So, we're good to go. >> Evening all time now is 7:33 p.m. This is the meeting of the municipal landings board edge for December 10th forms 45. This meeting of municipal landing board of Burough River Edge is being held both in person and remotely via Zoom in
compliance with the provisions of the open public meeting act and associated regulations. Notice of this hydra meeting was published in the Burk's record, posted at Burough Hall, and posted on Burough's website. The notice included the dial in and login information necessary for public participation and access to the meeting
remotely. The copy of the agenda for this meeting was made available on Burough website near that included dial in and lobby information. Kindly silence all cell phones at this time. During the public comment period of this meeting, if you would like to make a public comment, you
may step up to the microphone and wait to be recognized by the chair. Press the raise hand button on Zoom or dial star9 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand. You may mute and unmute yourself by pressing the microphone icon on Zoom or dialing star six on your telephone
keypad. You must state your name and address clearly prior to making a public comment. With that, I'll ask you to all rise to the flag of America. As a matter of housekeeping, preliminarily this evening, we will be
having a curfew at 10:30 p.m. Uh, at this time, I ask council to call. >> Mr. Kaslin, >> here. >> The mayor is excused. Um, Mr. Craig >> here, >> Miss Bolan >> here,
>> Mr. Gibbons >> here, >> Mr. Kigo >> here, >> Mr. Feffer >> here, >> Mr. Goier >> here. >> Councilman Glass is excused. Mr. Sava >> here >> and Miss Lavine >> here. >> Also present our conflict attorney Mr.
Leeman, our board planner, Mr. Barrett. >> Thank you. Good evening everyone. Our first item on the agenda this evening is under the approval of minutes. We have minutes from our November 19th 2025 meeting. Draft of the minutes are circulated to the board for review prior
to the city meeting and I open to the board for comment questions on the draft minutes. Seeing no comment for a motion to approve. >> Um, Mr. Salt, who >> I'm sure who was that? Oh, Mr. Go. Okay.
Second given by a hair. >> All right. Everyone's eligible except for Miss Boland and Mr. Saba. >> With those noted, all in favor? I take questions.
>> Thank you. Our next item on the agenda team meetings is for discussion. We have our schedule for the 2026 student calendar year for the meetings. The calendar date for the
meet was circulated prior to this evening. Any comments or questions of schedule? I'll look for a motion to >> approve. Second. >> Thank you.
>> We can just do a voice vote. All in favor? >> Okay. Approved. Thank you. We'll now move under memorialization. Applications, please. The uh family, Brian and Megan. Address 214
Berkeley Road. 906 flight seven variance ranking ball for a proposed addition home draft of the resolution circulated prior to this evening's meeting for review board for comments or questions
on the resolution none I will look for a motion to approve a notes. >> All right. And I'll only call those eligible to vote. Mr. Kaslin, >> yes. >> Mr. Craig, >> yes. >> Mr. Gibbons, >> yes. >> Mr. Kigo,
>> yes. >> Mr. Feffer, >> yes. >> Mr. Godier, >> yes. >> And Miss Lavine, >> right, the motion passes. >> Okay. We'll now move under old business. The applicant is I 882 Thermos LLC.
that occurred from the September 24th, 2025 meeting. Property is 41 Grand Avenue, block 1405, block 4. Application seeking preliminary and final site plan approval with use height and bulk variant three leaf seeking to construct
and operate a double face stat. I'm Robert Falcon. hearing on behalf of this mic. >> Good evening, Mr. Before we get started. There are some other attorneys that are in the room. I'd like to get their appearances on the
record. You heard me. Remind us who their clients are helpful. This is a continuing theme that was started over the summer and it's summer. Good evening everyone. Christopher Kinsel. I'm from Sarson. Bob Lazar is my
partner and I'm hearing on his behalf tonight to make a statement. Also on his behalf, the client we represent is Grand for Associates uh at 70 Grand Avenue. >> Mr.
>> Uh good evening uh Mr. Chairman, members of the board, councel Charles Sle on behalf of Darkstar Development LLC and Let It Grow Inc. to 41 Grand Avenue 5100. >> Good evening, Jeffrey Cheney Foley. I
hear this evening on behalf of Route 4 Main Street LLC, estate of of E10i, Trust B, and 41 Grand Avenue LLC. Is there anybody else here that's represented by Okay, I just give you a brief uh
procedural summary of the matter. This application was deemed complete on May 28th, 2005. The board has conducted multiple hearings during which the applicant has presented its engineer, Mr. William Voit, who was accepted by this board as an expert in civil
engineering. He Mr. Voy previously has reviewed the survey the NG do outdoor advertising permit uh the site plan set and the sign elevation materials. He described the application as a double face billboard measuring 14 by 48 ft and
reaching a height of 60 ft illuminated by LED lighting. The applicant outlined all the bulk variances required including the front side and we set back height variant for district 35 foot maximum setback. Additional testimony was provided during the late assigned
size DOT regulatory framework in the absence of any digital display component in the prior uh hearings. The board's professional also provided us with written reports which we expect to address tonight from the testimony of our expert. We have a board's planner
memorandum of May 22nd, 2025 which identified the specific variances triggered and confirmed that the applicant required the D6 height variance as well as several C variances and uh since then updated site materials
have been provided by the applicant at the continued hearing of September 24th which I was told didn't work out so well. So there was really no testimony given to them and that's why we have our engineer here tonight to testify to those plans that previously submitted. We haven't submitted any plans since
that meeting. So it will be you know on to those plans that were previously conducted. And we have our three experts here tonight. Mr. Bill White the traffic engineer household or I mean our traffic engineer household bill our our regular engineer and our professional planner
John McDonald. And now you know we're ready to move forward. Mr. testify. I think at this time >> I I was u sure >> I do that.
Uh good evening. um William Arvote uh Junior from L2A Land Design. Uh we created the site plans uh for uh the applicant. Um I'm just going to go ahead to um this was exhibit A5. It was an
aerial that was presented at our uh last meeting. Um just to refresh the board's memory, uh the site is located at 41 Grand Avenue. Uh north is to the top of the page. Uh we have frontage um along Grand Avenue, which is a municipal
roadway, and we also have frontage along the Grand Avenue uh Route 4 corridor. Uh that that Grand Avenue uh is an off-ramp uh to Route 4. Um the site is a a L-shaped piece of property. It's
slightly under a half an acre. It's 43 acres. Uh there's an existing um twostory uh office building that's above uh act parking. So you drive into the site then underneath the building where you can
park um predominantly under the building but then spaces uh that are around to the north side. What we're proposing um what we're going to show you is this is exhibit we have it marked as exhibit
A8A is in Apple um this was uh to be presented at our uh our last hearing um which got carried this evening. Uh this is just a color rendering of the site plan that was submitted as part of the
updated drawings. Uh so it's drawing C-02. It's site plan. It's revision three dated is 9 to 2025. So again you have the L-shaped property. The property is outlined um the in red
the uh proposed builder. The existing building is the rectangular shaped um beige building. Uh, all of the gray is parking that's either beneath the building or to that north that I was speaking about. Access to the site is
off of Johnson Avenue. We're proposing to put a 60ft tall uh double-sided static billboard. It's 14 ft in height and 48 ft in length. So, it has 672
square foot per side. and it has a V-shaped configuration so that the messaging on the sign is directed towards the traveling public along loop four. It's a static sign so it has exterior uh
lighting up lighting that uh projects light onto the face of the sign so it can be read in the evening hours. During the day the lights are off. what we updated from our last uh hearing and for some of the comments from the
board as well as the board professionals um we needed to just show some additional uh do uh New Jersey DOT rightway information. So we had shown that in the blue line work that's on the property. So we uh emphasized where the
DOT rightway is. You can see to the north uh to the north west and then to the uh to the south uh east on the site. And then you can see our frontage along
the route 4 DOT right ofway is on the uh curvature which totals uh 27.27 uh linear feet. Um so that was really the biggest update on our plans as far as the resubmission.
Um what we also submitted um >> Mr. You prepared this plan. >> Yes, we prepared this this plan in my office I believe. Can we listen to evidence that it has not? >> I I think this is marked as the record as as a 80.
>> Correct. That's what I had. Um and then what we had what we had shown on the site plans was uh we had illustrated um I'm switching to exhibit A8. So that
this is the set of plans that were resubmitted. uh they have it's a three-page set of plans again same revision three dated 9 to 2025 on sheet CO3 um we had an illumination schedule for u
the sign base and was asked of us what what would be the spillage outside of the side base. So we elaborated um on to that and I have exhibit A9. Um so again it's it's a uh same
image of the uh 14x 48 static sign. Um but what we did is we expanded the photometrics um to the left to the right above and below. And what this is illustrating is the light
spillage from those four uh exterior LED lights um to the side um of of billboard. We are in uh about 17 1/2 ft. Um our our billboard is offset to the
neighboring parcel uh behind us. So each the distance between each of the um tick marks is five feet. So it represents 30 ft um all the way out to
the right to the left. And you can see on the sign case the corners of the of the of the billboard that the top corners are around 14T handles. The bottom corners are around 24T panels. And as you peel away left and right from
the sign, uh, at 5t, uh, you drop down to 14 14t candles, 10 foot candles. As you go to 10 ft, it drops down even more to 4 and 1/2 to from 3 to 4 and 1/2. Uh,
at 15 ft, you're at 1T handle to 1.4. And then, uh, at 20 ft, you're at below five foot handles. and so on and so so forth. So at the um approximate distance uh of the neighboring
um parcel at that 17 1/2 ft, we're without any modifications to the lighting or to the sign itself. U we're expecting that the spillage at the property line uh would be in a range of
7 to 0.9. So with this uh with the LED lighting that's uh available to us for sign we're able to dim those light fixtures. So the four fixtures can be dim. There's
there's um in manufacturer there's 10 dimming uh settings. So we can reduce the lighting output uh down to six uh just by 60%. So we can reduce that
output down to only a 40% output. And then in addition um in addition to that lighting um reduction the
the manufacturer uh makes shield and you might hear of this as a houseight shield if we were talking about parking lot lightings. Um so these are the uh light fixtures that extend uh in front of the
sign. Uh directly behind the light is is a a mirror shield but then the manufacturer can also install uh side shields on either side. So this would help again reduce the amount of light
spillage off the sides uh especially of the of the N2 lighting. So, um, in my conversation with the, uh, lighting manufacturer, we really had he had no reservations of getting that light level, uh, down to
zero at the property line. Uh, using a combination of the uh, the dimming and the shield. >> I don't know if this was marked. So, that's actually page two of A9. >> It's Yes, that's correct. So A9 is a I
believe it's a five bed. Yes, there was other pictures of the Luminere. Uh the third sheet. This these are the two um shields on the sides. The third sheet. This is just a side
profile of of the side shield. And then the the last page, the last page just shows it illuminated in a dark space. And you can see that it's it's preventing light from spilling out to the left and to the right. It's
it's projecting the light towards the face of the sun. Um so th those were really the um the differences or the explanations that we were going to present at our last hearing. um for this evening.
>> Okay. Thank >> good evening. Just uh since we last met was July, so just a few housekeeping items. So you went over the extent of variance relief that's required. I didn't hear you say I didn't hear you mention that you also need a D1 use variance. Are you still under the
impression that you do? >> Yeah, and we have a plan. >> I just want to clarify when he gave the list. So, I just want to make sure we're all on the same page with regard to the light spillage issue. I think you mentioned that there's some level of control that could reduce it to zero foot candles at the property level uh
the property line. Um but at the current proposed level, it's somewhere between 7 and 0.9 foot candles. >> Correct. >> I haven't reviewed ordinance compliance. I'm reviewing that on the fly. So, I think that's just something we have to consider. I know you said it could be reduced to zero. How does that get enforced when you talk about dimming and
spillage over property lines? Um well I I I think on other applications we we agree to a six-month look back. Um and we you know we can we can always u reanalyze it after control uh in terms
of do business with the resolution. Um but we can certainly present uh additional documentation uh showing you know technically that that it's at zero. >> All right. Thank you. And finally, with regard to variance relief, there's a
section 416-48B which pertains to lighting, um, which just caught my attention while you're talking about lighting. States, all business signs and all spotlights and flood lights used to illuminate any sign shall be extinguished by 11 p.m. or upon close of business. So, I guess the
question is, just as a refresher, is it are you proposing to illuminate the sign 24/7? I I don't Well, it's definitely not 247. All night I do believe they are. >> My recollection was well that during the day it would be illuminated. Okay. But the sign would be visible andor
illuminated. >> Yeah, I do believe. >> Um that's that's the barrier of relief. Thank you. Um when we last met, I think the board requested some additional renderings. So, we have the renderings that show the vantage points from the
highway, but there's a question of visual impact to other parts of the community. Have you considered preparing other renderings from other vantage points around the site? >> Uh, yes, I I think we we did present um
the renderings from Route 4. >> Correct. So, the board saw those. So, we know what it looks like from the highway. The question was, what does it look like from other parts of the community? >> Uh, sure. I I think we have some other testimony from from some of our other professionals that have those uh or some
of those exhibits. I I I don't have those in my portfolio. >> That's right. And the final question has to do with that the issue of the road classification as far as you're calling it Route 4 based on DOT uh classification. You're the engineer. I'm just a planner.
But when I looked up this issue using the state's own GIS website and DOT information, it did not classify it as Route 4. Depending on the source, it either classified it as Johnson Avenue or Grand Avenue. And in no case did I find any state source that called it
Route 4. So I it's just a question of what source did you use to verify that that marginal roadofframp is in fact classified by DOT as Route 4. Uh Dave, well these these are from the
DOT and roadway mapping. So all of the all of the survey uh line work was verified through the DOT mapping. My reference to Route 4 is is just u because we're within this corridor. So it the mapping does go out to what I
said before to to the blue uh lines that are shown on my on my plan. That is the extent of the DOR. Anything to the uh east of this blue line is municipal. Uh anything to the west is the OPC
right. >> So right ofway and road classification might mean two different things. I'm ask I don't have the definitive answer but again I re when I reviewed the state's own DOT online GIS source it called it something different. So I maybe you found another
source that that calls it route 4. Is there a distinction between the right of way and road classification in this case? >> Probably a better question for my surveyor. Um, I can I can certainly get that for you. >> And then then finally, I think route four in this location, like the actual
threelane highway part is 50 miles hour. Does this segment of roadway have the same speed limit or does it have other traffic limitations that distinguish it from the threelane portion of the highway? Uh, sure. Our track engineer is
here. Elaborate on that. >> Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. >> Correct. Yeah, I want to get a sense of that question. looking at this property and aside from
the minimum lot area and minimum lot width just that every standard of requirement either has existing occupy existence or there's one being requested um there are four
that right now meet the standard program that check are except minimum combined sets that have minimum variant is required requesting varian which means that I can't apply anything
other than the box size which is larger than that does not have the varian that is We will have our plan to find variances but you know exactly
I I agree with your analysis of our data. So, so basically nothing would have >> that that is a yes. Um I did have some questions
in my education. Um science is the messaging on science itself for printing on some sort of material that's been fastened to the framework of
the >> That's correct. It's it's it's printed on vinyl. um weather resistant vinyl. Um and we did submit a a link to a video on how it is installed and taking it down.
Uh it's it's fairly simple. You know, two technicians, you know, arrive the site, standard vehicle, um climb the tower and and disassemble the the vinyl and reassemble. >> Correct. Unlike
video >> that's correct. >> So significantly more cost to change the status on labor reasonable assumption. >> I I I'm only involved in the
engineering. I don't get in the cost of the of the uh of the advertisement. I can tell you about the digital messaging on how often it changes but other than that the last question currently may not
want to get a little bit more catch up next time the hardship that's being >> we will have the plan. >> Okay. >> Um yeah, I just have a few um and I don't know if I should have or again but
you know part of what you brought up Mr. Barren is do they you alluded to do they really have friends? And I think that's really a question and I I don't exactly recall what our what our ordinance or what is allowed in terms of billboards, but I believe it
has to be on purchase of a highway. Well, one of the threshold issues at hand is that we actually prohibit billboards explicitly off premises signed. So there there is there are no conditions in which they're permitted. Um to to your to answer the other
question, I I don't know the answer to the road classification issue. I know there's some number of feet that the the site touches that segment of road, but what it actually is remains unclear. >> Is there some sort of I feel like there was some I know we don't have
necessarily an order ordinance, but is there a state or a county that says a billboard has to be on a highway if there is to be one allowed? I feel like there was some testimony to that effect. >> Not that I'm aware. I I'm not aware of that principle or
>> we did testify to that. We have a DOT uh active permit for this location >> which is conditioned up upon municipal approval though. >> Correct. The reverse the first step is to actively get that DOT permit and the DOT vets the site after it's chosen by
the applicant or the owner. uh they go through their criteria and it met all of the um all of all of the conditions uh and then they issued the permit for us and that gave us the opportunity then to
get municipal and outside that's why we're okay because it does seem I don't want to say questionable but it's definitely you know it's hard to distinguish if it is an on-ramp or it's a road in Riverridge or it's the actual
highway is a little different when you get, you know, further down the highway, we can pull off and you're right on. No, it's it's understanding and I think that's why we were asked to clarify our exact frontage and it it is only 27 uh.27
linear feet. Um, but that is our frontage. Uh, and we did who did pass the test with the DOT. Okay. And I don't know if this is a question for you, but this just popped in my thoughts, but Mr. was asking a question I believe Mr. Costa brought up last time that it might
not even really be possible with the site to really maintain the structure and I don't remember exact unfortunately Mr. house is not here, but there there was an issue that he brought up that you know the the space of being able to pull trucks in there and the
location of it that is maintainable if that's a word. Sure. So after our hearing I met with the with the driller out of the site that that's where the the I would say the largest equipment ever comes into the site. I met out with
the driller who uh drills not only all of uh this applicant's uh signs uh some of the other uh owners of field boards that I work for. He also uh his crew also drills for them in some pretty tough locations. They're drill one for me in Jersey City
right now. That's uh that's 100t tall. Um they looked at the site. Uh they had no issue accessing uh through the Grand Avenue rightway. uh we would probably need to uh ask the install for a
temporary uh road closure just to get our equipment in. Um but the drilling itself only takes about two days. Um they can probably drill and set the foundation for the concrete in one day.
Um if they go up very quickly. Uh but the largest equipment is the drill rig. Um, so we can access the site uh through a partial roadway closure off of the Grand Avenue rightway and then once the concrete sets and they have the monopole
uh configured, then we'll crane in uh again from the Grand Avenue rightway, we'll crane in the uh the super structure. And what about when that sign needs to be changed when you have something advertised? So that's the beauty of it. We just would show up in a
in a regular vehicle. Um access into the site, twoman crew or or two person crew hop out. They have harness equipment, small tools. Uh they have the new vinyl folded up uh extension ladder. Uh they
climb up um very similar to a telephone pole where the runs start like 14 ft high. Um they access that they access to the catwalk. the harness in and they change the side out. >> Okay. I know is with that, so I don't I
don't know if that answers his question, but um I think that's Thank you. >> Yeah. Again, I'm not sure if you're the right one to answer this question, but um I'm just curious as to what the
process is for monitoring uh the structure for damage. Uh is it Is there periodic monitoring is how frequently would that be? Uh you know if the part of the sign is dangling off or is torn, how would that address?
>> Uh sure. So um the the messaging will get changed uh whether it's a month but someone will be out there every month uh regardless. Uh usually the ads run for 30 days. Um but not to say that it could run for a week or two. So you're going
to actively have people um come to the site to change your copy. Um normally uh in addition to that they would come out quarterly to inspect uh the sign structure and workings. Um
there's a apro that's located below the sign wide apron. It holds the um the the owner's name on there and it also holds the permit number. Um, so when the DOT passes by, obviously we're up on DOT
right of way. If there's any uh anything wrong with that sign, whether it's a digital sign or static sign, um that number gets reported, um if it's not been reported already or known by the by the owner and immediately um uh the
owner may apply to to restore and fix whatever is wrong. So the the LED or the digital meing sign a little bit different um obviously but uh or the static signs uh that that is a there's
no camera uh like the digital sign >> to your knowledge is there any plan to at some point convert this to an LED sign? It's not possible. The the two uh the the outfront uh digital sign that's
in Hackinac just east of you is approximately,000 ft from us. I would have to be in 3,000 ft from that sign. So this this permit could never be uh transferred to a digital uh unless the
uh other sign was removed and that permit was taken. So it it can only be a satisfied. >> And I guess my last question for you is just getting back to the repairs and damage. Do you have any sense of how
frequently these types of signs need to be repaired? Any statistics on that or I don't know. Um I I know very few incidents uh that that something has happened. you know whether a club came loose. Um
I I I I don't have any any help on that. >> Okay. >> Nothing further. Thank you. Thank you. >> Um you had provided a worst case scenario for the lighting. >> Um why wouldn't you automatically provide the shields and and you know
provide the least amount of spillage light as possible? Um well I I think we'd like to present to the board exactly what what the sign is itself. It was asked of us if we could um sharpen our pencil and and make
some modifications to that. So we we we went back to the drawing board and I think we were successful. >> Okay. So I I would think we wanted to be minimized as possible like >> absolutely and I think we can achieve that.
>> And also have you done any kind of a shade study to see what kind of impact you would have on the uh neighboring businesses and homes. >> Uh I I did not. >> I think that would be something that that I can see.
>> Where is north on your plan? >> Uh North location. >> I'll trust you. It's oriented where north is at the top. Uh yes the the the plan the the north arrow is to the upper right hand corner.
Um so the plan and the aerial are oriented in in the same fashion. So um I mean we're we're pretty much in the C2 uh and adjoining C1 um zones uh residentials uh farther
farther to the north. Well, I know one of the businesses um the ND law presented before us and we approved a rooftop um patio type situation where that may affect their you know their their
rooftop that we approved. >> Sorry, is that is that a residential? >> No, they didn't but we approved their commercial building but with a rooftop commercial. >> Okay. Was that a used bar? >> No. I it was not a office uses are
permitted in the zone. >> More questions at this time, >> Mr. >> Uh, no questions at this time. Thank you. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um, back to the maintenance of the sign. You said when it was get
when it would be put in to begin with, you'd have to have the road closed. Ask the borrower for the road closed for a day or two. Um, but the maintenance of the sign, you said they would that the people who were, you know, changing the
sign over would be in a standard vehicle, >> right? >> What what is what do you consider a standard vehicle? uh any size vehicle that would fit into any of the standard parking spaces that are on the site and can fit underneath the building.
Typically, they come in a small pickup. >> Oh, okay. So, it would be in the uh parking lot. >> Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. It's after the the sign is installed on the the foundation and the superructor. >> Um access just to change copy is just
onto the site. You know, I I could show up in in my SUV with another person and if I was qualified, I could pop up there and change a copy myself. >> Okay. Thank you. >> James, thank you. Um,
how was the published building or structure in River? Uh the zone that we're in is a it's a huge it's two and a half stories 35 ft. Um so I think most of the structures in our zone
and surrounding us are at the 35. Do >> you know of any structure in Riveridge that's over 35? >> Off hand in the area? I I don't I know there's some taller buildings uh that are probably in Hackinack uh that are farther to the east of you. Uh, I think
those are some of the buildings that you see in some of our perspectives. Um, but just in general area around our sign, I I believe I think around 35, but I'm not asking about the general area. I'm asking about River Edge
>> throughout your municipality. I I I don't know off the top of my head. >> Um, if the sign is built and it falls, will it fall on its own property? >> The sign's not built to fall. If it does fall, we have had tornadoes here in
River Edge. Things do happen. If it does fall, will it fall on its own property? That's an interesting question. Um, >> yeah, I don't know how to answer. >> What were your considerations for the height of the sign? Um, we are canceling
the existing building. Um, so if you I'm just going to switch back to my switch back to the site plans. Sorry, I think that's 88 site plans. Uh, the third sheet CO3. This is an
elevation view. So you can see the our the existing twotory building for the parking um is at the 35 foot mark. Um our sign the top of it is measuring 60 ft uh above grade. So that's leaving us
uh the three-foot catwalk and apra underneath it and leaving us uh approximately 9 days of clearance uh between the bottom of the structure and the uh top part. uh why double-sided
doublesided the uh to uh present the uh advertisement to both uh traveling publiclix uh west and east along the route for corridor and do we have any pictures of what would look like from the other side? I know that you have pictures from route four. Do we know
what the other side, the northern and eastern sides will be looking at? >> Uh, I I don't have them, but I believe some of our other professionals may have it. >> Thank you. >> Um, has the foundation met the requirements
of the storm water management here in town? >> I'm sorry, the proposed foundation. Does it meet the requirements of storm water management here in town? >> Yes. >> How so? >> Uh, it doesn't require any management. It's uh it's 30 square ft of surface.
>> I I would argue the property requires storm water management because it is pretty much all concrete and covered, right? >> Pre-existing. Yes. >> Right. And and now you're asking to expand even upon the pre-existing, correct? >> Uh for 30 square ft. Yes. Okay.
And have you uh consider that you're adding 30 square feet to an area that already is totally covered and therefore there should be some storm water management consideration given. uh we review that with the uh with the
board engineer and we can get any more uh comments. Um, if there is a requirement for road closures and and there's a requirement for us to hire police or other officers
uh to man those road closures, uh, are the owners willing to pay for the hours that our cops will have to put in? >> Of course. That goes for any time in the future that this happens. Yeah, that's correct. How often does the sign change? It's
typically it's once a month. Um, usually the ads from from from my years of doing uh signage, it's typically once a month. Doesn't say that an ad can run shorter than that uh or longer than that, but
typically I'd say the average is is 30 days. Is there any state regulation that prohibits these types of billboards within a certain distance of an on-ramp or an offramp in the highway? That is
part of the DOT criteria. Um so they they did all of those uh items and that's why we were issued permit. So we met all of the criteria from offer scores. Uh
>> what are those criteria? >> Uh they're they're listed in the DOT um DOT manual. >> I'm not trying to put you on the spot. If you don't know, that's fine. >> I just have um I can I can direct you to the section. I just don't have
um you know, I I don't want to put our traffic engineering spot either, but um you know, we can get you the uh criteria. Is it possible to drop a sign and to make it fit within the 35 foot high uh restriction that we have here in River?
>> Uh not not with the current uh configuration of the existing building. No, why not? The building is uh in the area where the sign uh the signs permitted by. So this
location is the location that uh we are subject to. And I'm saying you can't drop the height of the sign. >> No. Again, the uh the elevation under CO3. Um I'm leaving
9 ft I'm cannot leave over the existing uh I'm going to call it a threetory building. So I'm leaving 9 ft of clearance between the bottom structure and the top of the roof. And is that 9 foot? And I just don't
know. Is that required by statute? Is there a reason for nine feet? Is that is that number you can change? I >> I just I just try to I just try to keep it off the off the roof as as much as I can. >> If you dropped it 10 ft, would it be touching the roof or will it be in front
of the roof? >> If I if I dropped it I only have 9 ft. >> I understand. That's what I'm asking. like is it right over the roof or is it cuz from the drawings it looks like to me that it's in front of the roof not over the roof. That's what I'm I'm not understanding
this drawing. >> I'm just going back to the red. So yeah, we have we have our rectangular existing threetory building there. Our monopole is out in the in the corner in the I'm going to call that the southern corner.
Uh then we have a flag configuration of the sign above and it can lever uh I believe it's 11 ft on uh the northern side and I believe this is 26 ft on the southern side. So that that's handleing
over the existing. Got it. Got it. >> All right. Uh that's it for now. Thank you. >> I just have a couple questions for you. Excuse me. You mentioned that the sign is made of a vinyl panel. No, it's just it's a it's a piece of
vinyl. It's just it's it's one it's one piece that's folded up and brought inside. >> Okay. So, basically unfurl then secured to the sign board. >> That's correct. >> Okay. What if if the mechanism to secure the sign would fail,
what happens to that behind pieces catch? Did the wind catch it onto the highway? Does it fall straight down? support the there are several straps if if I didn't know if you got a chance to watch that video that was submitted but there there's several uh straps both um
on the top the bottom both the sides uh that that secured to so there's there's multiple straps uh everything's held in with grommets um secured to this so to the side I in my 20 years of doing build wars I I don't know how that's that's
got away from the from the Suppose you had a catastrophic failure. What what would happen? Does that piece like I said just fall straight down? Is it designed to fall straight down or is there is there a possibility that it gets pulled onto the highway working on the street below?
I mean it is a piece of viol if it got detached somehow hypothetically from from the sign. I that's that's pretty good. Um it's it would fall down and the wind would go with it. It is heavy. I
but sure >> and just is and as far as the engineering the sign goes with the way it's can lever over the building. If if there were a failure of the model pedal or the way that the sign pass the model
pole where where is that sign falling into the building or falling into it? How how is that account for? So all of you will get full structural drawings. They they do uh they'll do a boring uh
test of soils. Uh so there'll be a fully engineered structural uh plumbing and foundation as well as uh superructure uh structural um calculations all of the attachments that all get submitted to your uh and prior to building uh permits
uh silent seal by New Jersey licensed uh engineers. Um and that is done across the state across the country uh they're all pretty much done the same. Is it is it unique in the sense that you have this type of a design where you have a
billboard situated over a building? >> No, that was pretty common. >> Can you give one example in Bourbon County that has a similar configuration? Um well the well the just the two outcomes
that are that are just uh to the east of us uh those uh at least the one on our side sits on an arm. Uh so that one is can lever uh off this foundation. Um I have a couple uh I'm trying to
think just B County. Um I have one um another Dunkin Donuts. That one has a pan burn. It's a flat shape >> but over a onetory Dunkin Donuts. >> Sure.
>> Okay. follow up. You mentioned the state permit. I have a note that it expired May 13th and be done. >> Yes, it has been done. So they they don't reissue the actual uh permit.
There's a what they call as a run copy. So every year the applicant or the owner has to pay the fee and and read out their uh license agreement for that permit. So we can we did submit the permit run which was behind that expired
uh sheet. So it is it is uh through just another question. Um and I don't know maybe maybe the council can answer this better. Uh, I'm just wondering if any arrangements or agreements have been entered into with
the building owner as to um whether you are obtaining any rights over that building, whether it's an easement of some kind or any kind of rights that would preclude the building owner uh in
the future from potentially raising the height of its own building. If they wanted to add a structure to the height of the building, you've got your sign hanging over their roof potentially. I would take that roof in cringes upon that building owner's right to increase
the height of the building. >> I know we have the lease which would cover space over the building for the that's generally how they do it. I I personally didn't negotiate the lease, but I've seen them. That's generally
>> Do you know how long that lease is the term? >> It's generally 30 years. They're longterm, but I I don't know when typically there isn't drawn as part of that lease uh for access and maintenance
to the site. But again, that the existing building is at the 35 height limit. So they were have to come before the board of essentially be variance >> right you know more than 10% >> and if they did come before the board and say we want to we want to build a
structure on our roof and that's going to increase the height what would your position be that >> it really depends on the lease >> right so if that lease actually in effect has been signed oh yes we wouldn't be here we would never
Just one more question. Um I'm just looking at this. Um so the green that the green space that is essentially where the pole is going to be >> correct. >> Is that all existing at this point is that all green space and not everything that you see on here that's
green is is green. >> Okay. So then there is circulation underneath the sign >> car. So, cars were driving underneath the side, right? >> Yes. If you if you look at my site plan and you're probably too far away from here, but you can see the striping of
the parking spaces that are below our building on the ground floor and then it tells uh to the north in the back and then we continue with the heading spaces towards 4 Avenue uh and the neighboring parson. So, is there any issue with cars
driving underneath this? You have other ones that have people driving Almost every single one I do is parking lot parking lot or building. And is this changing? Are all the parking spaces that are currently there stay? There's
no impact to any parking circulation or function of the property that you see. Thank you. Um objections council which will be heard. Sure. Everyone.
Uh, as indicated earlier, my name is Chris Pinsel. I am a partner at BAR and Abramson. I'm here tonight on behalf of my partner, Robert Carr. Uh, partner Abramson represents Grant for Associates
LLC. Uh, in opposition to this application for variance, I'm just going to read Mr. Pard's statement as he is out of state right now. Wasn't able to be here personally. wanted to make sure that this was read personally to all of you.
>> So you'll allow me I'm just interrupt you just a point of order procedure. So um we're going to present witnesses for questions and answers examination direct examination public comment statement you want to read comes at the conclusion of all the
test >> understood. So, I will go back to my seat for you to call me back up. I thought I heard my name. >> He did. >> Understood. Thank you. >> Mr. Slo,
>> good evening board members. again Charles Solo on behalf of Darkstar Development LLC and let it grow. They are the property owner of block 1405 lot 3 which is 335 Johnson Avenue and that's the property that was referred to uh by um Miss Pard earlier in terms of us
appearing before this board about two years ago to get um an approval for a two-story office building over parking um and a rooftop amenity. that rooftop amenity just to refresh the board members mind is is more than just some
plants. Um it's a real rooftop amenity for the purposes of the um the visitors and the employees of the office. Um it has it has a kitchen up there. It's got seating there. It's got plants. So it's a real amenity and benefit to that
particular piece of property. Um with that said, I did have the opportunity to u cross examine Mr. void um on Zoom back in June or July at the last hearing. So, I just only have a few follow-up questions based on based on his testimony this evening. Um so, Mr. Boyd,
you prepared this the site plan, correct? Uh sorry. Okay. Um and on the site plan is the proposed billboard cataly over the over the bill. That's correct. Okay. So, um is part of your your assignment part of your scope to
position the billboard on site? Yes. based on the dot permit. >> Okay. So, uh there was dialogue earlier question from Miss Bowlard about whether or not you were aware of the my client's office building and correct me if I'm
wrong, but it appeared that based on your dialogue back and forth, you were not aware of that proposed development. >> Correct. I I personally learned it at our first term when when you guys >> Okay. It seemed like even even this
evening you were you were asking about producer answers or skip what that place. So my question is if you prepared the site plan and you place that billboard in that location 17 ft off of the property line and you were not aware of the at the my client's proposed
development, your placement, correct me if I'm wrong, your placement did not consider the impact on the joint properties. Uh well the the your your building behind us would be set to the same
criteria the 35 foot mark. So it would be no taller than our existing building. Is is that is that correct? >> That's not heightened my client's building. Is it higher than >> that's I'm not that's fine.
>> Okay. It was just it was asked of me if I if I knew the other application and obviously I I I don't know it. So that that's my question is it's it's really a yes or no. Your proposed sighting on this site or the proposed billboard did
not take into account the impact to join. >> That's why we have our plan. >> No site plan. >> That that's correct. >> Proposed location did not take into account the impact of the joint
properties. Is that correct or not? I I don't believe I'm impacting any other adjoining properties by the place, but did your again I'm going to ask just one more time. Did your sighting of this the billboard take
into consideration the impact to the neighboring properties either what's there now or what could be there? I I believe yes I I have because I'm following the DOT state they permit
but the D is on the south side I understand but what about the north what about the north side I wouldn't be here without that person that's fine but what about the north side the north the north north of this well it's it's really any direction of the
property doesn't matter going south or west. >> So I mean I think your test just you're not aware of the proposed development on my clients property would you bought some details on >> I I don't know
>> um Mr. Chairman thank you M sure >> um Mr. Chairman and councelor just procedurally there was references by Mr. weight in terms of video. He said, you know, links one or two times. Have you been able to watch the video? I haven't seen that video introduced into evidence.
>> So, my recollection is that that it was played and I do remember looking at it. I just don't remember if that was in the office or >> think it was distributed to the board. >> I know at the June and July meeting the
board members asked questions about how it how the signage would be replaced and I'm presuming the video was submitted in response to that, but I >> haven't heard it introduced into evidence. I'm looking through my play and watch.
It was part of the application. It is on the website. It hasn't been submitted to the board part. Yeah. >> Have you had a chance to watch this? >> No. I was anticipating if it was been talked about it would be introduced here so everybody could kind of watch it and
question that would be a good idea. I'm only bringing it up because he referred to the video two or three times in his testimony >> and I think we should start record to view the video. >> I'll try and I can try and pull it up. I think >> it's pretty
basically a video guy showing up the van out getting into evidence. Where did it come from? Is this a YouTube video? >> No, >> right. >> It's right. >> It's pretty self.
>> I don't think it's anything illustrative about these first. >> Watch this before we it gets moved into evidence. >> We start with the rules. You want to know who took the video? Sorry, we do that. Put your objection
on. Yes, it's going down. Just ask. >> Is it just this vid? This link >> right here. all the way to the right. >> It's a link to a search. >> Do you know which video it
>> is there a link at the bottom of the river page for video? Yeah, I just clicked that and >> the one at the bottom. >> Yeah. >> And I clicked the link and it just led me to this Google page. >> This one.
>> Okay. >> But I don't know. I don't like sharing it on. I'm not as good at this as you are. All right. I think This is right. Thank you, council.
Um, and then one last thing, Mr. Chairman, um, was brought up about a potential lease. I would just, uh, respectfully request that maybe the board consider asking the applicant to produce that lease for review. I think it's going to be relevant, um, to this matter.
Please go. Good evening. Jeffrey Cheney Council for Route 4 Main Street LLC temporarelli trustee and 41 Grand Avenue LC. Uh can you just uh identify the boundary between pro the property and
lot six? >> Sure. You wanted the distance between our property and lot six. >> Yes. >> Sure. Lot six. And correct me if I'm wrong. That's the triangular piece to the west of us.
>> Yeah, that's my understanding but >> okay. Yeah. Just just clarify. Uh we we share the uh western most property line. you're the property uh between uh the portion of the route for for the DOT
rightway and our property which is this triangular piece and so all construction can occur without disturbing that lot correctly without needing to access that lot. >> That's correct. Operation can occur.
That's correct. Um, is there sufficient room between the billboard overhead and the building, the roof of the building? >> Uh, yes. I presented before we have the 90, >> but that 90 is sufficient.
>> That's correct. >> And that's sufficient to access the rooftop equipment. Any rooftop equipment on there? Uh, yes. M. Yes, >> there is rooftop equipment. Are you aware of rooftop equipment on? >> I haven't been on the roof. Um I I can certainly I can certainly look into that
information for you from the overhead. Um can you identify equipment on the overhead? It it does look like there's some air handlers or uh HBAC equipment uh along the side of the group. Um it actually looks like our power sign um doesn't
come out that far. So we we probably wouldn't uh even hand over those units. So it's sufficient to maintain the all the equipment. That's correct. As well as to maintain repair to the rooftop itself. Uh yes.
How you ride the dimensions of the sun? Uh sure. As part of the uh DOT permit um that stipulates what the maximum uh sun size is. Um and then we um go to the
site and we identify the height um as it's in the permit and the different uh sign dimensions. Uh and we chose a 14 by 48. That's the standard size. Uh for the sign, I believe our permit is for a
larger sign. uh amount st um but uh we went with a 14 by 48 which is a more typical or standard size. >> How is a double-sided sign different than two sides? >> Double-sided meaning that there's a face
uh facing >> There's two faces. Correct. There's two faces. Correct. And that's that's to face the west or eastbound traffic along the zone corridor. >> How is that distance in two signs? >> It's one sign structure. I guess it
would be the definition uh the municipal definition of sign some some definitions uh consider a sign with two bases. Are you aware of the the definition here? I I don't have it in front of me. Um but I'm I'm sure we can look it up.
Are there any other billboards over buildings in the burrow? >> Uh I I think the question was asked earlier. Um >> I think it was more broadly as more broadly asked. Um I I I don't know. Well, and in in Riveranch if there's
another billboard or another building in other municipalities. Uh yes. I I don't know. the I know we discussed just previously previous council here regarding the design taking account their building the
proposed building but the design of the sign taking account the existing nearby properties I'm sorry the design of the of the sign taking into account the existing nearby properties yes I think you're going to hear test from that that that justifies that
>> and is the do concern sort of impact beyond loop for um probably that's again a better question for a traffic engineer but um they they look at uh the site as a whole um so uh within their corridor uh but um
they they do there there's a checklist that they go through and then they vet the site out. So um you know it has to be in a commercially uh zoned uh property um and it can't have residential on it. Um, so they they do
um I would say they go by beyond their credit. Thank you. Thank you. >> Yeah, we're ready to call the next witness. I'll call >> sure. >> Yeah. Anybody from the public wishing heard?
>> A couple more questions if you don't mind. >> Thank you. Um, when was the building that is currently there built? >> Yes. That I that I don't that I don't know. I would have to check the tax. I
don't know. I ahead. >> Do you know whether any variance was ever granted uh for coverage for that property before you guys came to us uh for this application? >> That's probably more of a Lanny's uh question. Um
I I I don't know that. >> All right. Well, who whoever is going to testify to that is going to be upcoming. So that's my question for uh whoever thought to that. Um >> when when was the last time the parking lot was repaved? Um, has any consideration been given to
uh fires uh and how firefighters will deal will respond uh to fires especially since obviously there's going to be lights and electricity and uh vinyl. Uh we uh we didn't get any comments from
police and fire uh services from from River Edge uh to my knowledge. Uh so I I I don't have any comments from them. >> Was all this submitted to them? >> It's part of the application. Yes. >> Do we have a verification that it was
submitted to them and they've chimed in and said >> I believe so. I'll I'll confirm that everything was sent. But usually for commercial applications, Ed would forward them to the departments. >> All right. Thank you again.
>> Sure. >> One more just follow. Okay. Thank you. And I don't see any hands on on Zoom either. So >> now I would like to call our traffic expert, Mr. House. >> Believe this is his first time
testifying. Not the first. >> Yes, I do. Can you please state your profession? I'm a licensed professional engineer. I have a planner's license as well. I've been in the practice of traffic
engineering since the middle 80s and I've been before, but maybe not the land use board, but planning board and zoning board previously and previously qualified. Um
I I have a civil engineering degree from New Jersey Institute of Technology and I also have a I'm a fellow with the Institute of Transportation. >> And have you been qualified for other boards to serve as a traffic engineer? >> Yes, throughout the county as well as
the uh administrative law courts and um and spirit court >> and that is in New Jersey. Have you ever been involved for Mr. Chairman and chairman? Mr. Chairman, Mr. Simalt is an expert in the traffic experience.
>> Question for the board as soonification. >> I just had a comment. Could you please just speak closer to the microphone? Both both of you. Thank you. Mr. Simol, what was your scope of engagement with respect to this project? >> I was asked to look at the safety and
the practicality of this application as it relates to traffic safety and stuff. >> In undertaking your engagement, what materials did you review or consult? >> I reviewed the DOT permit. I was familiar with the DO somewhat familiar with the DOT criterion. And then I've
also reviewed the site plan and I also reviewed a a study done by the FHWA, Federal Highway Administration as to the safety of billboards. And have you physically expected the property to under date your engagement?
>> Yes, I have. >> And do you know approximately when you were there? >> During the summer of this year. >> So are you generally familiar with the surrounding area and properties? >> Yes. Did you perform an evaluation of the access to traffic and parking impacts of
the project to assess the traffic and parking impacts? >> Well, there are no parking impacts and then I looked at the traffic safety aspects of the of the billboard. >> I show you a report dated June 5th, 2025 titled safety and traffic
analysis. Did you repair this report? >> Yes. >> Is that your signature and seal on this report? >> Yes. Can you briefly describe the findings and components of this report? Sure. I'll start with the the global aspect.
The federal highway administration regulates uh billboards under the highway dueation act. And so this federal government presents standards for billboard place in and location. And then they um they
leave it to the states to to make them well they can't make them more liberal but they can make them tougher and New Jersey has toughened up the standards above the standard of the federal highway administration. But what
happened in in two approximately 2012 federal government undertook the study because they were being bombarded with digital signs. What they did is they compared
the safety aspect of static signs that were in place for a number of years the digital and they and with the modern technology they were able to mount, I guess, cameras within the
within the motor vehicles and they would watch the eye glances of the driver. The drivers were not told what they were being studied for. So, this study was released. It was peer evaluated and it's been a standard for placement of
billboards since 2012. And in my traffic analysis, I included that as I included the executive summary of that of that Federal Highway Administration report in
in the submission. But what so that was the findings of that study were that the glances at a static and a digital billboards were about the same and it was.3 seconds. So
if you're traveling at 50 miles an hour and then you have um which is the speed limit and then you um it's about 50 mph about 75 ft per second. So you travel a certain
distance. We evaluated the we evaluated the viewing angles from those distances. And in my report I looked at I I presented a graphic that shows that you can see the billboard for about um
700 ft. So based on 700 ft in eastbound direction 740 ft and that visibility is 10 seconds and in the westbound direction is 825
ft and that's 12 seconds. So you have if you have 10 12 seconds to view this sign and the glances that the federal government determined where the standard for viewing uh billboards
was um 3 seconds. You have plenty of time to view the sun. And then so what I did is I plotted the viewing angle of of the billboard and I plotted those in my
exhibit A. And then I I took the the three to four I'm sorry the four to five locations where I did the viewing angle and I posted those those pictures to what one see traveling east and west on
roof four. So, it's clear that you have plenty of time to view the sign, which makes it not a hazard and it's this design has been properly located. It meets the DOT standards. New
Jersey B goes out and looks at the sign location and they'll reject the sign in a an improper location that doesn't have adequate sight distance. And obviously, this one does. And so that the um with
east and westbound. You know, we have 10 to 12 seconds to view the sign. It only takes a third of a second for the glances. Um indicates that even if there's no traffic problem place
you you signed and sealed this report. >> Yes. And chairman, I'd like to move this market as exhibits as a I believe 12. So yeah, let's get the uh so I have
the prior meetings. Uh I believe I thought video I think we're off traffic comprising 30 pages. Mark, I have the list of exhibits marked that were posted
online. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, this is a this would be a 12. previously submitted to the board. >> Yes, I believe I submitted 18 or I submitted 18 copies for this. So then we'll make the track 13.
>> The video is up. >> Yeah, >> it's marked as eight. The video is marked as A10. A11 A1 was marked NJD flood hazard applicability determination.
>> A12 is traffic report >> 65. >> Ready to go. >> Turning your attention to the outdoor advertising permit. Does the state have an obligation to review billboard applications in order to issue an advertising permit?
>> Yes. And it's not only on state highways, it's on local highways, but as an example, I worked on one on River Road and Edgewater and it was required to get a DOT permit. >> Can you please discuss the regulations and procedures in the scope of the
state's investigation? >> They break it down into two types of highway. It's either a limited access highway like 280 when where they typically have to be a thousand feet apart or a local road with that state or
live that and that's 300 ft apart. Um it can't be so obviously another billboard within 300 ft would knock this one out. Digital billboards are allowed every 3,000 ft.
um on each side and the um while I know in Pennsylvania digital billboards are not going to be spaced 300 ft
compared to New Jersey that allow requires them to be 3,000 ft. But the the federal they all come from the outline provided by the the highway beautifification goes with the landscaping and the wild
problems >> then the applicant has has obtained this perm >> the applicant has obtained and then the other thing is when they come out and they look at the site they look at the available site distance because they know that if there's been some studies that
in the older material material where the um you're coming around the corner and you just see the billboard that that is not a safe application and and the DOT would deny that something of drastic
means >> I believe we that looking at list was previously marked as a 13. >> Yeah, I think part of the reason I got confused is looking at what's on the website. It looks like the traffic reported that a few places
I only did one. I just put the same 112 the traffic report and then the DOT permit a three I guess previous and one more thing the criterion cannot
be modified if you don't meet the black and white it's a black and white permit if you don't meet is facing they'll deny you even if you're 2 ft short. So they practically in order to get a permit you have to physically meet all the
requirements. >> Now I'm going to call your uh convention review correspondence of the board engineer revised on July 3rd 2025. Have you had the opportunity to review that correspondence? >> Yes.
>> Yes. Now, with respect to item 13 on page five, could you please clarify an opinion or the presence of the surrounding elements, visual obstructions, roadside elements, and adjacent development that may impact driver attention or visibility in
combination with the proposed billboard will contri contribute to a visual clutter or distracting matter in system conclusions? I can't I'm not here to suggest that what visual clutter is that's more planners
uh discussion but the the issue of distraction it's clear that this is not a distraction the studies have shown the FHWA study was done on arterial roads and it's also done on u freeways and
they found that within the tone of vision of the viewing of the sign. It takes third a second to the glances of these billboards were reviewed in.3
seconds and with respect to the board planners correspondence May 27 25 had the opportunity to review the planners. >> Yes. And now with respect to item five could you please confirm whether that Once again, whether there would be
adverse impacts of the surrounding roadway and traffic if the billboard was approved. >> Absolutely no. No negative. >> Now, do you have an opinion as to whether the the client's application if branded will cause a substantial adverse
impact upon traffic operation of adjacent roadway networks? >> It will not. And that's also confirmed by DOT. They wouldn't issue a permit if it created an attractive family. >> Based upon your studying findings, do you have an opinion as to whether or not
the levels of service of adjacent road networks will be negatively impacted in the world? >> The um the billboard doesn't generate any traffic except once a month when they come to change the the copy. So it
wouldn't add any traffic to and I couldn't think of any reason why somebody would go out of their way on route 4 to to look at the billboard. So it doesn't add traffic to the traffic flow and the safe it meets the safety
standards of the FHWA report. Is your opinion that the surrounding properties would not be negatively affected as traffic? >> Correct. Yes. That's all we have from questions.
>> Okay. Hello, Mr. Simon. Good evening. >> Good evening. >> I guess you can hear me. I'll just start off with some questions going back to the DOT permitting. So, why does DOT regulate billboards in the first place? What are their priorities or goals?
>> Federal the Highway Beautifification Act requires that billboards be regulated. Before the 70s, there was no regulation billboards. Then the highway beautifification act came along and it's updated periodically and >> but it's called the beautifification
act. So what are the goals or principles that they're trying to achieve by having regulations >> and you don't get a and you regulate the distances between billboards. >> Okay. >> And they the the height I'm sorry not the height but square footage. And now
they regulate or the state regulates spacing of digital billboards, >> right? And I I think in New Jersey digital is 2500 feet linear feet. >> 3,000 >> 3,000 and static is what? >> 300 on a on a road that's not limited
access. A freeway is the thousand would be, you know, like Route 80. >> Okay. >> In Route 4, it's 300. >> 300. Okay. Um, are you aware of any other sighting criteria that DOT uses to make their determination other than
these linear distances space between ramps? Okay. >> So, would this exit, which some might call an offramp from Route 4, would that be considered a ramp in DOT terminology?
>> It's not it's not the DOT issue. Well, let me let me ask this nicely. Is it possible that could have been overlooked? Well, I I guess as a traffic engineer, when you look at that route four appendage marginal road slash part
of the highway that goes from the highway to river edge, what would you classify that as? >> The service road. >> So, not a ramp, but a service road. >> Correct. Because it has access. A ramp doesn't have access.
Does DOT consider non DOT issues meaning beyond the right of way issues related to the municipal land use law? I'll ask one at a time. Uh do they do they consider any other issues that are non DOT related outside of the
reservoir? >> Well, travel safety in in the DOT redo. Well, no, because as I said, I I worked on a billboard on River Road in Edgeport. It's a county road and they required DOT permit. I think it's within
660 ft of a state highway. >> Does other than traffic on the highway, does DOT consider aesthetic impacts in their permit? >> I don't think so. >> Okay. Do they consider the municipal
land use law criteria as far as when variance relief might be required or cycling criteria? >> They require that it be in a commercial zone. The property that's zone commercial, you
know, it can't be a residential zone. But that's why they require every application to come before the welcome board. >> Okay. Do they consider any other impacts at all? Public impacts or impacts to adjacent privately owned
properties? >> I don't think so. >> Okay. Do they conduct an analysis of other signage in proximity to the site? >> Well, you're not allowed to have a sign within 300 ft
>> a billboard, but other signage offremise sign >> or on or off premise sign. No. So, any signage at all? Do they look at >> they don't >> any other signage in proximity? >> They don't look at on premise. They're not regulated
>> or highway signs. Do they look at highway signs? How close the border is to sign? >> If it impacts a highway sign, they won't issue a permit. >> Okay. Um, this isn't a gotcha, but I believe there what was testified to is that
there's about six billboards within a half a mile to this site. Traveling at 50 miles hour, how long does it take to travel a half a mile? >> Well, I can I can look it up, but I'm not trying to get you on. If
>> 50 miles an hour is 73 feet per second, >> you do. >> I'm not going to do that, man. Let's assume I had it written down because I didn't want to do the math. >> So if you take 2500, you divide by 73.
>> Whatever that number comes to >> making me work tonight. >> Say it's approximately 34 seconds. 34 36 seconds. 2500 divided by 73. 2500.
It would take it would take one that time to reverse, >> right? A mile. >> I I guess my my thought is would you if that's the case where you travel a half a mile within 34 seconds, by the time you've encountered this
site, you've seen six billboards within 34 seconds. And this would be a seventh billboard with to be viewed within that 34 seconds. Is that a fair does that math make sense? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um >> but when you're talking about a viewing a viewing glance of.3 seconds for each billboard, >> that's that's the safety component of it. Yes. Okay. That that's fair. I'll
take your point. Um, have you considered other signs in the vicinity of this billboard that might compete for attention? >> Well, I looked at the um the out front billboards on the railroad right away. >> Okay. So, >> to the east,
>> starting with this site, are there any signs on the building on the site? >> I don't recall. >> There's two there at least one in each direction. Um, is there a traffic sign that directs drivers to the service road
or whatever whatever you refer to it as that is within close proximity to the billboard. Um >> there there is >> there is okay >> and for argument sake there may be a few other signs in that
in the proximity to the site um that could arguably be in the driver's viewshed as they uh approach the site at least from probably in either direction east or west. So I guess when you do your safety analysis and you uh the was
it FHWA has their analysis of what and I think it's an average glance. Is that accurate? The 335 seconds. >> It would be average. >> So is one entitled to look at a billboard longer than 35 seconds? Well,
they used the maximum in their study of >> and they found that >> I it's an average 335 seconds. The point the.3 was average, but in their study of glances, the maximum was 1 second at any of the billboards.
>> The maximum for but that's for a single sign. One second, >> right? And and they they liken that there was a study done by the federal government. They called it the 100 car study where they took a 100 cars and looked at what it was originally
prompted to evaluate texting and looking off out of the front window. And so they they said that a a glance greater than two seconds distracted from the roadway is a traffic haz. So, so two seconds is
is the safety threshold >> to look down at a to look down at your phone >> to look away from the road. >> Looking away from the road, change the radio channel reading the map. >> Bear with me here.
>> Are you able to address the road classification question as far as service road, marginal road, highway? Well, the the highway is called an urban principle criteria.
>> So, there's the three-lane component and then there's this exit off of the highway. Do we do we know what this exit service road qualifies as? Is it >> in fact part of the highway? >> I would think that it's a service road
>> because if it was a ramp, you're not allowed to have driveways on the ramp. Okay. Have you looked at any accident data for this segment of the highway? >> Okay. >> As far as the the glance issue, um,
phrase this as a question. Are are billboards created differently to the extent that, and I I'm not delving into content, but as far as the messaging that some messages could be longer than others. Is that >> of course >> a fair assumption? So is it possible
that it might take longer to digest one sign of a certain length versus another >> just from a time perspective? Forget what it says. >> Well, what the study found is that if the if the copy was too much, they just
looked at it for.3 seconds and traveled on. Final question is, or are you aware of any billboard industry advertising information that indicates that they prefer you to look at their signs more
than.335 seconds? >> No, I'm not aware. >> Okay, that's all. Thank you. >> Uh, no questions. Um, yes. I have a question. Um, the DOT permit states that the location is 30 ft
west of Grand Ale whereas in that picture looks like it would be north of Grand. Well, sometimes they're not the best at getting east orientation of east and
west, but what if that was if that was incorrect and it wasn't 30 30 ft west of Frand Avenue, wouldn't that invalidate the DOT permit? >> Well, the plan is also submitted to the
DOT. If I could just jump in a little bit. I think part of the confusion. I'm just looking at Google, but Grand Avenue seems to be two routes. South Grand Avenue. Okay.
>> Makes it very confusing. >> But I thought we had a testimony before that that portion wasn't Grand Avenue. We just hope the the other road is Grand Avenue. That was in the testimony earlier today. That's what I'm saying. >> Well, >> so a location map is submitted as part
of the DOT application. >> But but even if it's like that, the one side it would be north, the other side it would be east. No. >> Right. >> Yeah. So to the right is east. So even
if we're talking about the other part of grand, wouldn't it be east, not west? >> And if the location on the again, my question is if the location is incorrect on the DOT permit, wouldn't that invalidate the DOT permit?
They allow if as long as you don't violate any of the other criterion if you as an example if if a board says we'll give you the approval you have to move it 10 ft in another direction you
resubmit to do and they'll reissue the permit. So you would have to resubmit this >> if it's if it's not accurately located in the DOT permit. >> I think we're going to need clarification on that.
So I I have the sorry I just interject. >> You could use the microphone. Sorry. >> And and board members too. >> Mic. Sure. The DOT permit uh stays 30 feet west of Grand Avenue. The DOT is not
considering the service road, Grand Avenue. Grand Avenue is your municipal record play. Um so our sign is located 30 feet west of Grand Avenue. That's that's north when you were testifying.
You showed us to the north. That's up top. That's north. So what you're pointing at now is west was north earlier on in your testimony, >> but Route 4 runs east and west. >> Right. So it's north of four, not west. >> That's how the DOT I I I understand
Grand Avenue and not Route 4. >> Grand Avenue is the municipal right. This is the service road of Route 4. The DOT is not recognizing anything with Right away brand out. >> This is a municipal road. >> This is where they're located 30 ft
west. This is the west direction of Route 4. This is west on the plan. West on the map. We are 30 ft west of the intersection of >> Where's the key there? >> I'm sorry.
>> Where's the key? The key that says northwest on the overall down the right hand corner which I'm sorry which you go with that. >> This is A6. A64 A5 I think is the other area.
They're both identical. A5 same thing. The north arrows is oriented in the same uh as the point. So it's 30 ft west of Grand Avenue as it intersects the state.
>> I mean, I'm seeing it differently. It looks like the red arrow goes north and it's north. >> They don't really get more specific than that. There is a diagram uh that they usually have as part of the permit. We can we can probably produce that for >> that's fine. As I said, we just wanted
more clarity on it. Sure. That's all. >> No, I defense. >> Yeah, I question. But I guess one of the things that
when there are people think that I think it's a little different. I mean, I'm sure everybody in the spring has learned to filter out signs and highlight >> unfortunately for the client.
>> Exactly. But it doesn't even So, you know, everybody learns to not see, right? It's a different trigger when you see bodies moving around. Okay, you're going to look at that. You're going to look at that kind of at
the worst possible moment where the other Grand Avenue comes down and hits the Grand Avenue there, but that will not be the right and people coming off the highway and
down the Grand P. you need to see that person or persons uh doing maintenance and or change inside. Um I I think that's a very different
position than I'm driving down highway accelerating. I guess they start to hear your your >> well I don't know if any studies have been done as to you know what happened what kind of glances are complicated by
changing the copy the uh but if this board was inclined to approve it I imagine that they could limit the time a day for the copy to change if That's one of the concerns. I've
never heard of that concern. >> But one way to address that is to say when traffic volumes are less, say the middle of the day, we could find a window somebody making change. >> I'm not sure,
>> but it's a fact of life. you know, they change the copy. Some, you know, some places it's more than a month. So, we're talking about a half hour, an hour during month or a small percentage. >> So, you know, the criteria for state
position is based on that position. we know or at least I'm I'm reasonably convinced >> especially again critical area speed well there there's a concept of
traffic engine so what you do is you focus on the the driver focuses on the critical aspects like the car in front of them and then they branch and then lower lower classifications of distraction
a tree on the side of the road that would be much lower in the hierarchy. So you focus on when traffic lines get high they are on the floor you focus on have a tendency to focus on the activity
in front of them and then load shed other aspects of trying to pass I'm sure again the static signs that I expected myself to do that
something people climbing around 50 ft. That's not what I'm expecting. It just I have to confess though not too many on the service who know what
you do know and a lot of people. I think the situation is a little more has a little more potential problem than 60 miles hour.
>> Well, and the other thing is the closer you get to the sun, you get how viewing angle the viewing angle that this study determined was 40°.
And it was about 40 or 50°. It was 40 40° laterally and about 40 or 50° horizontally. So when as you get closer to the sun, you uh you don't you don't look up. You see the sun, you don't see
the sun because it transpl, you know, the lateral condition. I didn't I didn't look at it horizontal. All right. Thank you. >> So, big concern that I have is is along
with Mr. Craig, but coming off, you're coming off a highway. You've got Grand Avenue coming from your right. You've got now a new sign that you probably didn't see because you're getting off the highway. So, you're not doing 50 miles an hour. You're doing
25 to 30, 40 miles an hour. And then you also have a bus stop directly past the sign. Um when you look at who there's I don't know that's the jity spot. Um and you get a lot of traffic coming off that high. You get a lot of people on Grand
Avenue especially 5 six o'clock at night especially this time of year. You know the liquor store starts getting a little busier. I'm concerned of someone coming off the highway, having Grand Avenue, slowing down, having a bus stop in front of them, and having a bill in their
face. Well, the one point is that if you go from 15 to 25, you double the availability of this. No longer 70, no longer 10 seconds, you're new for 20 seconds. And then the other thing is
that the lateral the the horizontal viewing of the angle. You can't you can't see it until when you get closer to it because it's high.
That's one of the advantage of making it higher that you can't see it as getting closer to it. But um but the bottom line is DOT looks at there's an overhead sign on Route 4 that's in the pictures. The
DOT looks at that. They won't let a sign they won't let a billboard impede on the visibility of an overhead sign on the highway and they look at the other regulation signs that they control
for ingress and egress to the highway and it conflicts with with the safety of the operation of the ramp. They won't approve it. >> I don't see you having an issue seeing that state that sign. I don't think you
have an issue seeing the exit sign or anything, but again, you you've got a lot going on there. And I said 25 to 30, but I don't think any of us are really doing 25 to 30 coming off that highway unless there's traffic. Um, you know, you're still coming off at speed. You're coming through there and now you've got
multiple distractions. Um, and and to go back to Mr. Baron's line of questioning with the what could be seven signs in a half a mile. You could be seeing seven seven signs in a half a mile. Now, I'm not going to go with the average. I'm going to go with the worst case scenario, the person that
looks at it for a second. So, they're spending seven seconds out of that 30 whatever looking at a sign and they're also looking at their phone. They're looking at the GPS on their dashboard. They're looking at all the other screens. Um, you said that that
distraction thing was done in 2012. >> It was the report was originally written in 200 >> 2012ish 2011 12. >> So yeah, that's the order. But what happened is it was peer reviewed. So
they didn't release it until like >> that's fine. Where where I'm going with it is my car in 2012 didn't have a screen in it. Now it's got a big old screen in it. So it's another distraction I think that we're >> But basically basically what the study
is made a little simplistic. If you're looking out the front windshield, you're you're within the viewing angle of the sun. They looked at you don't turn your head and look out the side window at the sun. this the angle of viewing is basically
the front windshield of this of the car and I don't think that the GPS of some of the other aspects would change that concept. It changes the distractions we have and and
you know we we've got a lot of problems with people being distracted and now we're adding a humongous distraction 60 by4 at a spot where you're getting off the highway where you have another street coming in where you have a very popular
you know liquor store CVS you know type establishment and a bus stop all in a very small period of time after you've seen six signs in a half a mile. So, I just think it could create, you know, and I'm just
looking at the at the getting off the highway, let alone people that are still doing 50 to 60 miles an hour on the highway. So, I'm concerned that it's going to cause and again, I get you're saying you're getting closer, you're not looking at it, but if I'm getting off and that's my first chance to see it, I
could be looking up and making concern with with having more accidents on that service road and I'm out of >> Well, I I've done some studies before and after a billboard placement and I found that the accident rate doesn't change,
>> but I think this is still a unique originally to a union in center island. I did three years before 3 years after my place of the existing billboard it showed no change. I'm still concerned.
So um you know again with with new distractions with people less looking less in front of them than they are um you know paying attention. >> I I hear what you're saying but statistics and the reports that have
been issued don't don't bear that out. >> Um I don't think I had another question. >> Thank you. Um, what consideration, if any, have been given to the effect of
shadows created by the sign on traffic safety in that particular area? >> I don't think there >> I have a few questions for you if Sure. So, I'm going to look at your exhibit A.
>> Yes. Did your report take into account the approach from Johnson Avenue coming onto eastbound 4? Any impact of that location? Johnson on the south side of four.
So is there any impact on traffic trying to navigate onto the service road then? >> No, because it's beyond the view of the sun. >> Did your report take into account the eastbound flow of Grand Avenue over by
the total wine building? You familiar with that location? That is also beyond. No, it's not the I have your number six. >> Well, no. I'm looking at the Grand Avenue. The Grand Avenue is is a two-way
traffic flow by but one where Bog and Main Street come together. >> Yes. It's it's if you look number one is is it's is above number one but the general location. >> So it's above right above the number.
>> I was looking at the other Grand Avenue. >> So you have Grand Avenue there. So Grand Avenue is two way there. >> Grand Avenue meets Main Street. >> Correct. And traffic blow is obligated to make a left turn on Main Street. So did your study take into account the
impact of that location because you've got repeating traffic flow from main street coming off of four service road that's that's probably beyond the limit of viewing of the sun. Picture number one is the limit how close once you get
closer to the sign from number one it falls out of visibility falls out of the angle of visibility even though even though you're at a different angle but you're not that group one you're you're label number one is actually four right point I'm talking
about the grand Adams I don't think it again is beyond the when you're when you're going from down your main lift on the main street. >> You're not going to be distracted by the sun because number one, the sign is 60
ft high or you know 48 50 sorry 48 ft high. The bottom 60 approximately it's beyond the visibility of of motorists. And with respect to I'm going to shift
those back over to route four westbound. So did your study take into account the acceleration and deceleration aspects or the exit point for Grand Avenue there where where Hack Avenue access on four
west. So this would be from the east of your lab number nine. Does your study take into account the complete traffic flow >> between traffic trying to exit and traffic trying to enter the roadway
beyond location number nine I guess east of nine you can't see the sun >> well hold on so east of nine you have traffic coming on from a sac coming out
of the riverside wall that's trying to get out of westbound Route 4. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Okay. So, that's an acceleration lane. Then you have traffic traveling westbound on Route 4 trying to exit at Grand Avenue. They're decelerating. Did your study take into account the
that conflict in this in the traffic in the safety of that area. People be distracted by the building. >> No, because it falls out of visibility. >> How does it fall in visibility? visibility is 40 degrees
change there. >> Well, and also the height the height it falls out of visibility the height. Okay. And it's your your testimony that that that the billboard
sign does not conflict with the roadway signage at number six. >> Correct. And the DOT has confirmed that. Okay. Like as you go to the to the east
of number one, there's overhead sign. If if this billboard conflicted with that sign, they wouldn't approve it. Okay. And is is your your findings at that point just the basis of DMT's determination or did you come to that
finding on your own analysis? Well, I I I agree with it to the injectors of Sorrow. We'll start with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening,
Mr. Good evening. Few questions for you. >> Okay. The US DOT report may reference in your report. Um, I think you provided a executive summary of that report that's stated uh 2015 September 2012. 12. Okay. Has there been
any um amendment to that report since 2012? It's over 10 years old. Well, as I said, this report, it was written in 2012, but it was peer reviewed. It took like three or four years to be peer reviewed. So it was released in it was
released about four or five years ago. I'm not aware of any updated studies. still a big change. >> Are there any other studies out there that that talk about the designing aspect? >> This is the this took into account there
were there were many studies done like Virginia Tech did some studies. the uh then there was an anti- billboard that did some studies and this report considers all those previous studies and critiques them and gives them credit
where they make where they do agree with and they u then they issued this and then they opened it for peer review. So it took three, four, five years of peer review before they finally released this study, although it had a 2012
date. Okay. Are there any peer reviews out there that are critical of the findings of this report? >> Yes. Not every anti-bill people still still think that billboards are unsafe.
>> Did the US do report uh that you referenced and it's all relevant because you used a.33 second. >> Well, that's what they that's what they found in their study >> and that was part of your testimony, right? Yes. >> Just room for the safe because that 11
12 seconds I think you said versus the 133. >> No, you have you're available for 11 to 12 seconds, but it's 33, right? So the the US DOT report considered
the criteria or variables such as intensity of the billboard. >> Yes. >> Billboard size. >> Yes. >> Billboard proximity you're traveling. >> Yes. >> Length of the message?
>> No. >> Complexity of the message? >> No. Size and fine of the message carriers. >> No. >> Proximity to the um traffic control devices. >> Yes. >> Proximity to roadway geographic
geometric design features. >> Yes. >> Proximity to other billboards. >> Yes. >> Complexity of the environment in which the billboard is located. >> Yes. >> Traffic and speed.
Well, they they broke it down into arterial and freeways. So, but they didn't differentiate the space like New Jersey B does >> and traffic density. >> Yes, they looked at level of service.
>> So, you answered some to the criteria, some no to the criteria. So, how does that relate? The study was done on pilots in Virginia, I think you mentioned. No, it it was done in Reading, Pennsylvania and
Richmond, Virginia. >> So, how do those highways relate to Route 4? Well, the studies were done to evaluate they mounted it in cars to evaluate the glance
time and then they use that glance timing to you know as the basis of their study. >> Right? But we went through a number of criterias and variables and they answered that the study did not take into account some of them. Some of them
are relevant to the subject area that we're talking about 33 >> because they gave a range and they accept. There's nobody that's going to tell you before you can put once to approve a billboard you can put on that
billboard. Okay. you uh you worked with the report that was submitted date of June 5th, 2025. >> Yes. >> Like to point to
page four. The last sentence on page four. The goal of the placement of both sides is to provide a safe time for optimiz optimum visibility to maximize time that the driver will be able to view the billboard.
So based on that statement, that was the entire goal of your study was to maximize the visibility and the time someone can look at the billboard and not take into consideration any other factors.
No, I think I stated in my direct testimony that if you place a billboard where there's not adequate time to see it, that that it creates a ch safety hazard. Well, I'm reading your report and you say what you state a single goal of your
report for the benefit of the billboard to maximize the visibility and the time trial will look at. Is that what that last sentence says? Yes. You may have been worded. >> No. No. No. I answer your question. Is
that what it says? >> Yes. >> Is there any other any other goals in your study in your report? You know, master plan lists bunch of
goals and objectives. 1 2 3 5 6 7 10. This analysis was to evaluate whether the placement of the sign was safe in performance with the accepted engineering criteria. >> But that's not what your report says.
It says the goal was for the benefit of the billboard maximize visibility and optimum. If I may correct, if I may correct the the wording, it's to evaluate whether there's optimum
visibility and to maximize the sign visibility to create a safe environment. >> You didn't correct the fact you didn't correct your your report on direct, did you? >> I think I did. I think I talked about the availability
of the availability of visibility of the sun as to whether placement is in conformance with the federal highway. I have no further questions. So there tableified
you testified the assignment in the chapter report. Correct. >> Yes. Can you identify that your own report? >> That's mine. The one that's pulled up online. I do not see the one that was submitted just I think the one that's online
actually. >> Yeah. Um uh you said point I need you what 33 5 seconds per side correct >> that's the average glance. >> Y does the presence presence of multiple
signs impact that time? >> No. >> Okay. So the presence of two signs did not does not or three signs does not add to that. Correct. It's not additive or multiplicative. Correct.
Does the 335 second glance time also apply to drivers and parking lots? Yeah. Well, if you have if you have a billboard in the parking lot, it's visible, but it was done for the sons.
So, what is your answer there? I don't know. Okay. Uh, is the risk of distraction greater in parking lots on the road or highways? I would think that highway is more the higher distraction level.
So the sign will not interfere with operations traffic in nearby commercial. Correct. Not with individuals backing out. If they glance for.3 35 seconds, well, if they're only going
five, if they're going 5 miles hour, you know, that's you have a lot of time to view the car backing out of the parking, but there's some more cars in the parking lot than it would be much dense. Correct. No, not necessarily.
If the sign is lit at night, is it more likely to are port sorry are drivers more likely to be distracted? >> No, the study in fact the study found that the glance time was was less at night.
Is that true? Sorry, let me rephrase that. You you mentioned height as a factor for reducing the glance of the visibility angle. Is that true at night as well? >> Yes. So at night that does not make them
more likely to look up at the billboard. Correct. So the US DOT report data is from 2020. Correct. Or before correct 2012 September. So the report data is from it. I ask
because you mentioned the peer the peer review but the peer review would not change the underlying data correctly. I don't know what happened. I can't tell you what happened um before 2012, but I do know that this
report was not released to the public until like 2020. It took four, five, six years to gather peer review, evaluate the peer review and decide whether it was legitimate or not because this was a a standard that
the Federal Highway Administration was coming to for their standards of the highway unification. But that would not impact the age of the underlying data. No, the glance angle is going to be the same whether you do it in 2010 or you do
it in 2020. Is that true? I mean, is there not more SUVs on the road more than ever? They did it in a cheap and SUV. How? So that angle was based on one vehicle.
No, it was it was based on the view of the angle of his son. Well, I asked you no key. >> No, in the report they show a picture of of the one of the cars that they used to
set up the uh I did. There it is because the your appro eyetracking system camera placement in a G. Okay. But would you agree there are more SUVs on the road
than there were currently than there were in 2012? >> I don't know. Would you agree there are less sedans on the road now than there were in 2012? >> Well, they use an SUV to do this do the tracking. >> Well, I'm asking about the average car.
I don't think it makes a difference. Not for the viewing height or the angle. A difference in the viewing height of of a couple feet being higher. I don't think it would affect the angle of the viewing either horizontally or
laterally. Okay. Can you read the uh final paragraph of the executive summary that you know page four What do you want me to read? Final
paragraph. It also be noted that like other studies in the available literatur, the study has the knowledge base on the issues examined. It does not present definitive answers to research questions investigated.
No further questions. Thank you. Second change. Any members of the public wishing to make comment. Okay. >> All right. No more questions or thank you. All right. We will call our final
witness on planner. Yes, I do. >> Could you please state your name for the record? >> John Mcdana. >> And can you please state your profession? >> A professional planner. >> And how long have you practiced planning? 40 years. Can you give us a
brief summary of your educational background? >> Sure. I'm a licensed professional planner of the state of New Jersey. My um education comes from Ruters and my license is current and a good standing. >> You know what your license number is? >> 5189.
>> Have you been qualified as a planning expert to appear and present testimony on behalf of your client for land use for in the city of New Jersey? >> Yes, I have. >> Have you ever been before this board before? Don't know. I don't know if I have. I've been most but I don't remember this one.
>> I offer Mr. McDon as an expert in planning and they accept his qualifications. >> Questions for the board to those qualifications being done. >> So we done. What was your scope of engagement with respect to this project?
So we were commissioned to conduct a standard planning analysis in connection with the application. Um basically three parts. Review existing proposed conditions or review the um relief that the applicant is seeking, the zoning considerations and then of course apply
the statutory criteria for the relief that the applicant is seeking. >> In undertaking this evening, what material did you consult to prepare for the NCA? Uh we went through your master plan documents, your get a sense of your underlying policy documents and of
course scrub your zoning ordinance as well. Uh we're here in your C2 zone and we wanted to see what this applicant could do with with this land and what's permitted in C2 zone. >> So be clear, you went through the master plan and the zoning to our >> Yes. That's fundamental to our analysis.
>> Now could you please describe the project as you understand it? >> Sure. So, this is a billboard application on a developed piece of property. It is um a single tax lot, lot 1405, lot number four. It's about 18,596
square ft. And it's developed with, as you're now familiar, that a multi-story office building and parking uh with some green space, which is where this monopole structure is going to be positioned. It is again levered structure. Um the permit is for a single
sign with a double face from the NJ DOT. That's the way the DOT classifies these at one sign, not two. Um and it's going to measure 14 by 48 for each of the panels, which is 672 square ft.
It is going to rise up to its highest point at 60 ft above the grade level or AGL again to provide that clearance over the building that it will can lever over. And have you physically inspected the property yourself? >> Yes.
>> And are you familiar with the surrounding area? >> Yes, I am. >> And I I believe you may have come to this, but what where is precisely the property? >> So, we are in the extreme southern portion of your property um along the
highest order roadway in your community. Our land use patterns follow our transportation patterns. uh we did not put the applicant did not put route four there. It's there and again this is a land use that that follows uh that that particular transformation
element and could you please identify the specific variance the applicant is seeking in connection with subution >> before I do I want to point out that in your community if you look beyond the subject site if you go north you're
essentially looking at an ocean of homes your master plan describes it as a residential community. You have 3,400 parcels here in your community and 95 96% of them um are residential. So
locating this land use on a non-residential parcel in your community has limited location and this goes towards site suitability. locating along a arterial roadway or a main roadway in a non-residential area
is what this land use this establishment does. >> And now what is what variances is the applicant? >> So we've got two D1 variances that were that were noted here. The first is a use variance for billboards not permitted in
the in any zone district in the community. Again, this is what this business does is is uh construct billboards for uh for the public. Um there's no location where that this is permitted in the in the zone. So, of
course, the focus is um on what would most be appropriate from a state permitting standpoint, a non-residential zone. So, if we went to that other 95% of the community, we wouldn't even be here because we wouldn't get a permit. So,
we're we're located in those uh that small pocket of non-residential lots along the highway. Um likewise, we've got D1 relief for a number of principal uses on a single lot. Two is what's proposed. You've got the office component and
you've got the billboard component. Um one is what's allowed on a property. Um and there's no interference with either use um on this particular piece of property. There is a section in your ordinance which I was trying to interpret and get a handle on under
416-18 where if you assemble enough land, you could actually have two uses on on one property in the C2 zone, but this site does not have enough land area to accommodate that.
Uh you also have D6 height relief 60 ft where 35 is the maximum allowed. It's also inherent to the use for visibility and readability purposes. Um, again, that same 416-18 would allow buildings this tall, if I'm reading the regulations right, is 12
stories. Again, if you um aggregate the the assemblage of land there. Honestly, I couldn't find where that could happen, but that's what the regulations said. Those are the three Ds. And then you've got C relief for the lock coverage 95.5%
versus 80% which is a slight uptick over existing 95.4% is what exists. Again that's to achieve the pole structure um in that grass area relief on three sides. The front set back 10.78 where 30 is the minimum
that's required. This is not a building. It doesn't have any sides on the structure. It is elevated. um it fits within the context of the site in that grass pad. Um likewise, we have relief of the side setback at 10 feet where 15
would be the minimum that's required. Similar basis for relief as the front setback and then the rear setback at 17.86 where 20 ft would be the minimum that's required. No, in the far lines of your profession, applicant seeking variance
is required to demonstrate satisfaction on ML positive and negative criteria. Am I correct? >> That is correct. >> And what is meant by the positive criteria? >> Uh generally like any uh decision that we make in life, you look at the pros and the cons. Positive criteria is
essentially to look at the the public benefits uh the promotion of the public good that was come out of uh this application or out of any development application. Uh the way the statute reads is we look at the site suitability or that the site promotes the general
welfare because it is particularly suited for the use. >> And what constitute the negative criteria? >> So the negative criteria is the flip side of that. We typically look for absence of negative impacts. Um, and a conclusion that relief would be granted
without substantial impact to the public, without substantial detriment to the public, um, or without substantial impairment to the intent purpose of your your zone. >> But when seeking variant relief, what standards for D1?
>> Uh, for the D1, that's the highest order of proof. That's where we're looking at the again the site suitability aspect and the promotion of special reasons which would tie to our land use law purposes of zoning at the preamble to the statute. >> And then the C variances require
>> uh the C variances you've got two options there. One is what we call the C1 hardship which is the older standard uh where it's the applicant's burden to show that there's some hardship or practical difficulty related to the physical characteristic of the land, the
size, the shape, the topography or some other unusual feature that create creates a practical difficulty for an otherwise ordinary structure in the landscape. >> Now is that accurate also to state that special reasons are not defined in the MLO? I also want to just point out
there's also the C2 uh balancing criteria which we typically don't see where we go outside of New Jersey and testify somewhat unique to New Jersey where um we apply balancing again coming back to the pros and cons. You look at the benefits of the application as a
whole you outweigh them or you balance them to see if they outweigh substantially outweigh and those negative impacts. And would you is the term of special reasons u defined in the ML?
>> It's not defined in the ML per se. >> And generally how what are some examples of special >> well special reasons come out of the uh the Vichi case which is really the benchmark case for what you all are being asked to evaluate here D1 variance
and the there the court said special reasons can be found in those purposes of zoning. um NJSA40 col 55B-2 and there are about 18 purposes of zoning going from A down to I think
>> and based on the medichi decision how did how does that guide an applicant seeking new experience need >> well the the burden approved on an applicant again is to show that purpose A is advanced due to the promotion of the general welfare because this site is
particularly suitable for the use um the applicant can also also demonstrate that one or more other purposes of zoning are are advanced as well. >> Is it fair to say that generally under the New Jersey land use sheriff's principles each of the proposed zoning listed in ML section 2 may support an
application for being used variance? >> Yes, those are those purposes A through P that I just spoke about. Is it also accurate fair to say that Supreme Court has singled out the promotion of the general welfare welfare in the MLU section 2A as one of the most that
clearly identifies the meanings of a special reason? >> Yes. >> What is meant by the site suitability test when evaluating whether applicant is entitled to the variance? Well, that takes us back to what I was talking about about particular suitable where
particular suitability where the case law tells us to look at the physical characteristics of this property or a property and why it lends itself to a lease. >> Is there any other test or standard that an applicant seeking a commercial for-profit user must demonstrate?
>> Variance use can you say that again? Is there is there any other pass or standard that an applicant seeking a commercial forprofit use variance must demonstrate? >> I think you've hit the hit cases. >> Are you familiar with the decision in
Polio North Brunswick? >> Yes. >> Am I correct that based on the holding of that case typically a C variance is subsumed with the B variance request? >> Yes. Um I think the board you're faced with six variances here. You've got the
3D including the use variance. You've got three C's. U basically what that PO case said is you can really to help you is consider the application as as one package or one one bucket of relief here. In other words, you may find that
the use is appropriate, but the setback is not. But here in this instance, they're all really tied together that one goes with the other. Um we can certainly talk about that height there but I would also fold that into as inherent to the nature of these.
Now in accepting and undertaking this uh project please inform the board as to your finding reaching conclusions you'll make to evaluate whether the applicant satisfy the positive and negative criteria required. Well, in terms of the positives and special reasons, the use is a me what I
would consider a message board that promotes the general welfare as a form of communication. Our courts have made clear that this is a form of constitutional free speech. It's a way we talk to each other and communicate to each other. There's some case law out there known as the Bell versus Stafford
case, which talks about commercial or constitutional free speech. Uh I think it's self-evident that the use promotes uh business. It's an advertising tool. It's a way that businesses get the word out. Um these are companies that we work
for. These are companies that we work with. These are companies that we may invest our nest eggs in. Um the use also goes outside of business and may also promote institutional type uses which may be considered inherently beneficial uses. And usually when I say that people
say you're not promoting this as an inherently beneficial use, which I'm not. Uh but hospitals, churches, um schools, educational uses, um colleges and the like uh may be considered inherently beneficial uses and we see
their branding or their um use utilization of this as a tool as well uh to speak to the public. Uh the use can also provide public service announcements. Um that's typically more when we're dealing with digital display,
but that's certainly not preempted here as well. So in terms of special reasons, all of those purposes that I just gave you would certainly promote purpose A, the promotion of the general welfare. and promoting business which actually comes from the New Jersey outdoor
advertising regulations which recognizes the need to strike a balance here stimulate economic development and of course questions that you all have been asking um impacts on the public and the surrounding areas. So, it's a it's a
balancing as as all land use is. In addition to purpose A, we look at purpose G, the provision for a variety of uses in appropriate locations according to the needs of all New Jersey citizens. This goes back to site suitability. Highways there, the
applicant didn't put it there. The applicant has to under the state outdoor advertising permits be within a certain proximity of of the highway. And we think the applicant has has picked a a good location that has minimal impact on the surrounding properties. I know we'll
probably have questions about that as we go, but my conclusion in that regard is based on the orientation of the billboards. Um I think our neighboring land uses will see mostly the back of the board, not the advertisements. Um and those across the street will see
where I'll hold the nose of the sign. The panels face out towards the highway towards the motoring public and that's where it's intended to be. Um when we get there I can tell you what do says about your c your safety concerns which
are legitimate and good but I'll give you the words of dot when we get here. Um also site suitability on the positive side the site is particularly oh I gave you purpose A. I gave you purpose G. I think we can also throw in there through
Mr. Simoff's testimony, the promotion of the free flow of traffic that this will not create a negative traffic uh distraction here. That would be purpose I I'm sorry, purpose H, free flow of traffic. Um there's nothing about this location that is going to interfere with
circulation on site or circulation on the roadway as well. Again, using that traffic testimony as as a predicate for my testimony. And then lastly, we have a planning goal to use land efficiently. Purpose M under the land use law. Here
we have a site that's developed. We have a pocket on the site where we're confident that we can put this sign without interfering anything that's happening on the ground. We don't have to take down any trees. We don't have to clear cut a site. We're not eliminating a forest. Um so again, that's efficient
use of land. It's it's repurposing a portion of the site in I think a a minimal minimal way on the ground and um again not interfering with the use the flow the function of the site itself.
So purposes A, G, H and M are things that I think the board can find an excess with. And also in terms of uh site suitability on the positive side the site is particularly suited for the use by virtual its context. It's one of only a handful of lots that are actually
on the highway uh on the transportation artery. Uh and the site is particularly suited by virtue of its condition. This is an easy on-site retrofit. Again, we're not moving pieces around to make this work. And then perhaps most
importantly, uh these are strict rules by DP. These permits are not handed out willy-nilly. There are a lot of spatial controls here. That said, DOT has found that this particular location is what is defined in the regulations as a permitted
location um as defined by the rules and it has issued a permit in in that regard. Um just to cite some of the regulations again and this will go more towards the um the negative criteria. These come right out of the outdoor
advertising regulations in terms of restrictions. 16 colon 41 C-3.1. Um, subsection D, no outdoor advertising sign shall interfere with the ability of the operator of a motor vehicle to have
a clear and unobstructed view of streets or highway the head, approaching, merging, or intersecting traffic or official signals, signs, or traffic control devices. E. No outdoor advertising sign shall interfere with or contain advertisements
that resemble any official traffic sign, signal, or device. Uh G. No outdoor advertising sign shall be of a purpose, I'm sorry, of a type, size, or character, or placed at a location that will endanger or injure public safety,
comma, or health, comma, or pose a physical threat to property in the vicinity thereof. These are all the underlying rules that a the DOT has to consider in terms of issuing this permit. Uh
H, no outdoor advertising sign shall advertise any activities that are illegal under federal law. Um I, no outdoor advertising sign shall have any animated or moving parts or have reflected materials that may impair uh the vision of a motorist. uh the
components of a mechanical sign that's not here so um I won't go into that no outdoor this is um L no outdoor advertising sign shall be located on a scenic corridor or with any zone of a
scenic corridor 4 is not a scenic corridor that's all I can say garden state parkway is that's why you don't see uh built billboards there so there's no prohibition under L uh from from a dot standpoint. Um
that goes towards positive criteria site suitability. >> And then do you have any comments on the public impact? >> So the use is functionally inert. Uh suffice it to say we're here in the C2 zone. I know we have a neighbor that's concerned about impacts on on the
rooftop um and the privacy, the use, the enjoyment of that space. Uh there are a lot of things that could go here, including another office building with another rooftop right next door. So, um there are also about 21 or so uses that
could go in the C2 zone. You nest all of your C1 zoning allowances and and they're all the usual retail and commercial uses that are associated with a a commercial highway. So you would certainly get a lot more functional
activity um intensity of use than than a stationary sign on the site uh that does not promote any any traffic any does not generate any noise does not generate any waste doesn't need any water doesn't need any sewer. So it's sort of a
passive use in that regard. If it really comes down to anything it would be the visual impact and we'll we'll talk about that as well. Um, with respect to visual impact, as I said before, the back of the sign faces the neighboring property owners so we don't have the distraction
of of the content or the copy. Uh, the nose faces the properties on the opposite side of the street and then again aimed at the uh the motoring public where we have a pedestrian bridge um right there. I think somebody had a
good question about movement and I thought that was a good one. That's the first time we heard that in one of these hearings. But you do have movement going across the highway. You have sidewalks there. So people are inherent to the area and the movement of people as well. So I think that goes towards the
filtering that we all we all filter um these type of things. And I think there was a an agreement to put some sort of reasonable restriction on when men could be up there doing what they were doing in that video. and the applicant will agree
on change the uh messaging. >> Yes. Um you have good good predicate testimony about the lighting levels, the brightness. We hear that a lot about uh with these types of signs and I think the applicant has given you good
evidence in that regard uh to build a planning conclusion that this will not create a substantially adverse impact from an illumination standpoint. You've got the uh the good predicate testimony from a driver distraction standpoint,
the national studies, the US DOT, the Tempella study, the Virginia Tech study, and then of course um Mr. Simoff's um sight specific testimony as well. So based on all of that, I think the first prong of the negative criteria can be
met here and that the leave can be granted without substantial detriment to the public. There's a second prong to the negative criteria about whether the relief will cause substantial impairment to the intent of your zone plan. Um, that's
when we turn to the master plan. Um, I know I'm going to get get asked about that, but you do have goal number eight in your 2020 master plan re-examination report that recognizes the need to maintain diversity in non-residential
uses and in your non-residential zones. uh this does provide that and um again it's a use that belongs somewhere. We think the applicant has found a reasonable location in the context of the landscape. And if you look at your
town, um this road is at the very bottom of the town, the very southern portion of the town, a relatively short length. So our rapidly doesn't have a lot of other options than in this cluster of of lots here. I don't think there's really a a much better location along the
corridor. If we move um to the left, I think that would be to the east, but moving closer to residential uses that start to move into the highway. Likewise, if we start move in the other direction as well. So, here's an area where we do have a nice cluster or a
nice pocket of commercial uses. Um the use is less intense and less impactful than the many other uses that are permitted in the zone and it has significantly less mass than bulkier buildings that could be allowed here. Um, as far as the master plan goes, it
does we do have the encouragement of economic development, but this is a ratable. Um, it's a commerceoriented zone and this is a commerce oriented use. So, it does promote economic development. Uh, that goes towards the first D1.
Second D1. >> Okay. Second D1. Sort of a more simpler proof here. This is to have two uses on on one property. the the typical legislative intent is to avoid interference of one use
interfering with the other and I think it's been well established here that that legislative intent is met in that the sign will not interfere with safe flow or operation of site circulation and that the business is better there
>> right we got D6 at the at the 60 ft I think it's a good question why does it have to be so high you have a building that's there. Um, again, we're looking to maintain that n 9 ft of clearance o over that building. Um, when we whenever we deal with height
variance, we turn to a case known as the grao case, which really lays out the purposes of height control. Um, here on the positive side, all of those use benefits that I cited above would carry forth that the height is necessary to effectuate the use. The only case law
that I think really helps in that regard was a cell tower case where height was needed um in the New Brunswick cellular case talked about height being necessary to effectuate the use. That was a totally different form of communication here. But again, this form of
communication relies upon visibility and that's why the applicant is looking to have the sign higher. Somebody asked if there's a taller building in the community. The answer is I don't know. The zone does say, if I'm reading it correctly, that you have this graduated
scale of land masses and I see 12 stories in the C2 zone. This is the zone we're in. So again, we can talk about what that intent is, but it's there. Um, it's there in your zone. And um, so I do have to consider what is contemplated in
zone schema as as part of my planning analysis. That height also helps with proper clearance over vehicles, trucks, objects in the landscape, trees, power lines, and and the like. So, it just makes it um easier to see uh and get the message
out. >> I'm sorry, don't mean to interrupt you, but where does it say that we can have a 12-story building that I think I said four I think I saw 416-8. There is a section that under certain conditions for specific uses there's
there's a graduated scale of what's peritted. >> I I thought criteria >> want me to read it. >> Do you meet that criteria? >> Not on this slot. We don't. >> Okay. >> But the question I'm just >> that's my question. Thank you. >> I'm just trying to answer the your question about the height. That's all.
>> Something to look at for another um So in terms of the negative criteria, the purposes of uh height control on the Braso case, the added height will not block scenic views. Uh the added height will not create a population density
that exceeds the carrying capacity of the land. The added height will not give this site an unfair advantage, height advantage causing it to direct runoff onto adjacent lands. And in my view, the board can certainly give its own deference to this, but will not create
an obtrusive imposing uh structure um in the context of the landscape. So that's certainly a sub subjective analysis there. But those are the purposes of Graaso. I think this can also justify the D6 height relief that the applicant
is seeking. Um lastly, Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at my my time here with respect to the C relief. I'll just bundle them up under the flexible C balancing test where the benefits of the application as a whole would substantially outweigh the detriments. We've got a case there
called the pulling case p len. Um in terms of the positives, I'll just take all of those used positives. I'll I'll carry them down. The setback relief that uptick of impervious coverage is necessary to effectuate the benefits that I've given you. In terms of
detriments, I believe setback and coverage relief can be granted without any substantially adverse impacts. The pole is relatively slender compared to a building. Uh the sign panel is elevated so light air in terms of what would
normally experience. It is not a material impacted and as I said the setbacks do not interfere with sight circulation or any safe lines of sight. Now, have you had the opportunity to review the review correspondence
provided by the public experts? >> Yes. >> And do you agree with the zoning chart and proposed variance that they have also cited on their reports? >> Yes, I do. >> And have you identified any comments from the board staff that could not be addressed by the applicant the application need?
>> Not at this point. I think our our witnesses before me have handled those. Now in your professional opinion is the proposals use suitable for this location? >> Yes. >> In your professional opinion that the applicant satisfied burden of proof of the variance for less?
>> Yes. >> Do you have any opinion as to whether if the application is granted will it cause a substantial adverse impact upon traffic operation of the existing roadway network? >> Again relying upon expert uh
uncontroverted traffic testimony. Um I I I believe that this uh application can be granted without any substantially adverse traffic effects. >> And do you believe that it would have that the application is granted without any substantial detention
impairment to the purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance? >> Yes, for all the reasons that I stated above. >> You have anything else or >> No, I think this is a good use of land. I think this is a good fit on this particular site. land use of balancing
and I think there are positives here. There's certainly considerations of potential negative impacts. We always look for absence of of negative criteria. Um it doesn't have to be a complete zero. It just has to
can't be a substantially adverse impact. That's the >> I know we've had our stop time and I think >> you just got it in front of the wire. Well, right at the wire. >> Can I just ask for clarification real quick? Just going back to that ordinance that you cited for the 12 story for
opposition you're down just for the board's edification. Can you read the title of that ordinance? >> Yeah, I have it here. Let me get through it. I have it. Okay. So it's this is uh in your in article six supplemental use regulations
section 416-18 too fast just let me know. Uh it says Florida area ratios F and height limitations for office. >> How did that happen? >> Somebody just pulled the plug on my internet. Uh >> and hotel buildings and the state too
commercial. Would you agree on that? >> Yes. This is this is not an office building or hotel that we're talking about. Right. >> But but you the only reason I was bringing that up is somebody asked what's the tallest building in in >> Yeah, that was me. That was me. >> And and I'm just pointing out that you
have a zoning order because somebody else asked what could go on this what could go when you do a land use analysis. Do you consider what could go on? I think one of the interested parties was asking >> we're here to talk about your sign application. So, we're not talking about hotels and office buildings and
certainly this doesn't even have the size requirements and you brought it up. So, I just want to kind of like take it out of the equation because this doesn't really apply to this particular application. Correct. >> I'm not taking it out of the equation. My plan >> you're saying this applies.
>> I give it you can take it out if you want. >> Not that he did he didn't testify that that ordinance applies to this. I'm asking I'm asking this. That's my question to him and he just said yes or he just said he's not taking it out of the equation.
>> You have a an allowance in your C2 zone district that allows for 12tory buildings. That's all I'm saying. It's a fact. >> What's the lot size? >> This is 18,000 square feet. >> Okay. So for the hotel or it's 60,000,
right? >> Yes. Thanks, John. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Um I I think what we need to do now is pick another time check who's controlling this.
>> The next meeting is January 14th. Well, we're good. is you have the agenda. >> There aren't any other applications pending at the moment. The one after it's two weeks after that is the next meeting January
>> there general availability for January 14 >> 28. Yeah. >> Check. I think leave me here. >> January 14. Thank you everyone for your indulgence this evening.
January 14th 7:30 p.m. newspaper. This is your notice. does the applicant consent to time between now and that date. >> We got a motion and a second.
>> There's a motion from Mr. Kaslin and a second for Mr. Cray to adjourn and everyone agreed. Okay. Yeah, it's a