Okay, one sec. >> Good evening. This is the special meeting of Livingston's planning board. Notice of this meeting has been published in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. Mr. Reber, >> yes. >> Miss Mr. Lewis, >> here. >> Mr. Duffford >> here. >> Mr. Mr. Bhani >> here,
>> Miss Kana >> here, >> Mr. Fernandez >> here. >> We have a quorum. We also have our board attorney and our uh board planner. >> Great. Thank you very much, Katherine. If you can uh please call the first matter. >> That's a preliminary and final site plan
with variances for block 25004, lot 20, 349 East Northfield Road. Application number 2026-8-PFSPV Altera Northfield LLC in the PB3 zone. >> Thank you and welcome.
I assume the three of you are together. >> Okay. So, since there's no members of the public here, I'm not going to go through the introductory spiel. So, um, it's all yours whenever whenever you're ready. >> Oh, microphone. Oh, microphone.
>> Got it. Can you hear me better now? Um, Erica Antonia Parlio from Kasa Shahenian and John Tamasi on behalf of the applicant Altera Northfield LLC. Um, we're just going to have two witnesses this evening. I can do a brief introduction. >> Yeah, please. That'd be terrific. Um I did put on the computer um exhibits that
we're going to show um that I can go through. They've all been previously submitted. So unless you think >> nothing new, so we don't have to mark >> nothing new. It's just a compiled package of the uh survey with the signs, the site photographs, and then the two images of the signs. Great. Um, so just
as briefly as an introduction, the applicant is before the board this evening seeking preliminary and final major site plan approval to install two ground mounted signs on the property for identification purposes related to the existing medical office building. The installation of the signs requires a few
variances for the number of signs, setbacks from the property line as well as sign width. Um, we'll just have two witnesses this evening. um David Prusil from Sign Source um who will talk about the signage and the installation and construction. And then we have also have a professional planner, Katherine
Gregory. So if you don't have any questions for me, I'll introduce um my first witness. >> I'd like to swear all witnesses in >> Okay. >> Thank you. Yeah, if we I would like to swear all the witnesses in including the board professionals. And then if I can
just get a spelling of your names uh slowly and clearly so I can make sure I get it right. That that's phenomenal. Just so that I can get the spelling correct in the in the resolution. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Are you related to Michael? >> I am. Yes, cousin.
>> Okay. Yeah. Um, so anyway, if you can step, if you could step forward and then I'm going to swear everybody in, if you could raise your right hand, everybody, including you, Gabe. Do you
swear affirm that the testimony you're going to give in this hearing is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Okay. And starting with you, sir, if you could. >> David, the last name is spelled P R E U C I L. Okay. And Katherine, >> Katherine Gregory, I'll give you my
>> Thank you so much. And Gabe, we don't have to spell your name. >> I'm not sure how to share this. >> Is this on? Okay. Um, so I'll stand over here so I could play Vanna White, I guess. But, um, so David, can you just give the board the benefit of your um,
professional background and educational background? >> Certainly. Uh, I'm the principal and owner of Science Source. Uh we are a vertically integrated sign company in Westfield, New Jersey. Uh we've been in operation for about 25 years. Uh the nature of the signage that we've been approached to assist Alterero with here
is uh uh very standard uh for the type of signage that we produce and install. >> And David, you've testified before other boards previously, >> many times. >> I I you know, he's not an architect or an engineer, but I guess I would just ask he be accepted as an expert related to signage.
>> Yes. Any qu any questions? >> Uh, thank you. The board accepts you as an expert. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So, what I'm showing on the screen now was previously submitted, I believe, in June as part of our resubmission. Um, it's the survey that shows the location of the two signs. So, David, if you wouldn't mind, can you
just give the board a little bit of background on the property as well as the size of it as well? >> Would you prefer me to speak into this microphone or stand here? >> Uh, whatever's either fine. >> This is This is fine. >> Right there is good. >> Um, okay. We were asked to to take a
look at this property for our client uh and come up with a signage plan. Um what we realized is that any signage would be a real challenge because the property is located uh so close to the street. There's really is no front setback. There's no front yard.
Um, and there's very limited uh real estate available back at the entrance to the parking lot to place any kind of uh identification sign there. So, we came up with a plan for two signs. Uh, one in the front of the building. Um, >> I guess David, before we go to where the
signs are, if you wouldn't mind, is it accurate to say that the property is about 2 and a half acres, give or take? >> Correct. And would it be fair to say based on this image on the survey that the property has a an irregular shape to it? >> Yes, very much so.
>> Uh and it to your knowledge the existing building is used as a medical office. Is that correct? >> Also correct. >> Okay. And so we can move on to the proposed signs. Do you want to start with the one on Northfield? >> Sure. Um what we're proposing is a is a small tenant directory uh to be placed
at what is the uh the prefuncter front entrance to the building. I'm not sure that the that that entrance is is is uh is a is the primary uh way that people are are coming in and out of the building, but we're proposing putting the sign in an
existing raised planter bed that um actually extends up over the uh the first several stairs of that entrance cascade up to the up to the front of the building. Uh the sign that we're proposing is quite small. It's uh it's
5t high. uh 60 inches tall, six feet wide. Um and um the top of the sign uh will be as I mentioned about 5t above the planter bed. That planter bed is a foot and a half or 2 feet high uh raised
from the the sidewalk level. So the top of the sign will be about 7 feet uh from from the from the uh from the sidewalk. >> And David, well these are site photographs that were also previously submitted to the board. I think in terms of the Northfield sign, it might be
beneficial to kind of walk around the front of the property. So, as I go through the images, if you wouldn't mind just describing what is shown on these images. >> Okay. >> All right. So, we're at the corner of Cedar and Northfield. There's a traffic light uh at this intersection. Uh the
building can be seen behind the Exxon station. Um, if you are unfamiliar with the building and unfamiliar with uh with the area, uh you might not be aware that that's the building you're looking for. If you're if you're at that traffic
light, um the entrance to the parking lot requires you to make a left at this light. Um, since you're probably still looking for the building, you're likely to travel through the traffic light. Realize as you're in front of the building that you are at your destination, at which point you've
already gone past it. Um, so then you need to loop around and now figure out how to get into the place. Uh, which is a challenge if you're heading the direction that we're looking. I don't remember what compass direction that is. Um, because you would have to turn around and then uh and then and then come back. And
David, the top image that I'm kind of hovering my mouse over that shows the planter. >> There is the existing raised planter bed which is which is back from the sidewalk and as I mentioned extends out over the first three steps of the uh of the entrance and that's where we're anticipating uh installing the directory
sign. >> And I'll move on to two additional images. So we we can go into more detail about the sign at the back parking lot, but if you could just describe these two locations as well. Um, so right where your mouse is right now is a small semi-ircle uh area. Uh, no landscaping.
Uh, it's delineated by a curb line. This this that parking sign or whatever it is, I don't believe exists any longer. Uh, the post may be there, but not the uh not the sign. But that's where we're anticipating putting the sign. That is the entrance to the parking lot that is
behind the building. And that and that serves as um well it's the parking lot for the building. >> And then the second image is also along Northfield but just kind of further down the street. Is that correct? >> Yeah. >> And the next two are very similar views but from the opposite side of the building. Is that accurate?
>> Uh correct. >> Also along Northfield. >> Yes. >> And so these next two images I'm going to show, they're a little grainy, but um they also were previously submitted to the board as part of the package. Um, and I think David, it might be helpful
in terms of describing this sign. Um, how tall the letters are as well as, um, you know, the width of the sign as itself. >> Sure. Uh, as I mentioned, the the cabinet height is 5T. The width is, uh, 6 feet. Uh, the height of the letters
349. Each of those letters um or numbers is about 14 in. Um the height of the the the text in the top two tenant panels um those are 7in letters. The capitals are
7 in. The the height of the text in the five smaller tenant panels uh is 4 in. >> And David, I guess the purpose of this sign is to have a larger address so that it can be easily identified on Northfield. Is that correct? uh
critically to provide a street address uh for identification purposes and then also to provide um information as to who the tenants are in the in the building >> and for purposes of clarification because I I think on the plans it's the signs are shown to be straddling the
property boundary line. Can you describe how the signs are going to be moved backwards so that we are at a zero foot setback and no longer over the brown? >> Correct. Our original proposal had the signed cabinet towards the front of this planter bed. Uh we've now moved it back to be at a at a zero clearance from the
from the property line. >> So we are no longer in the county right ofway or municipal right ofway. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> And the variance related to this sign. Can you describe what the variance relief is related to? >> The variance requires a setback from the property line. If we were to comply with
variance as it currently exists in code, that sign would be more than halfway up the steps. um of the property. There's simply no good place to to put the sign. >> And in in terms of circulation, either pedestrian or vehicular, in your experience, based on where this sign is
located, do you anticipate any issues with the location of this sign? >> No, the sign is well placed back from the sidewalk. So there's there's no interference with pedestrian traffic and there's there's no interference with sight lines of traffic traveling uh up and down Northfield. Okay, I think we can move unless the board has questions
about this sign. I think we can move to the next one. Um, so David, I guess we've shown previous images. This sign is at the back of the parking lot. >> Correct. >> And how big is this sign and how tall and wide are the letters and numbers?
>> Uh, the um the sign panel that you see there uh is 30 in uh 36 in tall. It's 8 ft wide. the uh the height of the numbers 349 is 27 inches tall. Uh the the small text that you see there uh
that's all six inch high text. Um this will be double-sided. So that same information will be on the uh on the uphill side um visible to people coming down Cedar uh towards Northfield. Um
>> in terms of variance relief is a variance is required for the the sign as it is uh 96 in in width whereas 72 in is permitted. Is that correct? >> Correct. Um and we've we've sized it here so that um the the information on
the sign will be visible and can be visible by traffic coming uh up and down Cedar. It's especially important that that this be visible as people are making the turn from the traffic light, which is about 100 yards or so, uh this
side of of of that sign. Uh because it's not um immediately apparent as you are approaching this building for the first time, how to access the building, and we want to make that as clear as possible. And this sign as well on the plans is currently shown to be over the property
boundary line. But can you confirm for the board that this will be moved back so that a zero foot setback will be >> It's our intention to install it at a at a zero clearance. And I I bring your attention to the uh uh the retaining wall that's immediately behind the sign.
the the further to our right that that this sign gets gets located uh the more difficult it is for people who are coming down Cedar towards Northfield to actually see this sign. >> Yeah, that was my question. So, so if you're coming if you're going south
um so you're you know you're you know coming from the north going south you can still that sign is visible if you're coming toward the traffic light that you you you'll see it the retaining wall is going to block it. the retaining wall is an issue. I would I would absent zoning
requirements, I would want that sign moved out another couple of feet for exactly that reason so that the the retaining wall doesn't hide it from traffic that is coming down. >> So it still be somewhat visible somebody's >> it it still will be visible um
if if we can place it at a at a at a zero setback. >> Yeah. And and David, related to both signs, can you describe the material of the signs? >> Both signs are fabricated. They're aluminum cabinets. Um, neither are illuminated. Um, both will be a a dark
brown, a aduronautic bronze color. Um, and the uh uh the text and the and the letters numbers that you see on the sign will be in a in a white. And in in terms of the colors and of the letters and the sign itself, is it accurate to say that that was driven by the business
improvement district comments that we received? >> Right. The original uh the original sign uh directory sign that we submitted had the colors here reversed. We were asked to we had a white background and dark letters. We were asked to change that and that's what you see here. And in
terms of construction, just briefly, can you describe how the signs are placed and what impacts that it might have on the planting bed and and the >> So, both of these signs will be uh will be installed with what we call a direct burial method. We will dig uh some very small diameter holes uh about 3 ft deep
into the ground. Um we anticipate disturbing there's there's no vegetation, nothing, no landscaping to disturb with the parking lot sign. Uh there may be some seasonal flower plantings in the in the flower bed which would be which would be moved or rearranged so that they're
they're not in the way of the sign. Um I mentioned we'd be placing some poles in the ground up to a distance of about 36 in down below frost line uh and then dropping the the cabinet on top and securing the cabinet in place there. >> And there was a comment in the review
letter related to impacts to parking spaces. Can you confirm there will be no impacts to parking? >> We are not interfering with any of the existing parking. >> I don't think I have any further questions. I believe that you know the board has questions. I have nothing further. >> Have you been to the site?
>> Yes. >> Have you talked to the Exxon station people? >> I have not spoken with the Exon drive into the Exxon place because they have no idea where to go. >> I would imagine that that is not an infrequent occurrence but right
>> I have no firsthand knowledge of that. I'm not We shouldn't do a traffic study or anything. Not to get anybody nervous. >> Yeah, I was going to say >> your your sign at the front of the building has seven spots, >> correct? >> How many tenants are in the building
>> currently? I I'm not sure exactly how many tenants are in there. >> I know there's at least 15 to 20. >> I I don't know that I'm in a position to give you a definitive answer. I don't think it's that many. Um, but that would
be a question for the the real estate manager. >> I if we want to take a recess after the testimony, I can ask. But I we we're proposing seven tenant names in terms of how many are there today? I'm I'm not certain. >> I guess I guess the question is >> there's more than seven tenants in the building. I know that.
>> I guess you know who pays best or how would it spaces? I I mean I would say it would be driven by the various tenant leases if they would you know the the lease would say if they >> or I guess or perhaps the you know ju just a you know just an address sign without any tenants and if you're not
putting them all up what's the purpose of of the tenant signs. Uh but okay I understand. >> Yeah. And and David today there is currently no signage in that location. It there's only a building number. Is that correct? >> Correct.
in the picture with the exudes. >> Sorry, I think somebody's waving at you at the back. >> I I didn't know if these little signs in front were like for Rudy Fernandez for mayor or >> they're then they're very very old. >> They're very old. Like the little signs in the front one. That's a problem.
>> It's blocking up the taken from Google Maps. So I I'm not sure how old they are. Yeah. Just a a question on the sign on the sign on uh East Street. Is there a possibility we could put some sort of vegetation around that sign to make it look a little more
>> um I'm not a landscaper. Um but that's mostly decayed asphalt. I believe it was paved over at one point. So >> Oh, so nothing would last. Uh there as far as I know and from what I can just see anecdotally it doesn't look like
anything has ever been planted there. >> Okay. >> Question again about the sign on East Cedar. I do realize I the first time I went looking for that building I couldn't find it and I went in loops. This was 20 plus years ago. Now I know
where it is and I can cut through the behind the gas station. this sign with a retaining wall right behind it. I still feel that it may not be so visible coming from East Cedar towards Northfield.
I'm not a signage expert. you are. So, pardon me if I uh misspeak, but as a as a person trying to come to the building for business, I I think if the sign was vertical 3 49, there's a greater chance of me spotting it from a distance, then
I only see three till and then I come closer, I see four. And then when I'm very close, I cross the wall, I see 349. So from usage from practical aspect u as a person who's been through this hunt >> um
>> it actually looks like the one in the front too. So there's kind of some, you know, >> so >> symmetry. >> A few comments. Um I I think the observation is well taken. Um when we have the luxury of staring at
these signs so we have the ability to to read them. A well-designed sign like this is is actually not intended to be read. It's sort of intended to be just sort of immediately absorbed. when you have vertical text and vertical numbers, it
takes us longer to absorb that information than when it's uh horizontal. >> Um that that would be one one thought. Um the second is that if we went vertical, then we would we'd have another zoning issue because we'd be too
tall. >> How tall is this right now from the ground? Uh >> the whole sign >> that's a 36- in tall cabinet and it's a we're we're showing it a little over 3 ft above the ground. About 3 and 1/2 ft or so above the ground. So the top of it
is six 6 and 1/2 ft. >> Okay. >> High. >> So really the purpose is here's a sign. This is where I should turn. >> Here's right here's 349. Right. >> I think sign is important in that area. It's hard to find.
>> I had two questions. Um, one when you're coming south on uh Cedar towards Northfield, uh, I agree it's going to be tough to see, but looking at least on Google Maps, it looks like there's a ton of scrub and bushes and stuff hanging on the side of the embankment there, which I think is church property, but I might
suggest you might ask them if they care if you trim it back or cut it back. >> It's a conversation we've had. >> Um, and the second question was, you obviously moved it so that as to not be in the rightway. Is that a big deal to get permission to be in the rightway? because then you could move it the way you would much prefer it closer and make
it more likely. I don't I'm not in like experience with what it takes if the county signs off on that or >> I don't believe we have any flexibility. >> I don't think we can be in the right way. >> I don't know. >> Um well, I mean, all right, if it's in
the township right away, the township council would have to sign off that. In terms of the county, um it's it's worth exploring. I I don't know offhand if if if um it can be in the right way, but it's worth exploring or something like that because we're not going to widen this road.
>> Yeah, I I think the intention was to keep it out of the right of way because of, you know, the uncertainty of getting county approval to do so. And I think as explained, it makes more sense to kind of pull it away from the property line, but I I think it we could explore it, but I think the application now is more
preferable. We' had conversations with the county related to the sign and we pulled it back. What do you think about the Hollywood signal >> up on top? Yeah. >> Yeah. Thank Thanks, Mike. >> I mean, and even even if you were to go
to the county, I mean, how much relief would they give you and how much of a difference would it really make? Um, I understand it would be great if you could move it out there, but >> Yeah. But I think Barry's point is also very well taken. And if the church will let you, you'll get rid of a lot of that
scrub, that should be helpful as well. >> Yeah. Sounds like you had you had conversation with them >> uh with the county, not the church. >> I've had conversation with my client. >> My office has been in communication with the county when we realized initially the signs were located within their rightway. you know, we didn't make a
formal application, but we had, you know, informal discussions about the location of the sign and the decision was made in conjunction with our client to pull it back onto to be entirely within the property line. >> Right. So, I had similar concern as well that uh for this one to be really
meaningful, your sign is properly readable coming from Northfield and you make a left on a cedar to go into the building. It's it's it serves its purpose. It is required in a way that as you explained you know I have past experiences not finding the building
when I was trying to look for first time years ago. >> Mh. >> Uh so yes there is a this that pain point coming from e cedar u yeah your expert experience is like this kind of flashes saying hey there is something here pay attention and make a turn. Uh
my question to you is how far is it from the retaining wall? Uh are you coming in that makes it more feasible? I mean I'm not trying to design the solution here but how far it is from the it makes it makes a lot of difference as you come closer or away from the retaining wall.
>> I don't recall exactly but it's um it's some number of feet and it is maximum allowed. Okay. Maximum allowed for you. Is that is that how far you in >> our setback from from the rear property line is is compliant. >> Okay. If if that >> but I think the question was if you in
the picture if you pulled it closer to the curb you'd get some angle sight line coming south you want to get in the park. >> The one >> the one challenge that then that then um becomes more of an issue is uh snow
plowing wet heavy snow um >> pushed up against that that post and over it goes right. Uh so there's there there factors to balance here but it's a it's a we we'd love to make it more visible. uh so bringing it towards us
makes it more visible moving it to our left makes it more visible but we have constraints >> right the the concern is and that's why I think most of us are asking this question is we don't want you to be in a position where yeah this solves 60% of the problem and then it gets realized
hey two years down the road it really doesn't solve the e sitter part of it and you're back again and you know trying to do something else so that's that's the reason I think at least from my perspective is is is there all these concerns are are being discussed here. >> So, so in your professional opinion, based upon the limitations that you
have, you know, this is a a reasonable alternative to provide, you know, southbound drivers the ability to see the sign and find the park, find the driveway. >> I think given the constraints that we've been discussing, this is this is the best solution.
>> Okay, that was really really part of what what my question was. Okay. >> And David, there's currently no signage there. >> No signage at all. >> Takes care of has recovered it. >> We're making >> correct. >> Not to uh belabor it and and maybe we just put something you make diligent
efforts, but I don't know if you looked at the tax map. It's very odd. The East Cedar County rightway is 76 ft wide up until that retaining wall and then it narrows down to 66 feet. So that's 9 ft wider or just basically the length of the Exxon and your driveway. And so 4
and 1/2 ft that the you know I it seems to me the county wouldn't particularly care. I don't know if you can see this but like narrows down right there. It's just >> right. There any other questions for the uh for
this witness? Seeing none, just to cross our tees and our eyes. Any members of the public have any questions for this witness as to his testimony? Seeing none, >> um, >> we just have a professional. >> Yeah, let's move on to your next witness. Katherine, you've already been sworn in,
but can you give the board the benefit of your educational and professional background? >> Uh, yes. I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I've been licensed since the year of 2000. I am the principal of Gregory Associates, which I started in 2007. Uh I've testified throughout the state of New Jersey since the year of 2000. So that's
been like I don't know hundreds of communities. Um I'm also the planner in the bureau of Edgewater over in Bergen County. I'm the zoning board planner in the Burough of Premis and the Burough of Heron. Um I actually grew up in Union and I used to go uh roller skating at
the Livingston roller ring back in the day. Um so it's kind of nice coming back to Livingston. Anyway, um and uh I know Gabe very well because a million years ago he actually used to work for me. >> We go. >> I asked that she be accepted as an expert in the field of professional
planning. >> Any questions from the board? Any objections? Uh thanks. And the board accepts you. >> Thank you. And Katherine, I guess I'll just let you take it away. I don't I don't have too much to say. >> Yeah. Well, I mean I I think that we went over the site and the site constraints. This is a very unique site.
I think that building was built before zoning existed. It's so close to the road. Uh there's really almost no room on either side to access the site. And then we obviously have this little slither of land that goes out to cedar. Um so talk about a unique situation
regarding a specific spec piece of property. Excuse me, I just got Invisalign and I I'm learning how to speak again. Anyway, um, so when we talk about the variances that we need, we know that there's the two types, the C1, which is in cases of hardship, and the
C2. I would honestly say that all of these are sort of a flexible C1C2. We've kind of talked about the hardships of the site. It is very unique. We have this building uh that is so close to the road and uh David also mentioned to you that if we were going to meet the setbacks for the sign that it would be
where the stairs are in the building. So, a sign does need to go somewhere. I know there was a comment about um not having all the tenants on the uh the sign in the front, but um what I have learned from my experience as a planner is that in offices there are some
specific um tenants that want to be on a sign. They want their name outside. And so that can sort of make or break like the uh the the building itself in terms of it being successful or not. Uh so that's something that I have learned uh
throughout my career. Um so that's why that would be important at least you know on the one side and we're not asking for that on two sides but we what we are asking is for two signs which are actually not permitted but as we stated before we have two frontages. So it's pretty much warranted that we would have
one on each side. Um and when we talk about that like a lot of times it's like okay we don't want to have more than one freestanding sign on a site. And while I get that that's like signage litter if you will. um you can't even see one from the other. So, you're never going to see one and see the other one at the same
time. It's never going to happen based on just the sheer size of the site. Um so, I don't think that having the two signs is a concern. I think it is warranted for the two uh two access points. Um and then we talked about the sign setback. Obviously, you guys really
discussed the one on Cedar. Um in an ideal world, we wouldn't have this retaining wall. Um but unfortunately, we do. Um, and while that sign might not be fully visible for drivers in one direction, it will be fully visible for drivers in the other direction and it
doesn't impede any sight lines. The sign that is also on um, East Northfield also will not impede any sight lines. It is far it's far enough back from the road, even from the sidewalk, that it's not going to impede any sight lines. So, I do believe that the sign setbacks are warranted. Uh, regarding the sign width
for the uh proposed sign on East Cedar, uh, 72% 72 in is permitted and we're proposing 96. Um, and our sign expert kind of talked about that a little. Um, we're extending the sign out 2 feet, but the
sign is only 36 in where we're allowed to have 60 going high. Um, so when you look at like the square footage of the sign, it really kind of meets the intent of the ordinance. But when you know David talked about the the wow like I need to just see the sign it's the number and the arrow and so we need it
big enough for drivers to be able to see that particularly at the intersection as he had discussed. So um with that said um while I say that you know I think it's a flexible C1C2 we have some unique conditions on the property. Uh but then I do believe that we promote per uh
special reasons which is promotion of the purposes of the municipal land use law. Purpose A is noteworthy uh promotion of public health, safety, morals and general welfare. We always need signage so that we can safely enter and exit a property. Um and also uh
there is another purpose of the municipal land use law that talks about encouraging uh safe transportation routes and that's purpose H. Uh which also that's what the signage does. Um, I don't believe in terms of the negative criteria that there's any substantial detriment to the public good. I think
you're enhancing the public good by allowing these signs at the two entry uh well along the two frontages, excuse me. Um, and I don't believe there's any substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance uh for the granting of these
variances. Um, I understand the rationale as I stated before about only having one freestanding sign, but we have a unique condition. Um, not only does this have two frontages, those frontages are separate. They don't even meet at the corner. So, um, so in terms
of the substantial impairment to the intent purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance, um, I also did look at your last master plan which was, uh, prepared in 2018. Um, and it actually uh has a couple of uh goals that one of
them follows suit with purpose H or the municipal land use law because it talks about encouraging the location and design of transportation, circulation routes and parking facilities that will promote the efficient flow of traffic and that's what the signage does. And then goal 11 specifically talks about um
safe residential and commercial areas. Um and it goes through creative development techniques and and some other things, but it also goes to uh control of fences, walls, sign and signage. Uh so I believe that's what we're doing here. So I do believe that we promote two purposes of your master
plan as well. Um so with that said I do believe that we meet the positive and the negative criteria for the granting of the well technically four sign variant four sign var five sign variances because we need uh one for the free extra freestanding sign then we
also need the sign the size and then we also need the setback for each of the signs >> four >> I'm sorry that's four >> apparently I can't count tonight either I can't speak I can't count Sorry, >> I have no further questions for Miss Gregory unless the board or the planner
does. >> Any questions from the board >> to what Mr. Duffford had pointed out earlier that there are only seven plates for tenant names. So, uh there there has to be more tenants. It's a very big building. So in the future if there are
more names to be added will >> well if the sign is changed they'll have to come back before. >> Absolutely. Yeah. >> Right. >> Um so right now they're they're sign that they're propos the size that they're proposing. If they suddenly want to make it bigger because they want to
put more names in they're going to have to come back here. >> Perfect. Correct. could split names. >> I just don't have the information in terms of what tenants are there, what their leases say, but but yes, if we wanted to add more names, we would we would come back before the board.
>> Sounds like you mentioned something that alluded to that I heard in your testimony that it's part of the deeds or the lease that they arrange saying their names will be on the sign. They're renters that their names will be on the sign or not. Something like that, right? Typically, yes. A lease would provide if
if a tenant would have signage and where that signage would be. >> Anybody else? Um, any members of the public have any questions as to this witness uh as to her testimony? Seeing none, um, any closing? >> I have no further witnesses. I would I
would just say in closing, um, as you know, discussed at length, I think the property is a very irregular shape. Um, our sign expert has testified that he believes the signs are suitable and kind of not going to put words in his mouth, but kind of the best design possible given the constraints on the property.
Um, given that, you know, we have county rightway on both sides and we would like to keep the signs within our boundary lines. Um, and and as Miss Gregory noted, we we feel that we meet the C1 and C2 criteria. So, I would just ask that the board look favorably on the application. >> Thank you. And just to uh just so the record is is is u you know uh complete.
Um, any members of the public uh have any uh uh make any uh sworn testimony in favor of or opposed to the application? And seeing none. So, I just wanted to get that for the record. >> Thank you. >> So, um uh absent objection in the absence of any motion for a continuence,
the evidentary record is closed. No further testimony or evidence shall be heard or received. So, the members uh shall now have the opportunity to state and discuss their views on the application. >> Anybody? >> Uh I mean, I'm familiar with the building. I haven't gone there in for an appointment to the building, but it
makes perfect sense to me. It's definitely I think it meets the C1 and the C2. It's irregularly shaped, peculiar, difficulties, whatever. Um I think it meets the goals of seeing it. Obviously, we wish you could be more visible coming southbound on Cedar, but it is what it is and 60%'s better than
zero. So, I'm I'm in favor of it. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean, you know, knowing knowing the building and, you know, having, you know, gone there occasionally and, you know, driven by there a million times. Um, you know, I think the signage certainly is helpful. Um, you're constrained with the retaining wall. I get it. So, um,
unfortunately you have to work with the, uh, hand that you're dealt. Uh, but also I'm, uh, I'm supportive of it as well. >> I'd say, uh, that I think since we were on maybe the council, this goes back many years, that this this is very exciting for this section of town. This
is the most activity. Hanging a sign at this side of town is going to be very This is a forgotten part of it. Weren't they complaining that we never you don't see anything at this half of town? >> Yeah, we forget about this this part of town. Nothing ever happens here. So, this is exciting. We should have a sign
that puts up this is this is very exciting, you know. So, I'm in favor of it. >> Do you approve? I approve. Yeah, I would I would just say that that thank you for taking time and making the detailed presentation of the sign and answering our questions. AB: Absolutely.
I think 60% is better than better than zero. I'll be approving Gabe, you have nothing to add. I should have asked you this before. >> I Everything's been addressed by >> We had we had your report. So, thank you for that. We appreciate that. >> Uh so, if I can have a motion in a second or Barry, was that your was that
your motion? >> Yeah, I'll move. >> We do have a motion. Second >> and Kate has a second. Second, >> Mr. Lewis, >> yes. >> Mr. Banani, >> yes. >> Mr. Reber, >> yes. >> Mr. Duffford, >> yes. >> Miss Connor, >> yes. >> And Mr. Fernandez, >> yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries.
>> Thank you. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. >> Presented um application. Thank you for all your testimony. We appreciate it. >> Uh if I can have a motion to adjourn. >> Motion. >> Thank you. Uh standing for Mr. Diner. >> Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you all very much.
supposed to do.