I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Excuse me. This meeting complies with the open
public meetings act. Notice of this meeting has been published on the municipal bulletin board municipal website and as required by law. >> Thank you. Uh roll call please. Kathleen. >> Mr. Hyman
>> here. >> Mr. Martins >> here. >> Miss Rosal >> here. >> Mr. Tremor >> here. Miss Cusano >> here. >> Mr. Seleia >> here. >> Dr. Hoffstein >> here. Miss Bradley >> here. >> You have resolutions this evening. Miss
Cypriani. >> We do. We do. And I thank the board and I thank Dawn for uh getting these together or getting them on the agenda as quickly. So the first one is resolution 2026-05.
Um, it's granting a sign variance approval for properties known as lot 63 in block 5601. This is the high lifeline application which we heard uh several months ago and all of the conditions that were placed on the record are
incorporated into the resolution. >> Okay, we need a motion and a second. Please >> make a motion. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Martins. >> Yes.
>> Miss Rosal. >> Yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein. >> Yes. >> Miss Bradley. >> Yes. >> You. I'll put that there so it can be signed. Then our next resolution is 2026-06.
writing a variance for the property located at 24 Chisik Court block 5304 lot 9. This was the bulk variance to permit construction of a second story rear deck on property located at 24 Chis
Court Chisik Chiswick you decide. Um and once again the conditions placed on the record were incorporated into the resolution. >> We need a motion a second please. >> Motion. Second. >> Roll call, please.
>> Mr. Hyman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Martins. >> Yes. >> Miss Rosal? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tremor? >> Yes. >> Miss Cusano? >> Yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein? >> Yes. >> Miss Bradley? >> Yes.
>> And next is 20267. It's a resolution memorializing the granting of a use variance for 51 Progress Place. Um this was the application that uh came in for the mobile concrete batch plant. Um that was
recent. I believe you will recover uh recall that. Um and there was also uh the conditions that were placed on the record were incorporated into the resolution. >> Motion a second. And I'd just like to
say um thank you to Dawn and to Kathleen for getting this stuff done so quickly. That's awesome. Motion >> second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes.
>> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Kusano, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, >> yes. And I just want to say one thing about this did itself on writing this resolution
and it it discussing it. >> Thank you. And I certainly thank the applicants attorney as well um for uh their assistance with the form of the resolution. and I'll try and stick with that one uh since it was found to be
helpful. Um resolution 20268 which is the approval of use variance and bolt variances for the construction uses of a metal pole barn for property located at block 2603 lots 8 9 10 15 16 and 17. This was Jerry Jerry's auto
body. Um and once again we had had a lot of testimony and conditions and those are incorporated into the resolution. Second, please. >> Motion roll, >> please. >> Mr. Heyman,
>> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Cusano, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, >> Miss Bradley, >> yes. >> I should also place on the record um this Mr. Heyman is uh ill and could not
be physically present. is participating um through the miracle of Anthony and uh Zoom and so it is a virtual meeting he is able to hear and hopefully can be heard by all
and that's all the resolutions but we have approval of minutes um dated 2426 21826 34 No, no, the 34 meeting was canceled.
Excuse me. 2426 and 218 26. We need a motion and a second, please. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Hyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes.
>> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Kusano, >> Mr. Seleia, Dr. Hoffstein >> and Miss Bradley. It says no for >> 218. No for 24. I was not >> You're unable. Right. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. And I have two vouchers this evening. Although the I'm sorry. We're tableabling the one from 34 so we can get clarification of a voucher for this evening from Jackson Township for the recording secretary for tonight's meeting. I need a motion and a
second to play the voucher. Please. Motion second. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Kusano, Mr. Seleia, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, Miss Bradley,
>> yes. >> Announcement this evening, honey. >> In a rare moment, we have no announcements. >> I think we do have one. No, just kidding. >> I don't think it got you. Um, the meeting for April 1st is cancelled.
>> Oh, >> hey. >> Oh, I did not receive that. Yes, there's your announcement. April 1st is canceled. >> April 1st is canled. >> You're serious? That's a good one to cancel. >> April >> April 1 meeting is canled. Um, and I just I'd like to put on the record down
and advise the board that um the meeting of um is it uh April 15th I will be in Italy. Um so Robin will be here. She'll be prepared. But I just
want to let you know and I'm sorry I tried to arrange it so I missed as few meetings as possible but since it's two weeks in Italy I have to miss something. >> That's that's a shame. >> I know. I know it was hard to break. >> You could miss Italy. You have to miss
something. You could miss Italy. >> I couldn't. >> All right. I do believe we are going to go into executive session. So >> resolution of the zoning board of adjustment of the township of Jackson County of Ocean State of New Jersey to enter into exe executive session as
authorized by the open public meetings act for discussion of personnel matters specifically traffic engineer and anticipated litigation from uh garden view homes uh regarding the checklist um and uh action may be taken following
executive session. >> A motion and a second to second Um, I don't anticipate that it would be longer than 15 minutes, 20 at the outside, but >> we'll see.
>> All right. back to order. >> Um, I'd just like to note for the record um that uh since we have a full board uh up here tonight, Mr. Heyman has dropped off and and I just like to also put in the
record that I uh will follow the direction um okay so that covered our executive session and our matters for discussion. >> Oh really? >> It's great. Can you hear me? >> Yes.
>> Well, you guys. >> Hello. Hello. Yeah. >> Make sure it's not the >> I Yeah. I I don't I mean I I think I can speak loudly enough to be heard, but this is not >> rehears. Okay.
>> And then we have No, I'm sorry. >> You need a motion to return? >> No, we do not need a motion. and executive session is a subset. >> Have two two quick things for discussion. One another letter to the
to uh find a a ninth member for the board. It's been almost a year since we haven't had uh a new member approved. And the other would be that we should insist that the
applicant be at the that we have where his application or her application is being heard. Otherwise there the decisions can't be made. And if the applicant can't be here then he should appoint somebody who can
make decisions in his place and let us have a letter stating that. All right. So, that covers our matters for discussion for this evening. I don't believe we have any administrative approvals. So, we're going to move on to applicant number one, Powerhouse Signs
LLC, Ulta Beauty Signs, Variance 3548. >> Good evening, members of the board. I'm Jeffrey Donner. I represent the applicant powerhouse signs. Uh we have an application where we're seeking uh to
erect some signs at the Ulta Beauty uh unit at the Jackson Mall. And u we need two variances as I understand it. Uh we're seeking two signs where one would normally be allowed and permitted and
we're seeking uh signs that are slightly larger than the 80 80 square foot maximum. We're looking, we have two signs that each one of them is conforming, but together the signs uh come up to 113.32 square feet, which is in excess of the
80 square ft. So, I have here to present tonight uh my client Ryan Johnson, who's the principal of Powerhouse Signs, and we'll have him testify first, followed by our planner, Barbara Allen. And uh Mr. Johnson will go over what the signs
are and uh why he felt that it's important to ask for these signs in the current size and in the current locations. >> Thank you, Mr. Donner. And just >> sorry, I was going to say forgive me, sir. I allowed you to start speaking, but in my haste to get back since we
took so long, I forgot to have the professional swear in. So, let's get them sworn in and we'll get started. I do apologize. Sorry. Do >> you swear or affirm that the testimony you give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do.
>> Please state your name and position for the record. >> Mark Roier, board engineer. >> Ernie Peters, board planner. >> Gina Zumalo, zoning officer. >> And while I'm squaring people in, could raise your right. All right. Two
for the price of one. Uh, do you uh please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> And could you each state your name and position on this matter for the record?
>> Microphone for me, please. >> Brian Johnson, the owner of Powerhouse Signs. >> Barbara Alen, Ehn, uh, licensed professional planner. Thank you. >> Thank you for seeing us tonight.
Appreciate it. Uh, is there the ability to have >> Anony's gonna get that up? >> Oh, great. Thank you. >> I'm I I believe you've been here before. You know, the acoustics aren't great. So, if you could just speak as loudly as possible to the microphone, that would >> That's great. Right.
So, let me ask Mr. Johnson. Number one, are you in fact the principal of Powerhouse Signs? >> Yes, sir. >> And are you the individual responsible for the design of the signs that are the subject of tonight's application? >> I am representing Ulta. Uh, Atlas Sign
Industries is the one who actually made the plans, but yes, I'm here to represent Ulta and the signs. >> Okay. Can you give us an overview of the signs that we're seeking to have approved tonight? >> Uh, more or less the the sign it would be a second sign that would be uh above
the facade on the roof in front of a vent supported by Mansard brackets and it would be this second sign that this location would have. Okay. Now, we're looking for two signs
instead of the one sign that's normally permitted. Uh, first of all, do you have any understanding as to uh the size of the premises that Alter is seeking to occupy at Jackson Mall? >> If you could just hold that a little closer. It's hard to hear you with this
phone going behind me. >> I'm sorry. Is that better now? >> Yes. >> Okay. Could could you uh comment on the premises that Ulta is occupying at Jackson Mills in terms of its size?
>> Uh yes, the the size is um in terms of the size like the overall dimensions. >> How many units is actually occupied? >> Oh yes, this so Ulta has uh taken over two units at the Jackson Mall. It's uh unit 104 and 106 from uh what we have
here. And uh the initial sign is actually over the storefront doors where the um customers enter. >> Okay. Now, if in fact Alta was not occupying two premises and making one out of it, would there be another tenant
in the other premise? >> Yes. >> And so there would normally be if if the premises were occupied by separate tenants, there would be two signs for this area. Is that true? >> Yes. Yeah. If if it was separate. >> Okay. But understanding it's one premise and we're not fighting the fact that
only one sign is permitted. But uh do you have any insight as to why it's so important due to the uh arrangement of this particular property to have two signs? Well, how this structure or how this uh property is structured, uh it's
a little harder to see than on the plan, but there is a uh there is a existing or pre-existing photo prior to any of Ulta's construction there. And the front doors where the customers enter is actually set back relatively far
compared to the structure canopy on the left side. So, it's kind of inhibiting the visibility from the main entrance. Now, is there a pylon sign at the center outside listing what tenants are available in the center? >> No, not at this one.
>> So, is is the only way to identify individual premises by the signs that are above uh those premises uh entrance places? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Now, this is not the first set of signs that you put into this mall. Is that correct?
>> No, it's not. We also did the Sketchers. >> Okay. And were you acquainted prior to doing the Sketchers uh sign with any difficulties that customers of the center were having in identifying individual premises? Yeah,
we just wanted to re to really make sure that traffic was flowing properly throughout the center um that it wasn't causing any delays or traffic jams or god forbid a possible accident. um that could further create hardships for um
the shopping center itself. >> So are you saying that by having two signs in the designs that you are proposing, you feel that will make it easier for this premises to be identified by customers seeking it? >> Yes. The sign we're seeking um is the
large orange circle above the awning. And that portion of the wall actually sticks out um a lot further than where the sign we have now is. >> Now, are there any details regarding the signs that you want to erect that are
shown in exhibits that you've given to the board? >> Uh yeah, I think if we go to the next page. So that yeah, that's the details of the sign. Uh it's uh manufactured out of aluminum. The uh faces on it are
acrylic and the lighting inside of it is LED illumination. Uh the brackets to hold it onto the onto the roof would be steel. >> Now the planner report talks about the fact that a set of plans that have been
prepared should be signed and sealed. Can you get signed and sealed plans? >> Yes, we currently have them uh because I know you guys require hard copies. So we do have hard copies of those ready to submit. >> The planner report also says that the signs plans do not include details of
the fascia sign, the under canopy sign and the awnings details shall be proposed for all signage. Uh can you explain what details are being shown and if there are any additional details that you will provide them? Uh yes, I I don't
think they have them here, but we definitely have um you know, those were permitted and approved prior to us submitting for this variance, the the original sign in the awnings. >> Okay. Uh did you submit do is there anything on the uh submissions you made
that show additional detail beyond what this is? >> Uh I think if you go back to the last page, it shows it doesn't show the details, but it does show the actual height and width of the sign. >> Okay. Well, can you explain what's what what are the details of the signs that you're proposing to erect? Can you
explain that for us? >> Uh, yeah, like the the start start with the round sign on the manser and then the ult beauty sign above the entrance doorway. Are there any specifics that you can give the board to better educate
them as to what you're proposing here? >> Uh, just how they're built. Is that what you're asking me? >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. Uh I mean they're they're both both the signs are fabricated with uh aluminum and with faces that are made of acrylic. Um the illumination of both of
these are LED. They're controlled by a timer that turns off when the store closes. Um and like I said, the the mansard brackets for the proposed sign uh over the awning would be made out of steel.
>> Okay. Uh I believe I've completed my questioning of Mr. Johnson. I'll make him available to the board. >> Any questions, Mr. Johnson? >> Mark? >> Yes. >> Uh, thank you. So, I've reviewed the
application and there is a ordinance section for the sign requirements and in the letter it states you've complied with the majority of those requirements. I'll just go through that quickly. For example, um you've stated the sign will be
structurally sound, made with proper brackets, and um can you just confirm should the zoning board approve your application tonight, you would then still go through the building department for permits and inspection? Is that is that >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. Um regarding illumination, you
stated they're internally lit and they they will turn off when the businesses are closed based off a timer. >> Correct. >> Okay. Correct. Yeah, there's limits on the number of colors on a sign which you comply with
and it's the sign is relating to the business. So that's what the majority of the ordinance um has those parameters and most of them are being met. The ones that aren't being met is for example the number of signs or the total area of signs. Is that accurate? >> Correct. Yeah, each individual sign does
conform, but together they are over the uh the max of the 80 square foot. >> And how does this compare to other signs in the same plaza? >> Um it seems that there is, you know, um other sign other um tenants that have a
similar amount of square footage. I leave that up to my planner maybe to talk about. >> Okay. Yeah, that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, >> Pierce. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you had testified that having two signs
would somehow make the traffic circulation safer. Um, I assume you've done work in the mall before, >> correct? >> Um, do you have any idea how old the mall is? >> Uh, no, I do not.
>> Okay. Do you have any idea how many tenants take up more than one unit and have applied for a variance for more than one sign? >> I don't know the exact number. No, >> council. I'm taking a little bit of
exception with his testimony that putting two signs up is safer somehow without any foundation. >> Okay. Oh, can I explain my >> the wall has been there for 45 years. It was designed. It was approved. Coming in and telling me it's safer because I'm
putting more signs than are required up. >> Well, if I could explain it for a moment, I think the testimony from Mr. Johnson is that there's been a not a noted difficulty by some consumers in trying to find the premises that they're
looking for because the only direction and identification are these signs. this particular premise. It's located in the far left hand side of the shopping center. And the theory here is if people cannot see these signs easily, they're
going to be driving around this center looking at signs or for signs they hope to see and perhaps not looking at pedestrians and traffic and other and other things they should be made more aware of. Fair. So, we we do feel it's a safety argument.
>> Respectfully, the mall's been there. >> I'm not an expert on that. The mall's been there for 45 years and I don't know that anyone's come to the town and said it's unsafe. So again, your testimony is that they've heard from customers. I've been involved
in town since 1985 and I' I've been involved in different capacities for the municipality and I'm not sure I've heard that concern. >> Well, I think Mr. Johnson testified to the fact that in the Sketchers application, which was approved by the board, that Sketchers informed him that
they needed these signs because their customers were having difficulty in finding them. >> And I think Sketchers was different. It was at a corner. >> Sketchers drive was also not in the same part of the center, but on the other side somewhat concealed.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Hello. Really nothing more to add. I just want to circle back at the point that was made earlier that um if it if the tenant being Alta did not occupy
two two uh tenant spaces is one store then the two signs would be normally permitted as they would be separate businesses ideally. Um, so, uh, their request is not really more intensive than if it were two separate businesses versus also
taking over two tenants spaces. >> So, I get the point that you occupy two businesses, so you want to have two signs. My question though is where you're putting the sign over the awning. It looks like another tenant owns h or
rents half of that space. >> Is that accurate? >> Uh over the awning? >> Yes. >> Uh I I don't think so. >> So your sign would be Well, I'm looking at the way this is presented here. It says adjacent tenant
goes up to the middle of almost past 503. That sign and your Alta sign is above it. So, looks like you are putting some of this sign in the area where the fireworks store is. I was out there
today, so I kind of know the stores that are there and I was It confused me when I was there, so I'm trying to look at it now. So, it almost looks like the sign is not covering both units that you have. It's actually expanding over into
another tenants space. Now, I know you have a letter that says owner of the whole complex that says you can go ahead with the signs. So, my assumption or can you tell me did they get approval from the other tenant to
allow you to put up a sign so that in six months we're not going to have another tenant who wants to put a sign above yours for the same reason. >> Gotcha. At this time, I we do not have approval from another tenant to put a sign up, but like you said, we do have one from the mall. >> I just ask a follow-up question of this
witness direct to directly to your question, sir. Has the landlord and owner of the premises of the whole center approved the location and details of the sign? >> Yes. >> Okay. I I I would submit that
this is something I know something about. done a lot of leasing and shopping centers and whatever and normally the landlord has to get permissions from tenants if it is an issue. So if the landlord has approved this location and this design it means
that we do have the right to do it and >> and I agree with that's why I said I saw the letter that says you can move forward with the signs. So I assume but my question still comes into play and maybe Mr. Peters and Mr. Promark can give me a better feel for my question is
the fact that the sign is now over another tenants space. Is it really two signs for one applicant? It's not like they're putting it's not like they're putting the two signs over both of the doorways where the location
of this building the store is. It's now going over. I would say half of it is going to be over where the fireworks store is. >> Just so I can understand, you're talking to the left side of the orange canopy. >> So around that because it
>> So if you look at the canopy. Okay. So where the canopy is, where the orange sign is that they're putting up. If you and you can look on their hard cut their their documents here. If you continue on down, it says adjacent tenant.
It looks like it's going all the way into the dark black line. >> Yeah. But once I go on the paper, it disappears. So if you read this here where my sign is, it says adjacent tenant.
Okay, see my eyes are not that good. and it goes all the way to this this dark line which if you take it up tells me that half of that sign at least half of that sign is basically over this stores our area.
My question is is that something that is a concern for us So, uh, what you're saying appears to be accurate based off the detail. It appears a portion of the adjacent business, um, is under that proposed
sign, but I would say not every business has this, um, triangular shaped roof in front of their store. >> Well, it's actually a >> store goes comes out. So, it's a an L
shape that comes out from what they cover. >> Yeah. >> Basically, the two sections over. And I can tell I think the way the sign is, it's on the left side of the >> Yeah. >> that you have that it is today. There's a big gap. So, I'm assuming you're going
to move it over. and and um the Ulta Beauty appears to have a dimension of 67 feet 7 inch width of storefront and the adjacent tenant it's showing 17 ft under the proposed sign. So a a
portion like you said that is accurate a portion of the adjacent tenant would be under that sign. Excuse me. Does the fireworks store currently have a sign? I did not get out there obviously. So, I'm asking you
based on this, I did see that note, but since I was not there myself, does the fireworks store have a sign? >> Okay. No, it was a firework store because I looked because of the way it's designed >> at the lamb. landlord of the mall
provided an approval letter. What does that do for us as a zoning board? >> Well, it certainly gives you the ability to approve um because the responsibility to ensure that the tenants are treated
fairly, if you will, falls on the property owner and not on the board. Um, so since there's been a statement from the property owner acceding to the Alta sign,
you know, any any problem that the fireworks store and or any future tenant would have with the fact that the Ulta sign is there would be something that they would have to take up with a property owner. Um, it doesn't provide any
against the board. Um, you know, if is is seeking, you know, you you the protection for the fireworks store is supposed to be
through the property owner. And I will tell you the reason I'm bringing it up is for that exact reason is just to clarify because I do see the letter although it doesn't specifically state that they know it's going over onto the other side. You know if you
feel comfortable that we're okay that that's I'm okay with that. >> So you know certainly you know it would be nice to think that somebody the property owner or somebody else had spoken to the fireworks store but the responsibility for ensuring that does not fall on this board. We have a
legally sufficient proofs um on permission. >> Thank you. >> If sign has to be changed because a future prop future store uh rents a store, would they have to
come back to the board to change the sign? Yes. >> Excuse me. Any additional questions for Mr. Johnson? I do have another witness. I guess there's there's nobody in the public that wants to question any questions from the public. >> I didn't know if you were going to cover
call your other witness and then do it, but we can open it to the public now. Anyone wish for a witness? >> Okay. >> Anyone wishing to come forward and make any comments about what they've heard this evening, please do so at this time. >> Seeing no one come forward, we're going to go ahead and close public session.
You can proceed. Okay, I'd like to call Barbara Alen, our professional planner. >> Thank you, guys. Okay, >> I believe that Miss Alen has been qualified before this board previously as a professional planner. We can give
her credentials if the board prefers them. >> She's been sworn in. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Would you would you like to have her put some credentials in record? >> We may have board new board members. That's okay. >> I would love to. So, my name is Barbara
Alen. I'm a licensed professional planner in >> Can't hear you at all. >> All right. My name is Barbara Alen. I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey and an AICP. I'm a principal at Beacon Planning and Consulting Services LLC. I've had my
license for over 10 years and it is good standing. I currently serve as the board planner for the Bureau of Freehold and the Township of Livingston and I've been accepted throughout the state of New Jersey. >> All right. and this board accepts your credentials. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Alen. Have you visited
this site and are you aware of the signs that we are proposing to construct there? >> I am. >> And in your capacity as a planner, could you analyze the basis that you see uh for the variances that we're seeking?
One variance being that we're seeking two sides where only one would normally be permitted and the other variance being overall square footage. Each of the two signs we're seeking are conforming, but together they exceed the 80 square feet normally allowed.
>> I would love to I'm sorry, what is the gentleman's name? >> Anthony. >> Anthony, may I have the um exhibit marked aerial? Uh so this is an aerial prepared by myself. Um it is of the subject property
and the proposed tenants space is outlined in yellow the yellow circle. And what I just wanted to point out from this aerial is actually if you could see the internal circulation road as it curves around to where this site is. And you can also see at this particular
location where the yellow circle is that the building itself steps in. So if I can uh Anthony if I can have uh Alta photo number one. Alta one, I think. Now I have to remember what I named all
the photos. So this is actually the angle that you were just speaking about. And it was funny when you were saying this. It's like I think I have a photo. Uh but in this angle, the other Ulta Beauty sign along the front facade is actually already installed. But as you
can see while you're driving in, you can't see it because of the angle of the building. it is kind of tucked behind um where this building steps in. So, and um Anthony, if I could have Alta 2.
So, this kind of gives a better depth perception of what's actually out there and what it's looking like and how that's how the signs um how one sign is kind of hidden behind the other when you're coming around that drive as the building steps in. So, the applicant is
seeking two signs. Uh it does occupy two spaces and this is not necessarily unique uh within the shopping center itself. Anthia again, can I have under arour? >> Can can I just ask one thing on the photos? Were these um also sent to Dawn
and are they >> I did not I I remembered to put them on the thumb drive. I did not send them ahead of time, but I will make sure to email them in. >> Okay, thank you. Uh this is an under arour that has a si similar configuration uh where one part of it is extended forward and one is set back and
it also has two signs uh to take advantage of that and to allow it to be seen from along the drive. And uh Anthony I I I promise I only have two more. If I could have food court.
Uh so here you can see a similar setup uh with a sign up where it is mount mounted and multiple signs you know for different uses but uh still that kind of configuration. And finally, if I Anthony, if I can have Hillfinger
again, a similar configuration where two signs are are permit are are existing at a place where the building does have these stepbacks. Uh just because it does aid in in identifying the space as these signs can kind of get tucked behind the
building itself when driving along the circulation aisle. microphone for me. We I can't even hear you believe. >> Sorry. Yeah, I didn't have it on. My apologies. Um, so but you're proposing to put it above on the awning, right?
>> Uh, yes, we are. >> Is there do you have any, and maybe I missed it. Do you have any pictures where that's the situation? >> Unlike this, which is >> the food court. Uh, >> the food court. >> Yeah. Had the sign up. >> That's the only one, right? >> Uh, true. Uh
>> yeah, right. That's a little bit Okay. >> Uh I will say it is permitted by the property owner, >> right? >> Uh and there was no uh mention of uh it not being permitted per ordinance, >> right? >> Uh I also note that the the nature of the Alta sign is more of a circle.
>> Yep. >> So something like the Tommy Hilfinger where it was square could more easily fit in to that area. Whereas the Ulta, their brand, and obviously it's a national brand, has more of a circle that would uh would not necessarily
>> fit into that space. >> I gota thanks. >> I have a question before you go on. Anthony, can you go back to Alta 2? So, as Mr. Martin said or Ala too.
So the the the two awnings there was that put in by the landlord or is that put in by one of the businesses? >> Uh I believe um it was testified to that those were uh installed but they were permitted uh and they had permits for them
>> for the Alta. >> But who did it? >> Uh for the Alta tenant. So, and you want to put the sign where the >> where that vent is. >> So, is that vent there for any particular reason? >> I'm not sure. Sometimes the vents are
included for decorative purposes. This is a little Koopa. >> That's that's why I'm asking the question. >> And it's not it's there's still space between the sign and the vent itself. I believe it's like >> so in you you could remove the awning and put the sign
>> on the facade of the building like all the other businesses that have asked for second signs >> mostly at the awning. See how the building is up under? >> Well, I can't I can't Yeah. Um >> uh and as I I discussed um the Ulta sign
is more of a round sign where a lot of those other signs were more rectangular or like logos that were straight across. >> So do we know the size of the sign compared to what's available underneath the on it? >> I do not know.
>> Again, the reason I'm asking is this is putting a unique situation into the shopping center. Now, >> so >> I did ask >> questions become for me the questions
are are there alternatives that can achieve the same goal. >> I understand. >> Oh, that's why I'm asking these questions. >> Understand? >> They tell me there's no and I go with it. >> Yeah. But I don't have the >> So I I did speak to the applicant and he
said that the the requested sign for Alta would not be able to fit in that area of the facade just because of >> its shape. >> So this says the Alta sign is 5T. >> It's 46.14 square feet.
>> Five feet at the highest point. And it it looks like this is showing >> guess the facade underneath the awning. more of a curved area, not flat. But I can't tell
from the picture much of that curve is, you know, how high up that curve goes. This is saying it's it's 5 foot n in. >> Uh Anthony, if we went to the second page of the plans, And in the bottom right hand corner, you
can actually see the canopy uh the um and you can see that there's a curved arch in the bottom right photo. Yeah, I know. I >> my glasses. >> I was hoping Thank you.
So you can see it's it's more of an arched >> let let me can I just piggy piggy back off off of you. Okay. Sorry. So So again, the height of the altar sign was it five something we said right? >> Five feet, right? Let's say it's five
feet. Um, you you you brought up the photos, not me. So, I'm going to go back. That photo with um the square sign, right? >> Um, how high is that photo? >> How high is that sign? Sorry. Even though it's square, how high is it?
>> I don't know the answer to that. >> Right. It's probably not five feet. >> It's probably not five feet. >> Right. And the reason I point that out is that the fact that it's round, I don't know how that plays a factor. It's the highest point where it's round. How high that is is the factor. So you could
make that sign still round, but you could make it smaller so it's not five feet. Right. >> Well, it also just plays into like the readability of the sign. >> Sorry. The what? >> It it plays into the readability of the sign because when it's round and you're shrinking it. >> Yeah. >> When you're taking down the height,
you're actually taking this down. It's like a weird >> Yeah, I get it. You know, I in theory the same thing happens where it's square, right? If I'm taking it down, it everything kind of shrinks. Um, anyway, I because I'm just
not buying it. The reason to do it is because it's round. Sorry. Because because the high it's really about the the highest point whether it's round or square. Does it fit in into that area? But um Okay. Thank you. I
understand. Is the Is the awning there because there's no sign yet or is is that there while they're tenants? The the yellow and the orange awnings from the pictures that you show. >> I believe the orange awnings were
installed as part of the Alta tenant. >> So, it's there while they're tenants. It's not there because they don't have a sign just for visibility. >> All right. Miss Alen has not yet addressed the planning justifications for the variances that we are seeking.
So I'm gonna ask her to do that now with the board's permission. >> Okay. Before Before she goes out, I just Mr. Tremor, I have a question for you. Should the fire company be looking at this because of that vent? >> May I proceed? Miss Alen, can you give
us uh an analysis from your standpoint as a planner as to what the zoning justifications for these variances would be? >> Love to >> please. >> Uh so in this instance, I do like to look through your master plan before I dig into the ordinances. Uh I do know
I'm sorry you really can't >> it just I feel like I have an echo when I get so close. >> I'm sorry. It's much better for us, but I'm sorry it's bad for you. >> Okay. Uh, so I always like to look at the community's master plan, and I note
that, uh, the community does, you know, want to focus in on its business and reinforce those areas, uh, to to support, um, both regional and local needs. Um, under the general recommendations of the land use element, uh, it does, uh,
recommend that, uh, the township review its, uh, sign standards, uh, as the most recent regulations were adopted in or before 2004, uh, and recommends that they be, uh, updated, uh, to consider lighting,
signs, dimensions, and more graphic based requirements. Uh so the uh the township does seek to promote its businesses and it has uh does have a recommendation to look at its sign uh requirements.
Uh with respect to the variances sought uh I would appine that um there is an element of C1 just because of the limited v visibility of the alta tenant when you're coming in through that drive aisle um on both directions. So when
you're going uh into the site uh the pergola or the I'm sorry the copa area black blocks the facade uh sign associated that is currently existing with the alta. And when you're coming the other way through, um, as that projects out, you would not be able to
see it. You would just see the facade sign, um, for the alta. Uh, as was previously tested to, the applicant is occupying two tenants spaces. Uh, and were there to be uh, separate tenants, each tenant would be permitted a sign uh, a size a sign of 80
square feet. Um and the applicant is proposing two signs uh that do exceed the 80 square feet uh but not the necessarily 160 square feet that would be anticipated uh if there were two tenants. Uh the total sign area I
believe is approximately uh 113.32 square ft. Uh, additionally, um, this type of sign configuration, as was shown in the photos, is not un uncommon within the shopping center. Uh, when the building
does step back, uh, we've seen multiple examples of signs uh, a tenant containing two signs. Additionally, tenants at corner locations uh tend to have signs uh along both sides of the facade. And I've seen more than one side
per facade. Um just again to ease and to uh aid in identifying the use within the shopping center itself. It is rather a large center and the building itself is a rather large U. So to being able to identify it both on the drive vials when
you're driving past it as well as when you're in the parking lots frankly to see across um will aid in not necessarily traffic circulation as we typically refer to it uh with a traffic study and everything uh but just ease people into finding where they need to
go. Um, with respect to substantial detriment, uh, I do not see any the signs. It's a shopping center. There's a lot of signs. They're more internally facing, so it's not, uh, going to impact any traffic necessarily going down the roadway. Uh, it's not near residential
area. Um, it's within a shopping uh within a uh outdoor mall that uh, basically a lot of businesses put a lot of signs up so they can be identified within the shopping center itself. uh particularly since there's not a pylon sign identifying uses within the
shopping center uh along the outside. Um so therefore I do think that the the the application satisfies the positive criteria uh for variance relief >> and it doesn't present any negative criteria.
>> It does not present any negative criteria. Uh I do know that the sign yes is uniquely located um along a Mansard uh but the property owner uh themselves have approved the location and there's no ordinances stipulations regarding the
location of the sign uh at the proposed location. >> Honor would you like to make a closing statement before after I open it to the public? Did >> uh questions >> have any I'm sorry forgive me. Do you have any additional questions?
I don't have any questions. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can we can I ask that the comments be made so if I do have a closing statement, I can at least address them so we know what what the planner is thinking. Uh there Peters
>> um most of us have been to the mall. Um there are a number of koopalas at the building bras throughout the project. Um I don't think utilizing the top portion of the koopa is the proliferation of signs so to speak. Um to the extent that
when this mall was designed in the 80s or opened in the '9s, they chose not to have either building numbers signed to the uses and just use logos and signs. That was a decision that was made long
before any of us are on this board. Um, so I don't think that what they're asking for given that it's more than one tenant space and it's at an area where there's a greater space or area where
these Koopas are for signage. So the biggest concern we have when we don't know where people going are going is that everyone wants to have the biggest sign the closest to the entrance and that's when we get into sign
proliferation. Now over the years they've done different things down by the food court. They've restriped it. They've recurbed it. Um but in the the areas that they're talking about um this particular one and more to Jim's comment, you know, could
you get away with not using the sign on the Koopa? The answer to that question is yes. But at the end of the day, I'm not sure they should be penalized because that particular tenant is in an area where there's additional space that could be utilized, which is why they're here for a variance. So from a planning
perspective andor a safety perspective, the concern is does this amount to sign peripher proliferation and from my perspective it does not. Thank you. Going to go ahead and open this to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward
regarding the testimony you've heard this evening regarding this application. So at this time seeing no one come forward, we're going to go ahead and close public session. Mr. Donner, your closing statement. >> Yes. is going to be very brief. I'd like to adopt the planner's comments as my
closing argument and I thank him for that. Uh just very briefly, two more sentences. I think Mr. Johnson has proposed an attractive sign array. I think he's identified the need for why
there's more than one sign and the locations of these signs. uh we have permission from the property owner who's the landlord and I believe Miss Alen did a superlative job in giving you the planning justification regarding both the positive criteria under C1 and the
fact that there really are no negative criteria here. So I would respectfully ask the board that this application be approved and I want to thank you all in advance for your time and patience with us. Thank you. up for us up to us, excuse me, for
discussion, >> comments. >> Um, I >> say I usually at this point will uh summarize and put the conditions on the record, but in this case, it's a relatively straightforward application. You heard the testimony on the positive
and negative criterion. Obviously, those are the things you need to consider. In this case, no conditions really have been discussed. Obviously, there was a statement made on the record that they understand that they would need to go ahead and get permits and inspections for the signs, but that is simply a
requirement of the code and not a specific condition of the board. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Under So, under the negative criteria, um, can I consider the impact to the other businesses around the area?
Is that considered negative to the How's that work? I I think that if there had been testimony from the uh any of the neighboring businesses that they would feel that
there was a negative impact, then you could certainly consider that in terms of detriment, but you may not speculate as to the existence of a negative impact for which there has been no testimony.
>> That's clear. Thanks. that that's the only question I have. >> Sometimes when I go shopping, I just want to see where it is and just not drive around looking for it. So, I like the fact that if I'm coming on the other side, it's right there cuz I can't see
it on the other side. So, I don't have to drive and then, oh, I passed it. Then, now I got to make a loop. So, I I don't have a problem with the sign. I would I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> I would say it it aids the internal
traffic in the parking area and it uh safety uh for the way the building sits back. I think uh the additional sign is important because when they showed us in that first view, I think it was Alta 1 if I'm not mistaken, uh you couldn't even see
the wording Alta Beauty. So, I do think it aids in the direction and the flow of traffic. And there are other um businesses that have um more than one sign and given that they, you know, house two storefronts and they could have individual signs if they're
individual businesses, I don't have a problem with it. So, um unless anybody else has anything else to say, I would make a motion to make Sorry, I can go right. So my concern, you know, the whole concept of visualization,
obviously from my perspective, I can see it because I was out there today and I didn't even see the firework sign for the store next for the building, the tenant next door. So it's clear that that
piece that pulls out causes that issue for the tenants. So, you know, like I said, I asked a lot of questions, but they're just questions to make sure I get all the information correct. So, do you want to make a motion or >> I'll go ahead and make a motion that we
approve with all the conditions that were discussed um that we would go ahead and approve the variance. >> Second it. >> Second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Mr. Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor. >> Yes.
>> Miss Cusano. >> Yes. >> Mr. Seleia. >> Yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein. >> Yes. >> Miss Bradley. >> Yes. Is is anyone here on the caller >> application?