataria stated that they can only increase
power to a certain extent. It is two way communication. The cell phone has to have sufficient
power to communicate and every site is operating at a certain threshold or power so that the cell
phones and the cell towers can communicate with each other. If power is increased from the tower
only, the cell phones will not be able to communicate. There is a restriction on the power that can be
used in the cell phone. The power is balanced.

Dr. Eisenstein, clarified for the Board that that there must be two way communication. It is not the
tower. The handhelds are power limited. There is no point in extending the tower power when the
hand-helds are restricted. The sites are designed to the hand-helds to facilitate communication. This
is in contrast to one way communication such as TV and radio.

Dr. Eisenstein questioned why on A-5 Base Map, the tower could not be located more toward the
center of the gap. Mr. Kataria responded that it was based on the topography and the availability of
real estate. They did not place it in the center of the gap as they wanted to cover most of Route 24.
At the request of Dr. Eisenstein, Mr. Kataria stated that Cingular operates at two different frequency
bans. The band that he depicted on all the maps is the PCS frequency at 1,900. The other band is
850 on the cellular band. If he had completed the maps at 850 he would have a different propagation
plot model.

Explaining to the Board the difference in the propagation model based on 850 and 1,900 frequency,
Mr. Kataria stated that 850 covers a little bit more than 1,900, but they are trying to achieve 1,900 on
all their plots. 850 plots are a little better and they will be able to get a better signal in the area with
850. They will have frequency for the cell phones on 1,900 and 850. Mr. Kataria stated that 850
would meet their coverage objectives. Responding to Dr. Eisenstein's question on whether existing
coverage at 850 megahertz from tower 458 and 457 without 093 tower would still have a gap, Mr.
Kataria stated that he has not completed the plot, but there will be a gap. Dr. Eisenstein confirmed
with Mr. Kataria that their customers' phones would work on both frequencies and that the user does
not know which frequency bank the phone is on. Dr. Eisenstein requested the coverage map plots
for 850 megahertz to provide additional input for the Board's decision. If the plot fills the gap, the
Board would be making a decision as to whether or not to give the applicant the relief to allow them
to always operate at either one instead of restricting their customers to operate at one or the other.
Customers would not know the difference. Applicant agreed to provide the plots a minimum of 10
days before the January 3, 2006 meeting of the Board. A copy will be sent directly to Dr. Eisenstein.

Dr. Eisenstein expressed an interest in knowing the location of T-Mobile. They are a 1,900
megahertz provider with coverage in the area. Dr. Eisenstein stated that he was receiving 3 to 4
bars at the Garabrant Center which is located in the gap area shown on the applicant's map. Mr.
Kataria did not know the location of T-Mobile. Dr. Eisenstein requested the information as follow
up.

Board requested that the applicant provide the coverage chart before the next meeting. The material
should be provided to the Board Secretary a minimum of 10 day ahead of the January 3 meeting.

Chair opened the meeting to any questions of the witness by the public.

Fiona McKaskill, 20 Cold Hill Road, stated that she had full coverage of T-mobile and Cingular. She
places a call on Main Street every morning. She also has coverage in her home. She questioned

---

December 6, 2005
Board of Adjustment
6
whether there would be any interference with television, electric and invisible fences and land line
phones. Mr. Kataria stated that they have no had any complaints. Ms. McKaskill questioned why a
cell tower was required in this location if there was already one located at St. Johns and Conifer.
Mr. Kataria stated that they have conducted their threshold analysis. Ms. McCaskell stated that this
cell tower would be "in her back yard" and she questioned the aesthetics of a flush-mount being
better. Dr. Eisenstein stated that there would be no difference in the aesthetics to her. At a greater
distance one would see pronounced antennas on a platform-mount versus a then tower given flush-
mount. Closer, it would not make a difference. Dr. Eisenstein also explained that in New Jersey
whether or not a phone works is not accepted by the courts. The drawings are statistically based.
The carriers are entitled to a grade of service of 2 percent which means that if one in fifty calls fails
they are entitled to relief.

Responding to her questions on the use of the 800 mHz versus the 1,900, Dr. Eisenstein explained
the history of various carriers entering the market and that those first in the business used 800 and
newer companies use 1900. Older companies also have gotten incremental frequencies at 1900.
Mergers have provided operations at both frequencies. They are not talking about going to 2,500
and 2,800 which might be limited to data services.

Ms. McKaskill also questioned how loud the fans would be. She can hear the fans from Kings. Mr.
Lavigne, Esq. stated that the Civil Engineer would address that concern. Ms. McKaskill questioned
the use of micro cells. Mr. Kataria stated that it is not only expensive, but there are leasing issues.
Since more than one cell is used to cover the area, in a rural area, ten or twelve might be required to
cover the same area as one large tower. Structures of at 30 to 40 ft. must be leased. Poles might also
be used. It is more time-consuming. Ms. McCaskell pointed out that the area that is not covered is
between Cold Hill Road and Dean Road where the shopping center is located.

Responding to the Board on whether there has been any company that has been successful on using
micro-cells on utility poles, Mr. Kataria stated that he was not aware. The coverage for a micro-cell
would be one mile. They are usually meant for covering environments like shopping malls or
buildings. It is not recommended for an open area.

Responding to the Board on the perceived overlap in the coverage as shown on the maps, Dr.
Eisenstein clarified that what the Board was viewing as redundancy is overlap. Some overlap is
necessary as when a person travels from cell to cell, there has to be a period where the cell that you
are in lets go of the call and the other cell picks it off. That is called the hand-off. Some overlap is
required. Addressing micro-cells, Dr. Eisenstein stated that when the radius of cell is cut in half by
reducing the height, four times as many cells are required in order to cover the area previously
covered. That also increases the number of applications before the Board. That is one of the reasons
you do not see the micro-cells in New Jersey. They are primarily used in train stations and sports
arenas or areas of dense population where there are a lot of people and a lot of coverage is not
needed. Later, you may see fill in micro-cells in the Borough for data.

Continuing, Dr. Eisenstein stated that micro-cell sites are being used in historic Princeton. They are
legacy sites and they are Cingular sites. They are located on the roofs of buildings and they are
extremely small and unobtrusive site. Princeton is a very small confined areas with a high density of
users. There is one base tower on top of the medical center. It is a high building. South on Route 1
they have a 130 ft. monopole. They have their base coverage and fill in with the micro-cells.
Everything is connected via underground phone lines back to a mobile service center, MSC.

Responding the Chair's question on whether micro-cell technology could be used if the Borough
went "hot", Dr. Eisenstein stated that it could. There might be eight to ten of the micro-cells
unobtrusively sited within the Borough. In Europe, they place the antennas on the sides of the
buildings and paint them to match. Dr. Eisenstein recommended a special consultant if the Borough
decided to pursue that tact. Chair noted that Philadelphia is also going "hot".

Barbara Stanton stated that she was present as a private citizen. Mr. MacDonald, Esq. stated that
Mrs. Stanton is a member of the Governing Body, but is interested in the application and has
indicated that she wishes to ask questions. Her questions would be directed to Dr. Eisenstein.

Responding to Mrs. Stanton on whether the Borough should be taking a wait-and-see approach with
respect to the 457 proposed location and then determining the gap, Dr. Eisenstein stated that in
essence the question is the accuracy of the propagation models. They are going to be fairly accurate.
Actual drive testing after the fact would not show anything much different. In other areas, drive
testing and propagation maps have lined up almost exactly. There will not be major differences.

Addressing the drive test, Mrs. Stanton, questioned whether there were peak versus non-peak drive
tests conducted in determining the gap to put a reality check to the statistical analysis. Dr. Eisenstein
referenced his previous answer. The computer propagation models are accurate. Customer

---

December 6, 2005
Board of Adjustment
7
complaints might not be generated with the dropped calls, but statistically they are entitled to relief
in terms of the way the law is written and the way the code is interpreted. Given the cost and time to
the providers, they would not be requesting what they do not need.

Responding to Mrs. Stanton's question as to whether Jockey Hollow that was heavy with trees was
considered, Dr. Eisenstein stated that he thought there was a ridge in the area. They need 100 ft. and
would only get 75 to 80 in that area. He requested a three dimensional topological map of the area
to be provided along with the 850 coverage map. There was also discussion on whether Jockey
Hollow was Federal land. Addressing her question on whether 458 was built on analog technology,
Dr. Eisenstein stated that some channels are still maintained for legacy analog. But it has primarily
disappeared. All equipment is digital. Everything that they have in all their sites is digital. Tower
458 has already been upgraded. Mr. Kataria verified that 458 is all digital GSM.

In terms of whether he had ever seen a monopole less than 100 ft, Dr. Eisenstein responded to Mrs.
Stanton that he had. He has seen them at 70, 75 and 80 ft. He has not seen a freestanding structure
under 75 ft. as then they can be mounted on roofs. The reason that the towers are 100 ft. is that they
need to clear tree lines and all the other houses that are around. This is especially true in an area of
heavy trees.

Fiona McKaskill stated that she did not hear a direct answer to the question on why the tower was
located where it was as opposed to within the center of the gap area. Mr. Kataria stated that they
tried to look for other locations, but this is the only location they found to lease. Mr. Lavigne, Esq.
stated that it is a multifaceted process and an additional witness would testify on the rationale. He
stated that the site has to work from a radio frequency standpoint, and from a construction and
engineering standpoint. There must be access and it must be structurally sound. It also has to be
zoneable and make sense from a planning perspective. Consideration is given to residential versus
commercial areas.

Responding to Ms. McKaskill's question on the blue area and its coverage, Mr. Kataria stated that it
receives a threshold of -85 to -95 dBm, which is out of coverage. Chair commented that there are
both residential and commercial properties in the area and wetlands in the area. Board questioned
whether Green Acres land could be used. The answer was not known. Responding to the Chair on
whether there are any sites planned to the south, Mr. Kataria stated that they are looking at a site in
Bernardsville. It is nothing that would impact the proposed coverage in Mendham.

Responding to the Board on whether any of the ridges in the area were reviewed as possible sites
considering that height was a factor in coverage, Mr. Kataria stated that they typically try not to
choose an especially hilly area. They have a limited amount of channels and they reuse the
frequency. If they try to place a cell site on top of a hill, it covers such a large area that it causes an
interference with other cell sites that may use the same frequencies. Board commented that if that
were the case, a smaller tower would suffice. Mr. Kataria stated that the trees in the area still must
be cleared and usually a tower of 70 ft. is required that still causes interference.

Given the hour, Board and applicant agreed to carry the application for continuation at the next
meeting on January 3, 2006. Responding to Mr. Lavigne, Esq. on whether the Board wanted to hear
testimony on health and safety issues, Chair stated that in fairness to the Board and to the
community, the witness should be available. The next meeting would be testimony by the site
acquisition specialist and the civil engineer.

Board clarified that there are two items to be received prior to the next meeting: (1) three-
dimensional topo map and (2) 850 megahertz base map. Board Secretary retained the Exhibits. Mr.
Lavigne, Esq. agreed to provide a copy of the transcript to the Board.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chair opened the meeting to any questions or comments by the public on items that were not on
the agenda. There being none, the public comment session was closed.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no additional business to come before the Board, on motion duly made, seconded and
carried, Chairman Santo adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. The next regular meeting of the
Board of Adjustment will be held on Tuesday, January 3, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at the Garabrant
Center, 4 Wilson Street, Mendham, NJ.
Respectfully
submitted,


Diana
Callahan,
Recording
Secretary

---

December 6, 2005
Board of Adjustment
8

---