All right, I think we are ready whenever you are. >> All right. Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. That was the Wednesday, January 28th meeting of the municipal landbridge. This meeting of the municipal land use board of river is being held in person
in compliance with provisions of the open public meetings act and associated regulations. Notice of the cyber meeting was published in the jury's record posted at B Hall and posted on the bureau's website. The notice includes the dialing information necessary for
publication and access of this meeting made available under website included login during the public comment period. If you would like to make a public comment, you may step up to the microphone and wait to be recognized by
the chairperson. Press the raised 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
problem. Two items on the agenda. Um, >> I I'll take the roll call. I'm sorry. >> The mayor is excused. Mr. Castlin, the chairman, is excused. Mr. Craig >> here. >> Miss Boland is absent at the moment. Mr.
Gibbons >> here. >> Mr. Kigo >> here. >> Mr. Salva >> here. >> Mr. Goier >> here. >> Okay. Uh, Councilman Glass is excused. And Miss Lavine >> here.
>> All right. Also present our uh special counsel Mr. Leeman, our zoning officer appearing via Zoom, Mr. Deppkin, our board planner, Mr. Barren, and our board engineer, Mr. Costa. referring to minutes meeting
All right. And this can be a voice vote. So all in >> favor I think the next item we will have to swear in the glass. You want to
special Mr. The motion was who was the motion? Okay. And these can just be voice votes. >> Yman, thank you for Thank you very much. [clears throat] Okay. All in favor
consideration. Go ahead. >> Attorney Brown is the official name now. Yes. move. >> Second. >> Thank you very much. Looking forward to another year. And just a reminder to speak into the microphone and have your
microphones turned on green. We're having difficulty hearing the recording. Okay. You just press the little button at the bottom. Of course. Now open door.
I believe that. Do you expect to have any other testimony? >> Yeah, we'll kick that. >> Thank you. Mr. Mcdana, a reminder, I'm Robert from the law of students and easy appearing on behalf of the African services. As the chairman described in
December 10th, we finished the testimony of the three witnesses because of the time restraint the last meeting. >> I didn't get not one motion. >> He does not. That's okay.
We can cross that after the objectives. >> Not right now. Okay. >> Thank you. >> We do have some questions. So, just a question of order of operations. If
you'd prefer me ask I can certainly cover my suggestion question. Yes, that's correct. >> And you have to come up to the microphone.
>> Is this just a statement like a public comment or is this questions of the witness? >> This is just going to be a statement behalf of the objectors. Mr. Kel's been here several years. He's been trying to make his statement. We'll take this a
little bit out of order, but we'll give him an opportunity to put his follow on the record. [clears throat] >> I appreciate that. Thank you, council. [clears throat] >> And if you just check that that microphone is on or use the other one.
>> You have to speak pretty pretty close to the microphone. Sorry. speaking loud. >> So, my name is Christopher Pinsel. I'm partner of car and we are council for Grand Associates. I'm
going to be reading a statement on behalf of my partner Bob Park who is a member uh of the Grand Associates LLC. And I'll be reading it in his voice.
I am Robert Par. I am a partner in Grand Associates LLC, the owner of 70 Grand Avenue. I am also the co-founder of Papar Abramson PC which has occupied the 35,000 square foot second floor of 70 Grand Avenue since the building was open
more than 40 years ago. Over all that time we have been respon a responsible member of the River community. Uh we have paid our taxes and we care about our neighbor in that regard. I wish to confirm that we support the position in
opposition expressed by the adjacent land owner Dark Star Development. I address you this evening in opposition to the application of the land owner at 41 Grand Avenue bearing permit the construction of a highway billboard on
its property. Our building is directly across from the location for Roseville and will be significantly impacted by it. First, I wish to observe that although I live in another town in Birmingham, I've spent most of my waking
hours at 70 grand out of it and therefore appreciated the beautiful town that River Edge is. There is a quiet residential tone of River Edge that is perceptible even in these commercial areas. A 60 foot high two-sided 14t by
48t billboard is not at all consistent with the tone of Burger Edge. If you look at the placement of similarly sized billboards along Route 4 to the east end of and the west, you will note that they are either in
a strictly commercial space or in an open space. None of them are stuck into an office building uh parks such as the area between Route 4, Grandad Main Street and Ken Kimac Road. Simply this billboard does not
belong where it is proposed to be erected. In its application, the applicant indicates the billboard will quote benefit the public close quote by serving as a quote message board close quote to communicate news about events and
news of River public service announce. This is not correct. The applicant has assured the town that this billboard will be static as contrasted with electronic billboards where the message can easily be changed by the minute. The
message on this billboard will be a commercial message on behalf of a product or service provider and likely not changed that frequently. Furthermore, even if this billboard had the ability to show community messages, the only way a River Edge resident would
see the message as if they were driving on Route 4. With the overwhelming majority of River Edge residents living north of Route 4, the suggestion that this billboard uh as serving a community interest facility. My principal concern
about this billboard is the adverse economic impact it will have on our building, 70 Grand Avenue. Carson just occupied the top floor, but the 35,000 foot first floor is occupied by other un unrelated pets. I don't know
if you realize the challenges of being in Nort of an office building in Bergen County, DC. Over the 40 years of owning, maintaining, and investing millions in improvements to our building, rents have remained virtually static.
The rents we charge we can charge today are only 20% higher than the rents we could charge 40 years ago. Way behind inflation and certainly behind the increases we must pay virtually everything we need to purchase to keep this building running as a class A
office build. With the shift of many businesses to remote working and other workplace changes, the rental market is extremely competitive as demand is low. Just look at the vacancy signs outside a commercial office building in town.
Anything that reduces interest to rent in our space is detrimental. The westernfacing wing of our building on both floors will be facing this proposed building. Please refer the photos in in the Costa engineering report are page
27. Our rental agent has been clear that we will find it more difficult to rent those spaces facing the billboard as many tenants will be [clears throat] uh quote turned off by the vehicle. By contrast, tenants of 41 grand will not
have to uh deal with the views of the builder because it's on top of them, not facing their windows. I respectfully ask you ask you please consider the inequity of that situation. I also respectfully
point your attention to the size of the proposed installation. Each of the two billboards is 14x 48 ft which is 672 square ft. Two billboards are hinged at the end and spread open at the other end to
facilitate appropriate angle viewing from either direction on route 4. At the end where they are spread over the distance between the two build elements is stated on the application be 20 ft plus the dimension of the steel of the steel walkway. The square footage of
that triangle is 480 square ft and the volume is 6,220 cubic feet. Of course, this sign will be lit for viewing, which during the winter months means this billboard will be lit in the late afternoon when tenants are
in the offices facing this billboard. Billboard will be a significant structure set at a set at a height that is higher than adding another floor to the building at 41 Grand Avenue. Finally, I asked the board I asked the board to please consider what it would
do if presented with an identical application for an identical billboard 14x 48 and 60 ft high adjacent to the hypothetical office building across from the burough municipal building. Even without the economic issues I
rated, I doubt you would approve it. I ask you to do the same in this case. Thank you for the opportunity to present me today. I think that does work.
You could pull up a chair. >> Good evening. Uh chairman, members of the board, councelor, madam secretary Charles Sorlo on behalf of Development LLC, which is the property owner of block 1405 block 3. um as well as Let It Grow was the primary proposed tenant for
that particular bill. [clears throat] Common address is 335 Johnson Avenue. >> Uh good evening. >> Good evening. Good to see you. >> Okay. So, you concluded your uh direct
examination in this case, which is the subject matter, the billboard. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. And during your testimony, which I I have unofficial transcript of your testimony with me um since it was a few months ago, but during uh during your
testimony uh you you testified that you reviewed the town's zoning ordinance and the master plan. >> I did. Yes. >> As well as you reviewed the um the application itself and the plans. I think uh your testimony was that based
on the review of the zoning plan, master plan, the application and the plans that there were two use variances that were required. One use variance being that um no billboards were permitted in any district and the second use variance
because there are two principal uses on the same site. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, and I think I if if we need to refer to it, I have a I'd have a print out of the the section of the zone. So, [snorts]
section 416-25 of the >> Is that microphone still on? >> It's on now. Okay. >> Just repeat your questions. Yeah. Um so
just just to repeat [clears throat] and make sure it's on the record. Um you concluded based on your review of the matter of zoning plan to plan that there were two use variances one a billboards not being permitted in a district in town and second use variance being for two principal uses on
the same site. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, and in your review of the zoning ordinance, I'd like to call your attention if you if you let's see have your computers probably bringing up from online section
416-45 of the zoning code. >> Yes. Have it open yet? Okay. And that talks about uh locations of signs being prohibited.
And in the books it it states that the following types of locations are prohibited except that otherwise provided. It says no signs. Do you agree that for Billboard is a sign? >> Yes. >> Okay. So it says no signs
um item B projected to a required yard or beyond the lot street line except as permitted in section uh 460-56. You can look that up. event still in the churches and houses of worship and um schools and things like that.
So you agree that prohibited means it's not permitted. >> Correct. >> And you agree that this 416-45 is a standalone provision unrelated to the section where billboards are
prohibited townwide. >> Yes. >> Okay. So does this billboard project into any required yarn? >> Yes, the applicant has yes for setback relief. >> So that's prohibited. So wouldn't you
agree that's a use? >> It I believe it it's all interrelated to the D1 that the applicant has sought here. So this certainly >> that's how that's not the question. you you in your direct testimony you
called out and delineated two separate D1 variances. You didn't say all the D1 variant. Maybe in your testimony you moved up all the all your expert testimony in support of the two D1 variances, but you did not say that. Now
we have a bunch of D variances in the RO group together, right? You made two distinct D1 variances that we just correct. >> Correct. So my question is the prohibition under this section of a
signed billboard in a required yard. Would you agree that that's a use required? >> I I think that falls within the umbrella of a blanket prohibition of the use all together anywhere in a community, not just in a yard, but within a building
envelope as well. There's there's an overlap here between this section of the ordinance and the overriding prohibition against clogboard on any patch of ground anywhere in the community. These are more specific locations that it's that signs are prohibited.
>> So your your testimony is that these are subsumed into the townwide privilege. >> Yes. >> So but this we're talking about signs. We're not talking about billboards here. So, you're saying that if this is swept up in the under overall prohibition that
a sign for a business uh that is, you know, on particular piece of property advertising that business would get sucked up under the work prohibition. Well, you're you're uh reading or
referring to section 416-45 which talks which talks about locations prohibited. Right above that 416-44 it says prohibited signs billboards. So I think the two t the two closely tie
together. And this this next section 416445 may uh actually be referring to accessory signs more specifically because the blanket prohibition is covered in 41644 right above that.
Then why is it why isn't it listed in a >> uh under why is it listed in a under 45 or 44? >> Under under 44 it says under 44 prohibited sign signs and lighting. The following types of signs for artificial
lighting are prohibited and it's A1 is billboards. Yes, that's a very that's a very distinct definitive statement. >> Yes. >> And then it goes on and it's everything that's prohibited is a one through
10, I believe it is. >> Yes. >> And that's the types of signs and locations that's prohibited. Is that correct? >> Yes. and but B is focused I'm sorry 4 section 416-45 is
is specific as to locations well again I I think the greater location is covered in the in the townwide prohibition um under 44A I there is certainly an overlap there
but I think the greater umbrella is the is the communitywide prohibition which again I think overrides supersedes the need for the the double relief. It one covers the other. >> So if this was this a hypothetical,
if this pro townwide prohibition was challenged on constitutionally basis and the court decided to throw the townwide prohibition out, you're saying the town should also throw out the location provision.
>> We're going to object to it, but we can answer. Um the applicant is asking relief for setbacks front side and rear. Um
so if 44 were thrown out, could the community still enforce 45? I I don't know that answer. I I'd have to I'd have to chew on that a little bit. >> Yes, sir. Um, and then same line of questions and we don't have to put the labor just to put on the record. 416-45
item C says signs a billboard being signed um cannot be it cannot extend above the roof of any building. And would you agree that this billboard extends above the roof of
u one of the the principal building? It it certainly is higher than the roof and it extends above. I don't know if that means affixed to uh the rooftop if or if that's implied, but yes, that that could apply as well.
>> Well, you you raised some doubt there. I want I don't want there to be any doubt on the record. You raise some doubt. You didn't open any kind of supported by le 416ish 45C. It says
signs be placed, inscribed or supported upon the roof, which that's probably not the case either, right? Or upon any structure which extends above the roof of any building. So they make a distinct this provision makes this distinction um or actually categorizes both. It could
either be if it's supported by the roof, it's pro prohibited or if it extends over the roof line, it's prohibited. Do you agree? >> Again, I'd like to chew on that one a little more. But I I have to dive in for the language a little bit more. I've actually seen signs with his foot
actually go through the building and or above the roof. So I don't know how I don't know how that would be interpreted. I'd have to think about that one. >> Okay. But you also believe that I don't words your mouth. You ought to believe
that this um prohibition of signs over the roof line would be swept up into the general overall provision of the prohibition panel. >> Yes, I think that the town covers pretty much covers everything.
>> So if I had if I had a if I had a sign that extends over the roof, again it's a door. If I had a sign, it's not hypothetical. If I had a sign that extensions a setback or
a over the roof, what type of guidance I need? >> So, if I had an accessory sign for a business that was a flag that can't delivered over the roof, and let's say it's a one-story building. I'm read I'm reading the words which I'm
sure were carefully chosen. [clears throat] I I don't know that the language is there that would prohibit a a flag sign over a rooftop. To me the words be placed supported by the roof or any structure is a prohibition against being
attached to the roof. It could be interpreted otherwise but um I don't think it's clearcut one way or the other. Okay. So you're familiar with the price case supreme court price case I imagine.
Yeah. And there's a number of cases starting with but the press case may be the most recent but that the standard here what we're talking about is the promotion of general welfare because the site is particularly suited. Is that correct? >> Yes.
And for the particularly suited aspect, the testimony was that this was a particularly suitable site based on the
location in proximity. We want to show if it's actually front route route four not close proximity to route four visible from route four in relationship to uh other properties in in river edge. Is that a fair summary of your testimony? Yeah. My understanding of
this price versus kamichi case is that the board and me uh should consider the physical characteristic of the land and and the context in terms of it suitability to accommodate physical characteristics.
the physical characteristics also unique characteristics right I'm sorry the unique characteristics of of this particular site >> I don't know that particular suitability in fact Cox talks about it in his book that to be particularly suitable it does
not have to be unique or the only site but it it has to have attributes and again this is my interpretation of price versus physical attributes that accommodate the use that are suitable for the use >> okay and actually talks um does fall
down the uniquely the unique characteristics of the site. That's right. Actually it talks probably a question of law or interpretation but my understanding of site suitability was it did not have to be the only site that was available or or had attributes that
were the only site in count. >> [clears throat] >> So again you're you're talking about this site and I know I know your testimony this site as it relates to other sites but we're also have to focus on this site in itself whether the site itself is particularly suited for the
proposed use. >> Yes. >> So and I I'm assuming you're your your obviously your um opinion was it is >> yes I I said by virtue of context and condition. Okay. I could elaborate if you needed. So we just talked about
prohibit two prohibitions outright prohibitions about signs encroaching on a into a a yard setback and being over a roof to express prohibitions by the town's
boat. And you're saying the site is particularly suited notwithstanding it violates two express prohibitions. >> It's lens is all about the balancing. >> No, that's not no not that's C that's
the C variances. We're talking about the use variance. We're talking about particularly suitability. We're not talking about balancing yet. >> Um I'm talking about site suitability based on the fact that you have a community that has one main road in this
in the southern portion. This is a land use that follows our road patterns. The applicant didn't put the road there. road was there. This is a land use that that naturally follows. It's that goes towards the context. We we we start there. Then we look at a pocket of
commercial or non-residential uses, which this is compared to the rest of Route 4, which is more residential uses. It's only about a half a mile here in the community. So, there are very limited options. I think the applicant has has looked at a site that has
suitable characteristics, particularly suitable characteristics based on that context notwithstanding the fact that there is a violation of uh prohibition against certain height and locations on site. In my view, that's looking at the the
whole application and then of course in terms of suitable by virtue of its condition that this can retrofit on the property without having to move or alter anything else. Okay. [clears throat] So um
from Price Price makes a statement price makes a statement that says it it's an inquiry into whether the property is particularly suited for the proposed purpose
in the sense that it's especially well suited for the use in spite of the fact that it's not permitted. So this that statement in in price is not talking about the one factor that you're talking about about the different properties along group four and this one in your
opinion is the only one that's suitable for it. But that statement was talking about the site. Do you agree with that? >> I'm sorry I didn't I didn't follow the question. >> Okay. Well, this this is a this is a a
statement from in the press case. >> Yeah. It may it says um fact specific and sight sensitive inquiry. It's an inquiry into whether the property is particularly suited for the proposed purpose in the sense that it's
especially well suited for the use in in spite of the fact that it's not permitted in its own. So do you agree that price is saying we have to look at site specifics? We just want to object. You're asking for his interpretation of
the law, but he can answer. >> I'm sorry. That was actually direct book. It's not my interpretation. >> You're asking for his interpretation of the case. >> No, I'm asking for it. Does he agree that that's a stand that's a standard just remind
objection to object to passing for legal legal belongs to judge judges don't like to hear from lawyers to the judge in this instance you offer the judge so Sure does experience all counsel
for the experience. So we'll take whatever introduce the war is going to jump. All I can say in response to that question was my understanding of this pricey case is that site suitability is
fact specific. It is sight sensitive and I try to give the board the facts that I think are the reasons why the site is again those contextual reasons and those condition reasons and I won't go through them again but I I've tried to be I've
tried to make it fact specific. >> So the size of the site is 18,000 square foot and change. Yes. >> And the minimum lot area is that 15,000 square feet I believe in the C2 zone.
>> I believe that's correct. Yes. So it's slightly undersized for the cheap size or oversized. >> Slightly oversized for the zone. It's it's a 18 18.5,000 square foot lot in a 15,000t zone. So
it's slightly above the minimum block size requirement. >> So it's about 3,000 change size. >> That's correct. >> And that could be a good argument and say the site could accommodate two principal uses. Is that correct? >> It could. Yeah. That there's spatial
capacity there to accommodate a second use, especially one that's relatively small from a ground coverage standpoint. So, if the site's oversized and can accommodate two principal uses, why does this site have to violate two
prohibitions in attachment units? Approach it on a setback and be an over move. Well, it relates to the shape of the property. It's an irregular L-shaped property. Um, and also to the condition
of the property. It's a developed piece of property. with a building already on it and the applicant is asking the board to move on a sign that's located in a pocket on the site where it's away from the away from the building and does not interfere with
site circulation or site parking. Um uh again it's in a yard but it's out of the way in terms of circulation parking and and building. So do you agree that in order to reuse variance uh you also the second
prong uh you have to also approve the the what we call the enhanced quality of proof. >> I do. Yes. And I reviewed your testimony and I didn't see anywhere where you on direct testimony you talked about the enhanced
quality of proof in terms of trying to reconcile the exclusion of billboards whether it's in this zone or townwide with the master plan. Is that correct? That was not under direct I don't want you to testify now. I'm just saying I'm asking you did you cover that in your
direct test? I thought I did, but maybe I maybe I did not. I thought I referenced the 2020 master plan and some goals in there, but I know it was the very end of the night, so maybe maybe I didn't. >> Well, did you reference the goals in support of the special reasons or did
you reference the goals to reconcile the the exclusion? That's the difference. Do you agree? >> I do. Um, I may have gone through master plan objections, but I may not have gone through the actual reconciliation of the fact that assuming all the things I said
to the board, the board agrees with and thinks it's a good fit here, we still have to reconcile the fact that your governing body has said the use is not allowed here in the zone or anywhere. >> Right. >> That's a that's a critical part of the for that. I tried
>> so you agree >> I I tried to tie it back to the to the master plan but yes again it might be relate to the distinct characteristics of the site it's almost circular with the particular suitability for the reconciliation
and for the promotion of the general wealth um I believe your testimony was really focused on the uh communication aspect of the sign. >> Yes. It's a it's a tool in [clears throat] communication. Yes.
>> And it's a it's a static sign. >> It's a static sign. Yes. >> And and so at any one time, whether it's for one day, one month, one week, one year, it's going to have one particular message on that.
>> Yes, that's correct. So it's not and if it's for it could it could be for a public benefit but it al also could be to promote a business. Is that correct? >> Yes. Yes. >> If it's and if it's to promote a specific b business that's not promoting
the general welfare. Is that correct? >> Um I don't I don't know that that's true at all. of state regulations for outdoor advertising. Talk about the need for this statewide regulations that uh govern this land. He talks about the
need to stimulate economic activity and how it's an important tool of of business which is is good for the state as a whole which is in my view includes the general welfare. >> So every sign every business sign promotes the general welfare. Is that
your testimony? Uh my my testimony is that uh this sign as a form of communication uh can provide messages that will certainly promote economic development, stimulate business, jobs and the like. So
>> even though one business isn't being advertised at any particular time. >> Yes. >> That's my testimony. >> Um and you I think you cite it uh to support your testimony. The Bell v. Stanford case. I think that was the the case
where you you cited. >> Yes. >> And that case was really about the constitutionality of an ordinance. Is that correct? >> Yes. I think the words I use at least my own say our courts have made clear that the use is a form of constitutional free
speech and I refer to the bill versus Stafford case >> but that case does not talk about in any way shape or form the promotion of general evidence. >> I I don't know I don't know that I if it's not in there I'll I'll accept it.
That's probably a question of law. [clears throat] What we have to do is read and look for general healthare. Yeah. I don't I don't know. >> So, do you agree that you agree that the purposes of the
municipal land use law are specials? >> Yes. Yes. Those age. >> And do you agree that the Medici case says that um only special reasons that promote the general welfare can be considered.
>> Uh I think it's any one of those 18 or so purposes of zoning. One or more purposes of zoning um have been found to promote the special reasons or satisfy this the special reasons test. >> Well, I'm not talking about promoting special reasons. Again, we're talking
about a use scarian, right, that the general welfare has to be promoted because the site is particularly sued. >> Yes. >> Talk about general welfare. So, are you saying that any of the purposes of the municipal land use law promote the general welfare?
>> No. >> Okay. No, you promote I agree they promote the special. >> I agree with what you just said. >> Okay. be. So you you you uh you mentioned a few of them very quickly. I may be going
back uh back in front. Um you cited item M which deals with you you mentioned item M. This is the this is the purposes of municipal. You mentioned uh item M and the only thing
you mentioned there was more efficient use of land. >> Yes, that's usually the way I paraphrase that that section is purposem um the promotion of efficient use of land with the goal of lessening the cost of
construction is the way that the greater section leads. [clears throat] >> Okay. But your your direct touch only because the N cause an error like one and two for item A and item B. But you only you you only touched by the about
the more efficient use of language. So it's one of the two components of that that section. >> That's correct. Yes. >> Uh can you testify back to Mr. She mentioned Cher's
testimony about um the free form of traffic. >> Yes. [clears throat] >> And is it really IMH purposes of the ML to encourage the location and design of
transportation routes? >> Yes. So how how is >> this billboard you talked about IMH being applicable and actually promoting the the general welfare.
How does this deal with the location and design of a transportation? Uh it's probably out of this all the special reasons I gave perhaps I'll say the weakest or the thinnest. It was one that I put in there because it is providing for a communication device
along a a transportation route that there is a nexus between primary arterial roadways and and this land is it's a way to to reach the greater good with messages. But but I would agree it it's probably
the weaker of the special reasons that I gave. And when you um I think your testimony was that you actually visited the site. >> Yes. >> In the neighborhood. >> Yes. Day and and try to see it at night, too.
>> Okay. Did you walk around the the neighborhood? >> I didn't I didn't walk around the neighborhood, but um I I observed. >> I didn't actually get out. >> Did you happen to observe my clients property? >> Yes. That's the one behind, right, with
the uh the signs for for uh new. Looks like a real nice development back. >> So, you saw the sign? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Saying come soon or whatever. Sense. >> Yes. Yep. Look to me like a multi-story, multif family, maybe mixed juice. So, when you saw that sign in preparing for
your your testimony, um did you did you review the the approved site plan or um I didn't actually dive into them. I heard the testimony across of Mr. Simma
last time. I I know there is a representative rendering floor plan too, I think, on the on the actual site. And I know there's a rooftop terrace and I know there's there's concern from our from our neighbor about the impacts.
>> This applic your client's application requires a height variance. >> It does. Yep. 60 ft. 60 ft where 35 is the maximum allowed. >> That's almost >> Yes, it is. And I think decided to procase in
support. It did. [snorts] Okay. So the grao case when it talks about what you need to support a height.
The cross case says um worship which can you agree you don't have unre I would agree no quite sh or in the alternative this is special reasons by demonstrating
that the increased height of the building so we're talking about the increased height being 25 ft. Yes, >> the increase out of the building or the structure in this case, right? Um for
the height restriction which the court characterizes being focused primarily on light and air concerns. >> Yes. >> Your testimony to support the height variance was limited to the fact that oh
anybody on the rooftop amenity is not going to be looking at the messaging. It's the look. You're looking at the back structure. That was your testimony. A great >> Yes. >> You didn't address the impacts to the
light and air which the Brussel case says you need to support for high fabrics. Is that correct? Um I think I touched upon um shadow effects, scenic views. Um all I
think are related to light air and open space. >> You touched on shadow effects. >> I have them right here in my notes. If I didn't, I skipped. >> Did you do a shadow study? >> I did not do a shadow study. Um,
>> how far how far off of the how what's the distance between the billboard and the root document? >> It is now I I don't know if the building is set back from the property line, but I'll just say that the billboard is set
back 17.8 ft from the common lot line with your your client. I don't know if the building's set back or or on the line. >> So, [clears throat] And you know, I'll take your word that it's included in your notes in terms of
shadow effect. But if you did no study, you have no no data to support your your I'm assuming your testimony was doesn't really have a shadow effect. Was that your testimony? >> Yeah. Would not have a sub. Yes. And uh it well the reason why I would have said
that is um again it's not a a boxy structure. It certainly does have mass up top. Um, but it is uh, you know, it's a roofless structure. It's not as bulky as a as a building. >> So, we're talking about the air air and
light impacts. >> Yes. >> Not not only the rooftop, but in the building itself, the occupants in building. >> Yes. So would you without without any data studies shadowing
would you agree that your your opinions what they call a net opinion? >> Well I think it I think the facts will support the fact that this is not going to be this is a a a sign on a pole. This is not a building. Um
uh therefore the it is not going to cast the same type of shadows that may be associated with a a boxier structure here. Um >> the Brasso case doesn't dist you same type face just talks about that light doesn't characterize types of shadows. I
thought the Graco case I I thought I put these comments in here because Graasco actually talks about them. infused creating negative shadow effect population density that's happen So you talked about or testified that
you looked at the master plan and you um decided a number of the I guess potential goals goals and objectives of the town's master plan. >> Yes. Um did you mention did you mention um
it's actually in the zone code it's not not in the master plan you looked at the purposes of the zoning code also >> I I usually do yes >> I think that also that might have went to sleep again is present hold
sounds like it's working. >> Okay. So purposes of the burough zoning code 416-3 A is to promote the orderly development to
protect and enhance the character of the burrow of Bidge the regulations and uses of land. Was that one of the purposes that you cited? >> Yes. Um, no. I I did not cite any of those
purposes as a DP. These purposes that are at the preamble to the zoning orders, many of them echo uh what we see in the MLU. So, I probably did did hit some of them, but this a is uh is different than what we see in the land you saw.
>> Okay. Um, so you you didn't testify how this billboard, a second primary use on the property that a violation of prohibition of going over the roof and violates prohibition of going over the sideyard actually
protects and enhances the character. >> Might have to have you move to the this microphone. That one might have died, but Um, okay. So, did you provide any testimony in terms of how the billboard will protect and enhance the character of the
neighborhood? Uh, I'm not sure if I did on direct or if somebody asked me or not, but I I know somewhere along the way I mentioned that maybe thrown out a number. The majority of the town north of the site,
98% is is residential. This is a very small pocket in the community along a commercial corridor where you invite activity and signs and and business. Uh so I do not s substantially see this eroding the entirety of the the
character of the town which again is predominantly residential to the north and this small commercial pocket with this additional uh messaging. Okay. [clears throat] and C item C of the purposes
is to I'm going to read it regulate the location of buildings which on building but it's called structure of building and limit and restrict buildings and structures to designated districts designed for
residential commercial public open space or other uses and specify standards to such buildings or structures shall perform. So if you're following along, right, that's verbatim. That's a purpose of the
zoning, right? So, do you agree that this application does not advance that purpose because it does not it does not adhere to the standards of the structure being
assigned as it relates to encroaching on this this the setback and being over over time. Um the intent of that regulation that that statement I should say uh is to establish standards to guide
development. Um but it doesn't doesn't impose on the board to deny a variance just because it's a variance. There's a whole another layer of evaluation that goes goes into that. So that's based on the facts, the evidence, the testimony that this applicant has um
attempted to give you to support that the spirit of that regulation is not being violated here. That care and consideration have been given with respect to the location and the placement of the board on on this site which is really the intent of those
regulations. Okay. And E is to provide again purpose of the zoning code to provide adequate light, air and open space which is really the Brasso case. Is that correct? Yes.
Are you familiar with the PEL vision case for Elco VRC Maxwell company? It's 292 NJ Super 118 1996 appellet division case which is a billboard case. >> 292 NJ
>> 118 >> 118 >> one Yep. 118 appellet division one 1996. >> I need a refresher on that one. I don't I need to know the sub. The name's not ringing a bell. >> Okay. But it's >> it one of the more prominent billboard cases.
>> Okay. That's since this is a billboard application. I don't know if you had the opportunity um to and I I think I'm not going to obviously ask you about it if you didn't have the opportunity to to review and that that's fine. Um but with
that there's two strong statements in that case. Um even though I know your testimony was about the DOT policy of you know looking for billboards and all this particular case which is you know not that old 1996
uh at page 133 and the quote says there is no strong state policy encourage encouraging the development of billboards that's why I wanted to you know ask you if you know you have an opinion on that and then second one is looking at the negative criteria right the negative criteria being those
substantial detr into the character of the neighborhood or the or the zone plan. And I know your testimony focused a lot on the highway aspects. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. And this particular case says the highway aspect is not the sole focus of
a case related to billboards. other characteristics related to the adjacent in this partic particular case there was an adjacent marine commercial zone um was important.
So I just wanted to again call that out see if you had were familiar with that case and because I want the question you know those ask but with that I have no further questions. One more objective if you want to go. >> No problem.
I'm taking the can be thorough here. >> Good evening. >> Yeah. Good evening, Deputy Shane. I welcome Foley on behalf of group Main Street LLC trustee ad LLC.
Uh Mr. Starlo hit a lot of things so be brief with it. Uh first is the height necessary because of the billboard use? >> Yes. Uh the height is necessary to effectuate the use. Yes. >> Okay. Is the height necessary because of
the site? [clears throat] Um if the the site plays into uh comes into play for sure because there are other structures in the area. There are moving vehicles, utility poles, trees, all sorts of things that um call out the
need in the landscape for the billboard to be with the height that is. >> So then how can it be necessary because of the use? the the whole purpose of the use is to uh be viewed by the motoring public. So
for the use to affectuate its purpose of being visible to the motoring public, it needs to be at a certain line of sight where the motoring public can see it. And there are other obstacles related to the site, related to the landscape, related to the surroundings
that are calling out why it needs to be at that height. So, a billboard standing alone doesn't need to be the proposed height, but a billboard at the given site needs to be the proposed height.
Yes, I think you can certainly point to uh the site and and the area as the reason for the height. Yeah, we see billboards at ground level in in many locations. >> So, the proposed height is not necessary for the billboard use then.
In my view, it is it's necessary to affectuate these. The the the use would be rendered useless if it didn't have the height because it wouldn't be visible. People wouldn't drivers wouldn't be able to see it. >> Well, drivers would certainly in the internal corridor. So, some drivers
would certainly be able to see it. Correct. >> It would it would not affectuate its purpose in my view to provide uh clear and safe visibility to the more public. There's too many things in the way if you go low. Are you aware that the board conflict
attorney issued a uh July 7th 2025 guidance to the board to instructing them to or recommending uh to turn away from the D1 prohibition, the uh the attorney or the engineer? >> Uh the board attorney.
>> I I uh I wrote him. Okay. And I know it sounds I I right now I don't recall seeing >> if the board was encouraged to and understanding that you did not see it.
It's easier for the record. I'm happy to read the portion that I'm referring to. >> I would just uh be careful with that because I did issue a subscribe me. >> Okay. >> After I did more search. >> Okay. Good. And I kind of changed my
opinion. So I don't want Okay. So >> I mean just for the record Charles I don't >> I don't think I saw that second >> I was never provided one either. >> I may have just shared that. We we'll get that over to you. Um and let's just spray out.
There was a there was a Supreme Court decision out of uh Austin, Texas that had a very similar um sign ordinance to what we have in River. Um if you look carefully at the definition of
billboard, it it's it is to me a little bit peculiar because I think of a billboard as a billboard you're driving down to see it. That's not quite the definition billboard. The definition of billboard is a sign like that that provide advertising for
good and services not on the property. So you could have a sign with this sign on this property that could advertise business safety press on this property would not technically be a bill warrant under the definition that we have. And
at the time I drafted my first map, I was unaware of this Supreme Court [clears throat] decision, which I think was either 2022 or 2024. I apologize, but as I often say, don't be mad if it wasn't late too often. It doesn't come
at all. So, um, I revised my opinion and we'll be happy to get that updated. Thank you. So with what we just said here, how can the ordinance provisions 416,44
and 45 be subsumed if they were encouraged to turn away from the D1? >> Again, I don't know the substance of that. I don't know the substance of that that legal letter. Um, I'm not sure what you mean by turn away from the D1. How
can they how can they be subsumed if they I I don't understand the question. How can these provisions that you encourage to be subsumed into the broader prohibition
be subsumed if the same if the larger broader provision you're arguing is unlawful? [clears throat] I mean we object to the fact that some issue but you can answer questions
again I don't I don't understand the qu you saying if >> is it a predicate to that to the ordinances to the the 41644 and 45 subsuming into the broader prohibition
that is predicated on the broader prohibition being lawful. Correct. >> Um I think what you're asking me is if the greater prohibition goes away, which is what Mr. Solar is, but those two
sections still apply. Is that what you're asking me? Well, I mean, part of this obviously things have changed a little bit in between when Mr. saw the last we had some new uh guidance on the record here, but I I think it still
stands is are are you changing your opinion based on the fact do they still subsume? Again, I must be misunderstood. >> That was your prior testimony was that they subsumed. >> Mr. Slo asked me if the if [clears throat] the ordinance
regulations against location 4546 I'm getting the the uh the preamble here. purposes. 45 and 46 were subsumed within the 45. I thought they I thought they were >> okay. I thought they all they they all tied
you've got the blanket prohibition in the community. Uh the prohibition against location and there was another prohibition. Um I think they all tie together. >> Okay. Are you aware of the permission under 46 uh 416-44
uh 44 and then it's uh in parentheses 4 uh which prohibits signs which compete for attention with traffic signals. >> Um I'm going to get there. You said 41644. >> Yep. >> Okay. Subsection
>> subsection 4. It's 416. Sorry. 416 >> signs which compete for um for attention with or may be mistaken for a traffic signal. >> Are you are you aware of any traffic lights in the area?
>> I'm aware that you uh I'd have to look at a at a map to see where the closest one is. Um that said, we have sworn traffic testimony by an expert on the road uh that said they that this sign will not cause a traffic
safety issue, which to me would fall in in line with that sign which compete with or mistaken for a traffic signal. So just for the record, you did you did uh you did testify that you did, you know,
did the site. Is that correct? >> Yes. So are you aware that there is traffic signals at the intersection of Kinder Hammock and Grand Avenue, Kinder Hammock Road? Sorry. in the command granted. You mean behind the site?
>> Yes. Um Okay. Yeah. I just drove it. I can't I can't remember if there were I I didn't really consider because it's behind the sign. I don't know how the back of a sign uh would compete with a traffic signal if that's what where the
question's going. And then there's additionally traffic signal at Main Street and Kinder intersection of Main Main Street and Kinder Can Road >> on the other side of the pedestrian bridge of the site in the Pville area as
well as uh in Grand Avenue. >> Yes, I know there's a signal there. Yes, I have heard no testimony that this sign will conflict with visibility of that signal. Okay.
How can the billboard further purposes law sufficient space in appropriate locations if the ordinance outright prohibits billboards and then further prohibits billboards that extend above
the roof of the subject building? Um the way that that purpose is broken down is a variety of uses in appropriate locations. Again, I I fall back on uh the fact that we are along the highway to give the
message to the traveling public um according to the needs of of all New Jersey citizens. And that's that's what these message boards do. They they talk to people. It could be a medical use and that may spark a familiarity for someone or or an
interest in someone who wasn't aware that that that was there. So again, it's it's a form of communication to um make people aware of something that may not actually be on the site. But >> even even when the ordinance says no, that's not an appropriate location by
specifically saying generally outright but also saying extended over Yes. Again, I think that's that's part of the sightspecific analysis that the board needs to consider the facts that the applicant have given with all the
visuals and the evidence and the testimony that notwithstanding the fact that it is a variance that the belief is justifiable because it provides for use in an appropriate location according to the needs of both New Jersey citizens.
How can the board work for the purpose a lending law regarding free flow of traffic absent testing of the billboard increases efficiency in traffic? >> Well, uh I I lowered that one a few notches when Mr.
Sarlo asked me, but again there's a nexus between the motoring public and the fact that we are on a highway. Typically, we would use that more for a digital billboard where you may have some form of real-time messaging that
talks about a traffic problem up ahead, but conceivably there could be some sort of notice to the public as well related to traffic. So, it's a lesser I I give it less weight than the others, but >> So, you'd agree that no impact does not equal a positive impact?
Um no impact is not um well typically when we do the positive and the negative criteria absence of negative criteria would in and of itself
be a a positive in my opinion. All right. How can uh the billboard for their purpose M of mun use law an efficient use of land again where 41644 and 41645 B and C prohibit the use outright and also for those specific
reasons among well I like the fact that this does not require any alteration of access points into the site drive vials it's in a it's in a relatively
um open uh unpaved area of the site and it's a it's a retrofit. So I think that goes towards our planning goal for efficient use of land. We have scarcity of land in here in New Jersey. We run out of land.
So we have to pick spots to repurpose and reuse. >> Nothing further. Thank you. >> Thank you. try not to be too redundant and uh cover what I think we must how are
>> good evening. >> All right. Um just beca because it came up I'm going to start with the question of um what Mr. McDonald deemed as the blanket prohibition of billboards and river edge. Um, and just to be clear, um,
well, is it your testimony, Mr. Mcdana, that municipalities can't prohibit billboards or off- premises signs under any circumstances? >> Uh, this is my interpretation. >> I subject for this being a completely legal usual, but
>> okay. Um, my understanding, because I've seen it done, is flatout bans on on billboards, um, is certainly grounds for for a challenge. And >> under under certain circumstances,
>> yes, it's probably probably more of a a legal question, but yes, >> um the the Austin case was raised where the uh United States Supreme Court sided with the municipality who had an off- premises sign prohibition similar to the
burrows. There's also um uh the municipality Mount Laurel which is in New Jersey has a similar offsign off premises signed prohibition that was upheld by the state supreme court is my understanding. Um I think the year was 2013. So you have a both a state and and
national level supreme court cases that have upheld similar uh prohibitions against offsite uh off- premises signs. So, you know, the ordinance calls it a billboard, but really it treat can be characterized as a prohibition against
off- premises signs. Um, and I think those types of prohibitions can be distinguished between signs that regulate content. And I would agree that signs that regulate content do violate the First Amendment. And I think that's a critical distinction. um where you can
regulate off- premises signs, but you can't have uh signs that are not uh content neutral, that are not not content neutral. Um and that it's been upheld numerous times that that municipalities can have sign regulations
that address time, place, and manner. and time pertaining to um when signs can be illuminated, for instance, place uh you know, referring to location, whether or not they're they're off premises, um and that um
and I would offer that even if it were held for some reason that this prohibition was deemed to be invalid, would you agree that that doesn't automatically render the billboard a permitted use in this case? If the prohibition prohibition was
deemed to be invalid, >> right, >> does that mean that this site is automatically appropriate? No, it does. Yeah. >> No, not appropriate. Would it would it be deemed to be a permitted use in the zone? So, even if you overcame the prohibition, does that automatically mean this is pro permitted on this
particular piece of >> um as I understand the law? Again, that's probably another legal question. Okay. >> As I understand the law, no, that's not an automatic. >> Okay. So, so that case as as I believe you've correctly done, you've addressed the
applicable Medici case law for a non-inherently beneficial use and the applicable statute uh site suitability criteria which we've gone through to some extent. >> Yes. >> Um and and just in closing, while we have a prohibition, it's also the case that towns don't have to permit every
available use under the sun. Is that accurate? >> That is accurate. >> Right. So even if we didn't have a prohibition against billboards, we wouldn't have to allow them anywhere. That's not a requirement, right? We wouldn't have to say we billboards are necessarily allowed in any particular area. >> I just want to record this legal
conclusion have the expertise to make >> based on your familiarity of municipal land use law and case law that planners are regularly relied to testify upon. >> Could just give you that question one more time process the final report. It's
just understanding There is a possible system overlap between architecture and sometimes we stray from one profession into another. So no one's homeless to a legal figure as a black notary but he's
probably got more case law than normal. >> Let's move on. Okay. That was just the issue of the D1 and we would agree that the billboard itself constitutes one a second principal use and two a second principal structure on the property. Is that clear? >> Yes. >> In addition to the existing office
building. >> Yes. >> Okay. Which is a permitted use in the zone? >> Yes. There's no D2 relief here or as I understand it based on my review or a Spanish of an arctic use. the use there is is
>> pertaining to the moving on to the D6 height variance that was touched upon. So you mentioned that the height at 60 ft is necessary for visibility. What testimony or documents have been provided to the board that indicates that the 60 ft is necessary in this
particular case? Um I don't have the actual I'd have to get the exhibit number, but I know with these applications we typically do show views or photo simulations from the road, >> right? >> I don't know if they were provided as as part of the record. I I have to remember
the number, but that's typically part of the justification that you see from 500 ft away. You see the sign and you see what's around it and how it integrates with the new ship. Well, I I think there were renderings provided that showed that the billboard was visible from the
highway, but I don't know if that was sufficient to indicate that 60 feet was necessary. I don't I don't think we've had testimony or any information that suggested that 60 ft is necessary for visibility. There was testimony that said you needed the height to clear the three-story building. We did hear that
specifically, but again, there was no determination that the 60 ft was necessary for visibility on the highway at any specific point. >> I'll rely on the testimony on the record and the board can certainly give it the way that it gives it.
>> Thank you. Moving on. Um, question came up pertaining to the actual road classification. Um, we we bounced back and forth. It's been called a few different things. So the site itself seems to have three frontages. Um one on Grand Avenue, one on Johnson Avenue I
believe and then and then then the third being the one the one in question is uh whether or not the site is actually on Route 4, whether it's on Johnson Street or whether it's on some marginal road. So um that question has been asked a few times now. Um, have you been able to or has your
team been able to confirm the actual road classification of uh, in particular the the furnage where the the billboard's being located? >> I I have not been asked to look at that. And um, in my view, if that strip along
the frontage of the property were not rooted for, that's that's not fatal to the application because that's not a requirement. And that may not have been the question you were asking me, but um the answer is I don't know. It may or may not be root four, but if it's not
root four, in my view, that's not fatal to the applica. It's not a requirement under the DOT standard. >> Not a requirement, but your site suitability analysis is contingent upon the fact or or the idea that the site is actually on the highway where it might
not really be on the highway. might be approximate to the highway but not on the highway and and there would seem to be a distinction there. >> To me, it's not a great distinction in my substantial >> because testimony was that the site is on the highest order roadway in the
burrow. And based on DOT uh classifications, Route 4 is considered or at least labeled NJ4 secondary. And this road in question is labeled two different ways. It's called Johnson Street and it's also indicated as a
service road where it says from NJ4 westbound to County Road 68 which is Main Street. So it's there's definitely a distinction between what is the three-lane portion of Route 4 at 50 miles per hour versus this. I guess we'll call it a service road.
Again, uh if if the word on or along um is misleading to the board, I'll swap that out with the word approximate near a um I don't think it's a requirement that it has to actually be beyond and I think
it's self-evident from the visuals both from top down uh that that this is a sign that is clearly going to be visible along group four which is the target audience. moving. Okay. So, that portion of of
frontage though isn't isn't the entirety of the site. I think it's about 30 ft is what was testified to. So, that corner that's on Johnson Street, >> the corn the back corner that's on >> right where it's actually arguably on on
the service road where the remainder is on local roads. uh Grand Avenue and Johnson Avenue um are local roads as far as I understand. >> Right. But the but the frontage itself, it's not, you know, like when you think
of a commercial site on a highway, it's got 100 ft. There are standards. The 30 ft in this case doesn't meet the Burrows Lotwood standard. It doesn't meet any standard that you would you would consider for a commercial property on a highway being that it's only 30 feet the
frontage on the service road. My point is that would you agree that there's a limited portion of the site that's actually on this service road? We're talking about site suitability. whether or not the site's on the
highway. >> I I would agree with the with the factual um statement. I'll say that this there the site has multiple frontages. Uh two of which are are local roads, the third of which is a service road um or
part of the route four right away. I don't know. But it's adjacent certainly immediately adjacent to Mr. Mr. Chairman, if I can interject briefly to clarify something at the first, I believe it was the first hearing. Mr. Donna, good evening. Um,
Mr. Si obviously was was uh the attorney for your the applicant. Um, your engineer got up and the question became, "What is the front page?" And they held up a piece of paper and said, "We have a permit from NJOJ." Like, that was going
to be why are we even here? Why are we wasting anybody's time? because we have that which is really meaningless anyway and I asked a question and then you came back not you specifically >> and revised the survey yet today
we still to this date don't know if there's frontage or not but you said it's not important >> in my analysis it's I I didn't consider whether it was frontage on root for or not >> so it doesn't matter
>> in my in my opinion. >> Okay. It doesn't it doesn't matter. >> If the plans are inaccurate, does that matter? >> Yes, >> that does matter. >> Well, I guess it certainly depends on the level of inaccuracy. If it's inaccurate in terms of the
boundary survey, yes, absolutely. >> Let me help you out. They're inaccurate. >> They are accurate. >> They're inaccurate. >> Inaccurate. >> There's a jurisdictional map which I brought up from day one. Yet it fell on deers. The survey that
that was sent back in. And [clears throat] in order to do a site plan, you need an accurate survey. It's inaccurate. The line that he put on the jurisdiction is inaccurate. He never went back to what's called the jurisdictional map.
>> I don't know if you're familiar with that with >> Yes. Yes. >> Pretty simple. >> Yes. >> Looks like it's done with crayon. >> Yes. Yes. But but what it is in actuality, who plows, who maintains, who does? And in this case, you have three
entities, the state of New Jersey, the county of Bergen, and the Burough of River Edge. What's interesting, the jurisdiction goes to the point of tangency, not the point of curvature. So your
actual frontage that you claim from day one is not state. It's controlled and maintained by the burough river. So the maps that were that were done, the site plans, the surveys are inaccurate. But you just said it doesn't
matter. Well, in in terms of site suitability, I do rely as one of the factors, not the sole factor, uh that this has been deemed to be a quote unquote permitted location under the NJ dot regulations
for suitability and site selection for for billboards. Generally, it has to be within 600 ft of a of a highway. It doesn't say it has to front on the highway. It has to be within 600 ft in a nonresidential area or right off the bat. You don't get that.
>> I understand. But you have that. >> So >> there's no argument here. >> We have it and the fact that it doesn't front on in my view doesn't lessen the suitability of the site. Um and I gave you other factors as well. Even if the board finds that that's an important
factor, I've given you other factual reasons. >> No, I I I I didn't again I missed your testimony. I wasn't here. >> I don't want to get divorced. So, I was on a cruise for my 30th anniversary, but I'm here tonight and I've listened very closely. Sight suitability. So, that
particular spot right there, right where you're proposing it, that you need setbacks, height, 60 ft, just curiosity, six-story building to the top of it, right? >> Yes. >> Let's do it in plain top. Sixtory building. >> Correct. >> Highest structure that would be in the the burrow of river edge. No shadow
stud. But you said, "Ah, it's not going to cast." Uh what about a fall zone? Just out of curiosity, would that impact anybody? >> Um that's really a building code issue. We run into that with cell towers a lot as
well. Bulldogs that they have to be designed to >> um sometimes I get questions about that. What happens? >> Well, you have you're getting one tonight. >> Yeah. >> You said this site, it's open, it's here, it's suitable, it's great.
Just out of curiosity. Ball zone. Where would it fall? >> Well, I I don't know. You know, >> it's 60. It's a six-story building, >> right? I mean, fall anywhere around the anywhere around the clock. It could fall
on the the highway. It could fall back. >> So, that would be suitable. >> Well, again, this is all subject to uh construction code requirements. >> So, structures never fall. Is that what you're telling me? Well, you could say that about buildings and and sorts of
pulse. >> Well, you let's not get to the poll yet because that was going to be the next thing. >> Well, >> at 35 ft because this is 14, I believe, by 48. >> So, if you push that down, let's say first time because you said something very important when Mr. Sorrow was cross-examining you. There is no
hardship here, right? What would be the hardship? >> The the hardship to lower the sign or or I'm not There's no hardship here. I happen to be the uh the engineer in Bod. There's a billboard. Do you know they put the billboard through the middle of the building on?
>> I did. >> I did that one. >> You did it. >> So why right now you could set that back and you could technically put this billboard through the middle of the building, have it project through the roof and put it there and probably meet
your front yard setback, your sideyard setback. It would be within it. But what what would be the hardship? >> It's self-created, isn't it? >> All I could say is that that building in Bagota was a a warehouse to store luxury
automobiles. So, it's very easy to it was an open floor plan. Here you have an office building. I just don't I don't know what goes on in the guts of a building that would allow for for something to pierce through the roof here. That was a very easy building to do that. So, so you're saying
structurally somehow you couldn't do it or >> I don't know. I I really didn't assess whether it could go through the building as opposed to where it is. I did I did not assess >> right now. If you brought the height down, 35 ft, right, is allowable in the
zone. I'm pretty sure >> not. >> And you have 14 feet. So 35 minus 14, that would be the bottom and the top. >> Yes. >> And you said there's too much stuff in the way. Telephone pole. >> Telephone poles. Just out of curiosity, what's the diameter of the telephone pole?
>> Two feet, maybe >> little less. >> 18 inches. >> Okay, there you go. >> Okay, 40 ft. >> So, an 18inch telephone pole is going to block a 14x 48 billboard and it's going to be completely blocked out. And I believe I don't think it was Mr. Sorrow.
I apologize. I didn't get your last name. Genie. >> He actually questioned you a couple times saying so it can't be there because of the obstruction. Now an 18 inch diameter is going to
block the 14 by 48 and you can't have it there. >> Well, that was I I it's a saturated landscape is probably the best. There are a lot of things there, not just the utility polls, but there are >> before you maybe you don't want to go on
Google Earth because I go past her probably every night for the past 38 years, but there's not much there. Here's something else you said and maybe your team doesn't know or not know. The pedestrian bridge,
any knowledge what's going on with that bridge from the NJ do? I don't know at all. >> But it's important, wouldn't it be? I mean, you brought that up in your testimony. >> It's It's there. Um I don't know if >> it's there today. Do you know if it's
going to be there tomorrow? >> I I don't know the long-term plan for that bridge. Don't >> It's public information. Just I'll put that on the record. >> I'm sorry. I I just wanted to clarify a few things, Mr. Chairman.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah. I didn't mean to take No, you're already you're on a roll without a stop. So, all right. Um I'm just going to continue with the line of questioning with the permit is going to be my next question. So, so you do
have the NJ DOT permit and that really focuses on you know their jurisdictional criteria for spacing and proximity to highway ramps. That's kind of the crux of their criteria as far as I understand. >> Yes. >> Right. And one of the spacing
requirements in addition to um safety so you're not looking up every you know so so many seconds is uh has to do with aesthetics based on the highway beautifification act. Is that your understanding? >> Uh yes >> to minimize visual impacts and and
visual clutter as as sometimes is can be referred to. >> Yes. >> Okay. And in this case, you're only allowed to have a static sign because there are two existing double-faced digital billboard signs about a thousand ft from the site at the border of River
Edge and Hackinack. >> It's uh in the easterly direction. >> Okay. >> At the border of River Edge and Hackinack. >> Yes. >> Okay. So So again, you can only have a static sign because you have those two there. Okay. And to be clear, the NJ DOT
requirement is is really only a minimum spacing requirement. Is that accurate? >> You just have to be at least this far, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. But the permit does also require municipal municipal approval. Is that accurate? >> Always. >> Yes. So, you have to meet a town's
zoning requirements, um, building code requirements, all other aspects of the municipal uh, regulations, >> 100%. And if somewhere along the way, I think Mr. Masa may have said just because we're waving a
permit from D doesn't mean that that takes anything away from this. And municipalities based on their local knowledge are able to establish additional reasonable spacing requirements. Is that accurate? >> That's correct. >> Okay. In addition to setbacks and other
location considerations. >> Yes. >> Okay. So it' be reasonable for a town to perhaps increase setback requirements potentially. >> Correct. >> Above and beyond what DOT requires. >> Yes. >> Okay. And finally, the DOT permit
doesn't really look at well, I'll phrase this as a question. Does the DOT permit take into consideration surrounding land uses and impacts? Uh the do regulations again require that it be in a non-residential area within
600 feet of the highway, >> right? But you know, one of the issues that was brought up is that there was an office building that's a permitted use, got site plan approval, presumably will move forward with permits, and that there's a billboard in close proximity to their their rooftop amending. So the
the DOT permit wouldn't have anticipated that potential impact. Is that 100%? I I agree. >> Okay, moving on. We heard um some testimony from your team's traffic engineer. Um one of the questions that I asked is whether or not his analysis
considered the impact of other signs within proximity to the billboard as far as competing for attention. Is that something your team has been able to take a look at since his testimony? >> Can you [clears throat] say proximity of the of this billboard? Are there are
there other signs in close proximity to the billboard that would compete for attention? The reason being he said that there's there's a national study, I forget the name of the study, but the one that gets used, you know, it says that the average driver glances or the average glance is 335 seconds at a
billboard. That gets a little complicated though in urbanized air. You know, that's one thing if you're off on the turn bike and there's nothing for miles, right? It's a different thing when you're in an urbanized setting and there are other signs where there are uh highway signs directing traffic where there are other signs on a building on
the same site where there are other signs on other sites in proximity uh to the second question. So the question is was there an analysis that looked at other signs in the area and to the extent that they might compete for
attention? Um, I believe the study you were talking about was that Pentala study that they always talk about with the uh the glances. Um, >> it was some independent, you know, I'm not contesting the findings of that, but the question is I you have to be able to
apply that in the real world, right? >> Yes. Um, I did not do a detailed analysis of um other signs in the area. Um, I'm looking at a at a Google Street View and it it's generally a a commercial area as opposed
to a retail area. Mostly offices mostly. I know there's there's detail in the area. Um, but in the close proximity, I don't see an abundance of signs that this would uh would compete with. Okay. But the building which is on the property has two signs itself. Right.
>> Yes. at the third story level which constitute pre-existing non-conforming signs already. Is that accurate? >> Pre-existing non-conforming sign. >> Well, do you acknowledge that there are two existing signs? >> Yeah, I do. I don't know that I don't know that.
>> Would you accept that at three stories based on the the location criteria that was referenced earlier that there they exist as non-conforming signs? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, in in similar proximity to that pedestrian overpass that is in almost
adjacent to the site, there is a a highway traffic sign that that provides uh I guess the the motoring public uh direction, you know, whether or not or how to use that ramp that's the marginal road that's adjacent to the
site. Are you aware of that? That's sorry about that little split that I'm doing about the big green sign. >> Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. Right in front of your site. Okay. >> And at least viewing the site from going in the westbound direction. There's also a total wine site and and signs from
that commercial development that can be observed at the same time that the the billboard could be observed. Is that something you guys were able to take a look at? >> Um those are state signs. Um, and I honestly don't know if uh
separation from those types of signs is a requirement in the regulations. Again, I'll fall back on the fact that it's been deemed to be a committed location by DOP and I honestly don't know separation from highway signs, directional signs, uh, is a is a
regulated standard. But I I don't my line of questioning didn't have to do with the the separation, but more with the competing of attention when drivers, you know, are arguably supposed to be looking at the road. We understand that, you know, glances less than two seconds might be safe moving at 50 miles per
hour, but if you're looking at a number of things moving at 50 miles per hour, that that in theory that could be distracting. Um, I really have to fall back on the testimony of a license engineer sworn under oath traffic engineer uh that this
location will not create driver safety or distraction and I I trust that that includes installation of of all the signage and other factors in the area. >> Thank you. We we'll move on from that. Um then finally just regarding the traffic engine I know you're not the
traffic engineer but has your team prepared or reviewed any accident reports in the vicinity of this >> that would have been part of Mr. testimony and I honestly don't remember if he did. Sometimes he gets asked that direct question and he'll provide that
for the board, but I don't know if that was part of his direct. >> So, I don't know. I >> I guess based on that missing information though, can we really conclude that the sign that the billboard would be impact free from a traffic perspective?
I think the board can give the weight that it gives it of again testimony of a license expert one on the road. >> Okay. Moving on. Um in your testimony you mentioned that the billboard is benign compared to other uses that are permitted in the zone and not to beat a
dead horse but the site is developed with a the threetory office building. Correct. >> That's correct. which may have used the word function functionally benign um that it doesn't generate traffic where demands to demand it that type of thing. >> Okay. And again the office building is a
permitted use in the zone. >> It is. >> Okay. And we touched on the height issue. So the 60 ft simple math is almost two times uh the height of the maximum permitted principal building height.
>> Yes. regarding um the MLUL purposes that you touched on in your testimony that um supported the special reasons for the granting of the D1 use variance. You mentioned a few that were covered previously. You mentioned purpose A uh which is generally to promote the
general welfare. Uh you mentioned that that would be supported by a message board that gets changed about one time per month. Um you mentioned purpose G that it's an appropriate location for the use. You mentioned purpose H which came up previously about the free flow of traffic which arguably is not you
know the strongest of the of the purposes in this case and then purpose M which is the efficient use of land. There are I think as you mentioned as we're all aware there's about 18 or so purposes. >> Yes. >> Okay. So in some cases would you agree that an
application might support some of the purposes but might be inconsistent with others? Can that happen? Uh yes, it's an applicant's um obligation to show that it advances one or more. Okay. Um just going back to purpose A.
So I understand you know you believe that the general welfare is supported by uh you know a message board essentially that gets changed periodically. Um there's a case uh it's ENTJ Equities versus Franklin Township Board of
Adjustment. It recognizes that aesthetics are a substantial governmental interest and in this case it's particularly in the context of a billboard. So I guess my question would be that given that aesthetics are a substantial governmental interest um
whether or not purpose A is actually advanced by uh the introduction of a billboard where they're not permitted or whether maybe I'll phrase it another way. Is the billboard an aesthetic enhancement to the community? >> Um, I I don't see it as being a an
unesthetic uh addition to I don't know anywhere where it would say that a billboard is unattractive. I know there's um scenic America that has um prohibitions against um billboards on quote unquote what's
have been designated se scenic highways which group four has not been so designated. So, I don't see this as having a material materially adverse impact on the visual quality of room to work. That's my opinion.
>> That's fine. And along those same lines, you're aware that the state of New Jersey adopted in December of 2025 its state development redevelopment plan after I don't know 24 years or so. >> Yes. >> Okay. Page 74 of that document talks
about reducing or eliminating signs of visual clutter, including inappropriate billboards. So, it would seem to be that there is a state policy that recognizes in some cases, not all. And you know, what does it mean to be an inappropriate billboard? I'm not sure. It's not
defined. Um but whether or not that relates to the issue of you know the general welfare if if it indicates that in some cases billboards might create visual clutter. That was not a recommendation to eliminate the outdoor advertising
regulations which are still in full force and effect and allow both static and and digital billboards um as regulated by DOT as stewards of highway safety and aspects of appropriateness or inappropriateness or left to a a form
such as this. Okay. Um just going to mention two other purposes. So purpose C which which you're aware of was touched on briefly earlier light air and open space. Do you think this application for a billboard that's developed with a three-story office building promotes light, air, and
open space? >> It goes towards the line of questioning that I think Mr. Sorrow was asking me about uh light and air and the fact that we're in the setbacks and that we're over the threshold of of the height that's allowed. Again, it's it's not a
boxy structure. It's a it's got a relatively slender pole and and the the copy on on the top. Um so the mass scale I think plays into the consideration of the relief related to height related to
setback and its impacts on light and air. Okay. And then finally purpose I which I think was touched on earlier to promote a desirable visual element. So same question does the billboard advance purpose I to promote a desirable visual element?
>> I think it's subjective question. One may think they're ugly. I personally don't I'm not offended by them at all. It's words and graphics on a on a board. It's information. We see that in the landscape every day everywhere. >> Okay. >> There are other there are buildings and
other objects in the landscape. So I don't see how the sign in my view is any more offensive than other objects we see in other man-made objects that we see in the landscape along this man-made dominated
highway. Uh, moving on. Uh, regarding the site suitability issue, um, is it your testimony that all properties on or near a highway are create are created equally as far as being suitable to accommodate a billboard?
>> No. >> Okay. So, there may be differences where some sites are more suitable than others. >> Yes. >> Along or on or near Iowa? >> Yes. For instance, would there be a distinction between, let's say, an industrial part of the turnpike versus
perhaps a more suburban area along four? Um, that real that really depends. That's a that's a very broad characterization. Run into a lot of trouble and doing billboards along the turnpike on
industrial sites. So, it really is it's a fact specific question. Well, well, let me I'll bring it maybe more local to just along route four. We focus along Route 4, for instance, and we look at where there are billboards and piranas, Hackinac, Anglewood, Whley, and and up and down. Um, would you agree that some
areas are more commercial in nature where, you know, they're essentially surrounded by shopping mall or, you know, uh, further away from, let's say, residential properties than this particular site? >> Uh, yeah. Yes, there's no doubt that there's
a juxtaposition of residential and non-residential in this area. Uh that may be different than than other areas, but that means there that there are influences on the residential environment that may make this sign less offensive than maybe in in another
location. There are a lot of factors to consider there. >> Well, and to that end, you mentioned that River Edge and we're aware that it it's primarily a residential community. So is it your testimony that the board shouldn't consider impacts to the residential community of River Edge or
perhaps even in adjacent municipalities Hackett for instance? >> It's it's wide open what the board can consider. I I certainly would not discount the residential properties. I will say as I've said the back of the V is what would face those homes and as we
start to work our way away from the back of that site those homes get further and further and further away. um till the sign itself becomes not visible. >> Has your team prepared any renderings to show what the sign would look like >> from the back? >> Well, not from the back, just from
residential properties in proximity to the site. >> No. >> Okay. Would you acknowledge um that there are residential properties in River Edge about 550 ft from the site the northwest? >> Yes.
>> Okay. and to the south across Route 4 in Hackinack that there are residential uses about 450 ft from the billboard presumably in the direction that the billboard might face. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. But again, so there'd be no impact to in either case those
residential properties. >> Those homes are 450 ft from a highway. So that weighs into my consideration of whether this would be a substantially adverse impact. So if a residential property is already impacted by a highway, it just adding a billboard, it
doesn't create any additional hardship to those who should just say billboards up and down. >> I think the board can give consideration to what those home. Um but again, your team hasn't done any analysis or renderings to demonstrate
that there will be no negative impact. >> Correct. >> Moving on to the negative criteria. Um the zoning purposes of the borrow code were referenced. I don't need to repeat those. They're they're in our review memo. Um we kind of touched on the the the surrounding land use that we just
mentioned that there's some residential development in the surrounding site. We mentioned a few times that this particular site is in a commercial area, but I think to be more clear and as one of the objectors mentioned that that really this pocket is more of kind of an office sort of footprint. Yes, it's in a
C2 zone which allows commercial uses. There are some commercial uses, but the site itself and other developed sites adjacent to this in the burrow seem to be primarily office buildings. There's at least three directly adjacent to the site.
>> Yes. Just to be um is it your testimony still that the billboard generates no negative impacts at all? >> Um no, that's not my testimony. What are the impacts of
>> Well, first of all, any change, any land use application, no matter how large or small, has an impact. That's not the it's not the test at all. Uh the operative board in the statute is substantial and that's what the board needs to weigh. The impact associated
with this sign here would be would have a substantial impact. But yes, there'll be changed. There'll be an object that's not there now. So that that has an impact. It could be visual. Um as I said, functionally it's benign.
>> So it's predominantly a visual analysis, >> but even the back of a billboard is not it's not aesthetically pleasing. >> Sub that's a subjective. We deal with um infrastructure and utility structures in
the landscape all the time. To me, it's a subjective question. It's not an object that is unlike utility type structures that we see of it. >> Are you familiar with the Jacobe versus Anglewood Cliffs Board of Adjustment case? >> I lived it. >> You lived it. Okay.
>> I tried that. >> Well, I hope I'm not out of school, but I believe one of the findings, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the visual impact of structures and buildings can have a negative impact, which not only can but must be considered by a board determining a D
variance. And in this case a D6 height >> the threshold of that case that was for the LG building 143 ft zones 35 just came in and said there's going to be no impact
but the point the moral of the story is that boards should consider visual impact not in a D6 case. Yeah. And I think the main thing that came out of Jacobe was the visual impact is not considered only with respect to properties within 200 ft. The board can
certainly towards your line of questioning about the the homes. Um it doesn't have to stop at the 200 foot line, but in my view with distance um with I call it saturation, it's not a visual desert there where this object
would would stand out by itself. Um you you can factor those into the uh the Jacobi question to the test distance and and saturation. >> I'm trying not to prol I'm just going through my standard line of questions.
I'm ready to go. >> Moving on. Um so you mentioned that you took a a look at the surrounding area. Did you happen to do an analysis or consider existing billboards? We'll say near the site. >> Yeah. Do it. Say that again. an analysis
of existing billboards near the site. >> Um, there were I have >> I don't mean it as a trick question. I can provide some of that then we can talk about it. >> Yeah, I think there were billboards uh within about a thousand feet away. >> I'll give I'll give a little more
precision um to that that question. So, uh, to the west of the site, there's one, uh, doublefaced digital billboard and two static signs, uh, within a half mile of the site. One of those static signs is on the border with River Edge
and Piranhas on the Pam side. Um, you may be aware there is one existing static billboard already in River Edge on the other side of the border. It is uh, facing the eastbound traffic. U we mentioned the two existing digital billboards within a thousand feet of the
site on the border with Hackinack and River Edge which is why you can only do the static billboard. And then finally there are three static billboards about 63 miles in the easterly direction in Hackinack. So altogether there are about nine existing billboards within one
mile. This billboard would constitute a 10th billboard within that mile. Um, so I guess the question would be, um, you know, working with your client as the applicant, what is your perception of the need for a billboard in this location
from a public benefit general welfare standpoint? Um, again, it meets the separation requirements of the NJOT as the stewards of highway safety. It's a permitted location under their regulations. Um,
and based on all of the separation standards is probably the last billboard you would get along this stretch of or given all the other billboards in the area. Probably the last remaining pocket that's left.
>> So if River Edge got its 10th billboard in a mile, we'd be capped be we'd be good on billboard. I think you I I don't think you would be able to get another outdoor advertising permit from NJ DOT. I think if we did all the math, this would be the last one.
>> But again, it doesn't just stop at NJOT. M it we touched on municipalities. Are municipalities able to come up with reasonable location and distance standards? >> Uh again, those are minimums under the
DOT standard, but yes. Yes. So, can the burrow consider that there'd be 10 billboards within one mile? Is that something the board can consider? >> Um, I don't know how the delta between nine and 10 would be would be substantial.
>> Would the 10th billboard be a a benefit to the public? >> I believe it would would provide messages that the other nine don't. >> Would it be a benefit that outweighs detriments caused by the application? >> Yes. In your testimony, it outweighs a
10th billboard in this case in the manner presented would outweigh any. >> Yes. Okay. >> Moving to the C criteria or not the C criteria, the the variances above and beyond the D variance. It's your testimony that all basically all the
variances are subsumed under under the D1 including the D6. >> I think the board can consider the entire package as one thing. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. Just as a point of reference uh locally I would offer that the static billboard
directly across from the for river edge I would say is about half the height of this billboard. So the statement that you need the 60 ft to effectuate the height of the billboard. I I think you need to consider whether or not there are other billboards along four that are
static billboards included that are at at a lower height. So I I guess it's a question perhaps information for the board um you know as as to whether or not 60 ft is actually necessary whether or not that's actually being generated by the existing conditions on the site
meaning that I think your team had testified to that it's can't deliver in the building because it has to right there's nowhere else to go as such um and that sort of segus into the C variance a similar question so you have a site in a zone with maximum permitted
impervious coverage we call it lock coverage is 80% the site's at about 95%. And although the the footprint of the billboard is we call it relatively small it it's still an increase above that existing 95%. So how does
the use itself get subsumed in that case or how does the C barriers get subsumed in the use of that? I'm not sure I understand the question. It's all it's all interrelated to to one thing. So the the billboard
will is is a structure that on the ground will have a slight uptick in terms of coverage that will take the um that will take the ground coverage from 95.4 to 95.5 >> and that can be a factor that the board can consider in its evaluation of the
overall use. that people but rooftop billboards do exist right like the one in River Edge like the one in be you don't necessarily need to it's not it's not a function of the use is my fault so the idea that all these variances are necessarily subsume subsumed
as a function of the use doesn't seem I guess is that accurate >> my point is they don't have to be severable I don't think it I don't think there's any benefit to the board saying we're okay with the use but we're not
okay with the 0.1% increase. So naturally the 0.1 increase could be a factor as part of the the billboard itself. Therefore it would be sub cons subsumed within. I don't know why they would need to be separated.
>> And just to be clear I believe there's testimony that that increase although it might be negligible is not being mitigated at all by any storm water manager >> based on testimony. Correct. Okay. Um, not to beat a dead horse, all the other
sea bags, right? Yard setbacks. So, is it your testimony that it's impossible to place a billboard on any site anywhere to meet uh required yard setbacks? Again, your testimony is that the setbacks are a function of the use. So, are there sites anywhere in New
Jersey, anywhere on Route 4 where billboards can meet the applicable municipal setback requirements? I I would it's a very I would imagine yes I did not do that analysis but yes >> so so the setback issue here is not
necessarily a function of the use it's a function of the property the property and its developed condition is that fair to say >> yes >> okay you relied upon the the lot shape as uh you know one of the site suitability criteria perhaps even a
hardship for um you know needing some of the setback Could an alternative perspective be that because of the shape that it's not suitable because it generates those setbacks? It has the L shape. Therefore,
you require the relief. The the board could certainly consider the shape of the property um in that regard. But again, I think you need to look at the physical characteristic of the property and where the site is going with respect to what's what's built on it. I think that outweighs the the shape of the
property in terms of suitability. Bear with me a little. Yeah, I think once we're all said and done with everything, I might have a few additional comments, but that that concludes my my line of question for Mr. McDonald. So, thank you for hanging in there. I appreciate
uh Mr. Do you have any questions or >> uh no chairman? Not at this time. >> He said no. The sound's only coming through here. I was pretty warm there. But I just again and I I have so much respect for
the show. We've been on the same side. We've been recently in court. We've been on opposite sides. Uh and again, I'm not and I think it goes back to I believe what uh Mr. Sloow and
the setbacks and and quite frankly not testimony that I heard other than yourself that you can't put it at 35 ft and you can't set it back properly and you can't do this and you can't do that. It has to
be this. I just don't see the justification. You said on the record there's no hardship. The building exists today, the parking lot exists today, and you want to put an additional use on
this particular piece of property for whatever reason. I mean, it's a pretty simple reason. It's called money. It's called financial gain. That's the simple thing. And that doesn't impact zoning and it can't impact anything one way or another. But
based on what I saw in Bagota, you can put it through a building. There'll be some structural obviously changes going on, but I'm not sure how you can say you can't put it at 35 ft
because there's nothing on the record. There's no document. There's no study. There's no anything. And what's interesting before you flip the the TV screen up there on your laptop, I was going to ask you if there were signs, but my my colleague here got to
that when you were driving around that day when you never got out of the car. Did you see the two signs on the building and what it said? >> Yeah. One on each street. >> You saw it? >> Yeah. >> So, if the building's at 35 ft, take off a couple feet off the parapit. It's a
little bit less. It's at 34, but you saw it. And you see it when you drive on Route 4. You physically see it and it meets the height. So I'm not sure how you can say on the record that the only place that this use
because you're going to take the use away if this board doesn't approve it with those setbacks and that height. You're basically zoning that use into inutility. But yet there's two signs there that everybody on this board and probably anybody that's driven past on route four
either direction could see them and they're not at 60 ft existing. So I'm not sure how you say that on the record and and and again there was one more thing I said a fall zone. You're not meeting the setbacks. You have a
public walkway. You have cars. I always go back to one thing and it's a terrible tragedy many years ago. Dr. Atkins, he probably had the lowest cholesterol of any human being on the planet Earth because all he ate was was steak. But he
walked out of his apartment in Manhattan and was killed by what? As I froze to death going from my cart tonight to this building, >> he was killed by how? I don't know if you know this, >> I don't I don't know. Ice took him out,
killed him. He might have had the lowest cholesterol on the planet. It wasn't a heart attack. A piece of ice fell off of the building, cracked him in the head, went down, and struck him dead right there. So, my next question is, you said it's suitable. It's perfect.
What would that do if that happened? >> Um, if I stop the billboard, just the billboard. >> I'm saying it's you're not meeting the setbacks. You're there. So, any pedestrian could be walking. There's a sidewalk there. There's a safety issue. I just said it. Ball zone. We don't
know. Shadow study. We don't have one. Looking in this direction, you don't have it. But you're saying it it's perfect. It's suitable here. This is the perfect site. Yet, you really have quite frankly nothing to back it up.
And again, I'm not sure. I don't want to take anything from a planner. They gave me a planner's license. It's $225 at the time. I got one. Um, but I just don't know how you justify those things. And again, maybe constitutionally and you have attorneys everywhere up here and in
the audience. So maybe we go to court, you can get it. But the question is, how do you get it there? And that's what I think. You can't get it there because I think there is no hardship. It's self-created and you can't you can put it somewhere else where it can meet all
of those requirements. Yet you've chose not to. And that's that's basically it. But again, it's uh it's your testimony, your opinion. I have mine and I I think mine might be just slightly stronger than yours on this case. But I thank
you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the board and the public. Thank you, >> Mr. Mr. H. We covered most of it. Um, let me let me just see if if there's anything else. I mean, we we went through the statutory
criteria, right, for the D1, the issue of special reasons and and whether or not the granting of the relief advances purposes of the of the MLO, we went through all that. The issues of site suitability as well as the negative criteria for D1 use varants. We have the enhanced burden of proof where the
applicant has to demonstrate um that the granting of relief is not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the master plan and zoning ordinance. We went through some of the purposes of um River Edg's own ordinance. Um there was a little discussion of the master plan.
I think Mr. Mcdana mentioned that um the master plan provision that was advanced was a diversity of uh uses promoting diversity of uses in the burrow. I wonder if that's what the burrow had in mind when it put that provision in there. Um and there are other provisions
that talk about um you know uh consistency with surrounding development and minimizing impacts in general. Um you know we touched on the extent to which there might be uh negative impacts to surrounding development uh related to
uh the adjacent office buildings u residential development. So it's up to the board to determine whether or not um that's an issue. We covered the D6 height variance. Um, you know, the question of whether or not there's a hardship or any unique topographical conditions impacting the property. The
site's flat as far as I could tell, so there was no issues with topography. Then there's a question of whether or not the site can accommodate the problems with the height. In this case, obviously at 60 ft or 35 ft permitted, as far as I know, would be the tall structure by some amount in that area of
the burrow. Um, negative criteria impacts the public good. Again, we know that aesthetics alone are a governmental interest based on a body of case law in New Jersey. Um, and again, we we look at the mash plan and zoning ordinance in that context. We we covered all the
different C variances which relate to both, not both, but front, side, and rear yard setbacks. We have a minor increase in impervious coverage. We have um sign illumination where the burrow requires that signs have to be extinguished at 11 p.m. I think we have
a number of signs, sign area, sign placement. Um and there's this question that it's the applicants testimony that the board can consider that as a package within the B1 use variance. I again I think that can be separated where you consider a billboard um and you consider context where you can achieve those
things. Mr. Kasa just talked about that that there there may be conditions on other sites where you can actually meet that criteria again for the board to decide. So um you know there's the site suitability criteria and then there's in part the balancing test right and in this case we've identified that there
there are really no hardships but so then there's a question of what are the public benefits? How do they outweigh the detriments? The public benefits that were testified to are you know essentially uh a messaging board in this case. um uh versus uh potential impacts
that we'll discuss. So that's sort of the uh you know an overview of the test that the board has to consider uh in their evaluation. Um and I think we've we've covered just about everything. One question standard in med in balancing
the veterans versus the uh is it accurate to say that the that the benefits need substantially outweigh the detriment? >> I believe it is phrased that way. So it's not a question of the even it's
there needs to be a substantial benefit in order to accept the decrements that come >> for the C varian under the C2 criteria >> right and C I mean there is no hardship in claim so there's no C1 it's all C2
>> based on the testimony >> right well again one of the the threshold questions is whether or not the D1 captures that. So, you know, that's that's something for the board to discuss. I think you can look at it different different ways and you know, you have to deliberate that issue.
>> Um, I guess there's really an option or choice to be made as one bulk request for variance that incorporates the variances as well as the C2 variance or separate two
separate motions to assess variances that are being required. But I just want to remind everybody we're not going to conclude this tonight because Mr. is another witness wants to present two other witnesses including a professional planner. So we're going to
talk about all this more members. Uh, no. >> Thank you. I know Mr. Baron's touched a little bit about plot coverage. Uh, so I see in the application that there is currently
95.4% 4% of the lot covered right now where 80% is permitted and under um you know if this sign board be put up it would be 95.55%. So my first question is uh did this
property receive a prior variance to have that much coverage on the lot? I don't know, but I would assume that this is a locally existing property. I did not do research on prior approvals.
I don't >> So, did you consider what kind of an impact the increased block coverage would have on the surrounding properties considering that there is flooding on that end of town? >> Um,
not an engineer. And this is a developed piece of property. And this is a landscape island within the um on the site that actually looks like it does not have any any trees, just an
open area and um it's it's going to be relatively small coverage in the context of of the greater plan, the greater site. So um again it's an infill on a landscape island. It's not the the entire landscape island is not going
away. It's a very small portion of the item. Thank you. >> Thank you. First of all, thank you everybody for your presentations for the cross nation for our professionals. Terrific work all
around. So, thank you for explaining and clarifying everything. Um, when were the trees that were there removed from that site, the three trees that were there? Are you talking about where the sign is going? I don't know. I don't I could go
back and Google and look. I I honestly don't know. >> Somewhere between 21 and 25 look. Um, did the property owner get a permit on those fees? I don't know. Were those trees were placed?
They're not there now. So, well, were new trees planted somewhere else on the property to make up for taking those trees away? >> I don't know. Um, in your testimony, you said that uh this project is particularly suitable
for the site without having to move or alter anything else. You recall that a few minutes ago when Mr. old. Yes. >> Okay. Somebody altered that site though. So you don't have to alter the site now, but that site was altered because just a
couple years ago there were trees there. Um would you agree that by looking at our ordinances, our ordinances right now, River does not want this type of sign and has clearly stated that this type of sign is not something that we want in
our town. >> I think it's pretty clear. Yes. Um, you talked a little bit about the sign possibly falling. You'd agree that if the sign falls, three out of four sides that it could fall on would not be the property owner is uh
happening, right? >> Sure. Yes. >> And it and it could fall onto the highway. Let's say a hurricane or a tornado hit, which has happened here in Ranch. >> Yes. >> Has that been looked at as as as a
possible issue like Who would respond to that? How would that be responded to? What measures uh have been put into place to prevent the sign from falling onto the highway? Obviously cause some damage if it fell on the property, but on the highway with moving traffic
drastic, right? >> I I have not done that analysis. >> If we did grant the 60 ft, wouldn't that be a president sitting here in town? Each no each application would have to be weighed on its own merit based on
sight specific conditions. >> Couldn't future applicants come to us and say you did it once already and this is a similar 60 ft and you know Kinder Connect there's a lot of a lot of businesses on Kerac. So why not put a 60 foot sign on K where everybody can see
it. The analysis is supposed to be sight specific and factbased. I think that's what I was asked under. >> By the way, when was the building uh adjacent to this application built? >> When was the building? Oh, you mean the
one that's on the site right now? >> I don't know. I can look it up, but I I don't know my head. >> What about parking lot? When was that? >> I don't know. What was the parking lot last? [clears throat] I don't know. Does it have the
appropriate number of uh hands at the spots? >> I don't know. >> Has flooding in the area been considered at all with this application by the professions? Well, this u this site plan has been
designed by a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey. So, imagine that's part of the engineering analysis. That doesn't really answer my question. Do you know for a fact? Not imagine. Do you know? Was it considered? >> I don't know. Are the current nine signs along the
four corridor so adequate? So it's a required additional sign. >> Are they so inadequate as to Yes. >> How are they inadequate? >> We have an applicant here that is ready, willing, and able to an applicant that
is experienced in the field that is ready, willing, and able to to put up a sign which uh you have to believe will respond and look at demand. And how are they in >> I don't see those other nine signs empty which implies to me that there's demand.
>> How are they in >> again? They're full. They're at occupancy. >> Do you know that there's a waiting line for uh further ads? You have any information they can provide us with that. Otherwise, what you're saying is just guesses, right? Clearly you didn't guess.
>> There is clearly not a vacancy on the existing sons. Okay. >> When was the last time there was a vacancy? Don't know. Go back to uh just very briefly the aesthetic considerations. We can agree that it's the aesthetic considerations are valid relevant zoning
considerations for us to consider. Right land. >> Yes. Um and of course I found that the aesthetic impact of billboards is an economic fact which may bear heavily upon the enjoyment and value of properties uh
near the site. Right. >> You went fast. >> Sure. The aesthetic impact of billboards is an economic fact which may vary heavily upon the enjoyment and value of property near the bill. Who? Right.
>> The aesthetic quality has an economic >> aesthetic impact of billboards. The aesthetic impact. Yeah. >> Okay. Of billboards is an economic fact. It appears heavily upon the enjoyment and values of properties near the building.
>> I can't agree with that statement. I don't know who made that statement. I know of no correlation between billboard and property values. I know of no empirical evidence in that. So, if I told you I got that language directly from the case, you'd be surprised to hear, right?
>> Case. Um, have we had testimony that there will be negative aesthetic impact in this uh in this um case? >> No. Have we had testimony that there would be No, I've not heard testimony
that there would be a negative visual impact. that we heard a statement there would be another negative impact in this case. >> I don't I don't recall that >> earlier when the gentleman read the statement from the law firm that's in the building nearby.
>> Yes, that's an opinion. >> That's fine, but that's a negative impact on that individual, right? I mean, we're here offering opinions. You're offering opinions. Other people will offer their opinions. Then [clears throat] we're going to all talk about it. We're going to offer opinions. Then we're going to vote. opinions, right?
>> That's how the process works. Yeah. >> But I don't but there is a negative impact that we've heard about. Correct. Somebody has come to us and said this is going to cause a problem and a negative impact on my view outside my window. >> I would state that there have been a statement on the record that Jason
property owner believes there would be a negative impact on their property. Would you agree that this uh uh could possibly uh cause a nuisance in what? >> Why?
>> I have heard no testimony in Alador. >> Paul, >> I have heard no testimony in Alador. >> I still down on the desk. >> I have heard no testimony in that. >> You're saying nothing could happen. I have I have heard no testimony that would lead me to have concern in that
regard. >> Hear your testimony. >> Yes. >> I hear your testimony. Did any of that happen? >> Again, we have building codes. We have construction codes. We have all sorts of codes that protect against structures. >> Why don't you why don't you want to answer the question
hypothetical? I don't think I have to answer hypothetical. Okay. Thank you. any further discuss >> uh again as as we said thank you for the testimony everyone's attention um so I do have a number of questions issues um
and I I've heard you say that the benefit to the community is a message for an opportunity for me I don't see that as what how does that how does that benefit the front of bridge it may benefit the drivers driving learn about
the hospital or some other business. Well, what benefit does that bring to the community of River Branch in the resident? Well, first of all, the community is part of the public and the test is whether there it is a public benefit. It doesn't say a river veil benefit is the
benefit of the public at large. Municipal planning does not end at municipal boundaries. That's clearcut in in our land. But is there any benefits? Surely there are uh local businesses. I think that it people in River Edge are
not foreclosed from using this sign. It will also provide information that may be of interest to people in River Edge. But we've heard testimony that there's nine of the billboards available for that particular information and many other forms of the 78.
But we have heard no testimony that that's a that's a saturation that there's that there's too many could be an in Labrador. I have heard no testimony empirical data that indicate or evidence that would indicate there's an oversaturation of billboards in the
area. But just because there's no vacancies doesn't mean that we need this in regression. That's that's your opinion. I I don't have I don't I don't share that opinion. I I don't see that there's you know
there's nine of these in our area. They're awful. That's great because for the people that have them. Um, but I don't see that there's a a need to add one onto this property. Um, and with that, with all the challenges on this
site, we've talked about coverage, we've talked about setbacks, we've talked about all the challenges of this property. Why was this check this property chosen as opposed to any other point along Route 4, Route 17, Route 80 or anywhere else Burton County where you
would have similar traffic patterns and you know why why are we trying to shoeboard in this into this problem? I I don't know that they made an application. I was not involved in site selection
process. My job is to evaluate this site and suitability for this use at this location. Availability of other sites is not a valid consideration in a use fairness application. But as an applicant, they chose this particular
property that has setback issues that has coverage issues that has a question whether it's even on report. It's a valid question. Why why are we why is this why why was this site chosen?
First of all, use the word issues has setback relief and other relief that the applicant is asking the board to move on based on the evidence that it has given. Um the board needs to weigh whether those that relief is is an issue or or
not. But I'm not going to concede that they are issues related to this site. It is relief that the applicant is seeking. We're trying to give you the reasons why we think the the relief is justifiable. Okay. So, with the relief that's needed to have this application pass, why would you choose this property over some other
property that doesn't have this that doesn't have those relief? Those are really those are really questions for the the owner. Those are really he can't answer that. He didn't break the site. >> But we don't have anyone ask that question.
>> We can ask we can answer problems or we can ask The absence of that information is so it just okay so I can't get into why this site is chosen but it does seem that the only real reason that this property
is suitable is its location that we're still trying to shoehorn this on onto something that is the only reason it it was overdeveloped by the owner or the past owner or whoever. So we have an overdeveloped
property. We have, you know, something that is already in need of variances if it was to be constructed now. Um and it just seems that we're just trying to we're trying to force something onto a
property that it doesn't fit. I have a question for more towards that. So that's um thank you for those presentation. Yeah, the other board members the micro question. I'm sorry.
>> Thank you for uh everybody's uh time presentation. The other board members have raised some of the questions. Thank you. Thank you. Question. Um, first kind of general comment help you
not I took earlier listing the existing nonconformities or requested variances and some additional but I'm looking at this list and existing nonconformity
overshine block which is everything maximum building coverage front yard setback minimum near yard set then the wind state buffer and then requested variances two use variances one for billboard use one for two uses on site height for the
billboard front yard setback minimum sideyard setback minimum sideyard set back both uh minimum rear yard setback and now there's also the extension the required yard and the extension of the building. Um, I guess
my question on that is is there anything in our code requirements that we've met on that site other than the lot size which is oversized which would make it easier to conform. Um I did not do an analysis of
uh zone conformance. I just looked at the list of of relief. Obviously the existing use is a permitted use on property. Um there may be non-conquerances that are there that have coexisted uh with the
zoning for many years. Uh I I mean I would have to look with questions about does the parking comply? Does the handicap comply? I don't know. There's a whole your ordinance has hundreds and hundreds of line items and
I I don't know. I have to go through all of it. I was asked to focus only on the relief. I mean but again you know we have to consider the site and the impact overall and that parking lot is
one of the notes I had to ask for Mr. Mr. Do we have the recommended number of parking spots as well as handicap because if we don't that further
uh you know It enhances the difficulty of making sense out of this application. Right? So we don't even know where we meet and we're asking for more and more exceptions without
I think it's important for us to know change. Um [clears throat] I I'm I'm confused on your presentation of why the heights of the sign hasn't been lowered. Is it because there were
obstructions at the lower levels where the sign has to be raised above them? Is that definition? >> Yes. Um a driver's height of eye is generally about 3.5 ft off off the ground. So you have all sorts of
obstacles around you as you're going through your complex driving environment. Structures, fixed structures in the landscape and and moving structures as well. We we commonly see 60 ft as a as a threshold or I'll just say not as a threshold. We
commonly see 60 feet as a as a as an ask for billboards. >> Okay. So those obstacles to having vision inside a lower level part of that saturity you were talking. >> Okay. So the problem I have with that is
I have a very hard time coming to the conclusion that adding more clutter to a saturated landscape is not a negative impact. If this is so cluttered that we can't put a sign within the the height restrictions that we have and you have
to put up at literally double that height and the reason is because it's a cluttered landscape because it's a saturated landscape. We're adding to a saturated landscape. I don't understand how that is not a negative impact.
I'm relying back on our our traffic expert who talked about the cones of vision and the safety aspect of the sign being aware of the sign was proposed and and height for lines of sight. So again, I'm relying on the predicate of witnesses.
>> None of that visual aesthetic impact that goes to, you know, geometry. You know, that's a geometry. It's not a visual impact. That's not an aesthetic question. That's not a to Mr. Baron's point, you know,
with the amount of traffic, the amount of clutter, you know, how does that impact those? I'm not asking you to answer that question, but all of those things All all I can say is the height moves the science away from the saturation on on the ground level of some of those
other objects or or obstacles. So it lessens the the conflict with those structures, >> but it doesn't lessen the negative impact of the >> it's a in my view that's a subjective opinion.
But rather saturated landscape I add to it. I don't think that's an opinion. >> But you're not you're not embedding it within the saturation. You're you're removing it from. >> So what little bit of open landscape you have comes up.
>> Again it's a subjective in my view it's a subjective question. Um I guess the other place here is that you present this property, this site and
you know being a great fit for this use. Um and there's no alterations here. There's no alterations here, but there is a need to basically put our entire
zoning regulations in the garage to allow what you want to do on the site because again you can't give one criteria to be met. Okay. So I don't understand how this is uniquely uh this site is uniquely set up for this
use when this site doesn't allow you to do it within the time that any of our building. How's that how's that uniquely designed site for this use if you can't use it under the kind of reasonable
expectation of the level of accuracy. Typically, when we write code for billboards, we would have a set of regulations that go with the the the billboard used to establish reasonable restrictions on use and reasonable
controls. You don't have that here because you don't allow billboards. So it's somewhat of a not comparing it's an apples and oranges comparison because these are really standards that pertain to a principal building as opposed to the use which is generally by nature
closer to the road than a building may be generally higher than than what may be. Again it in my view it comes back to the the bulk and the related belief and the dimensional rate ties to the
nature of the use itself. Again, when we do write code that would allow these uses, many of these standards that you see here would be folded in that. That's how in in my mind, Mr. Chairman, that's how I reconcile the relief the applicant is seeking. If
you're thinking about to use the the bucket of relief that dimensionally the applicant is asking for would go with it either either way, yes or no, they would all go together. This is a
original capital and it's pretty open, but I want to add a second primary and I want to add a pool and I want to add a sh and I want to that is third or four and I want to do all of these things
>> and I make the statement that but the property is opaque that is use why is the follow that I have to allow for an exception to every other standard that exists I call it the tipping point is that
there is a point when the weight of relief that the applicant is seeking certainly tips it into the negative and that's something the board can certainly consider here. I've tried to give you the reasons for each one of the relief that the applicant is seeking as to why I think it will not be at potentially
adverse impact. At the end of the day, it's qualitative analysis, not a quantitative analysis. You don't deny an application solely based on the number of variances. You look at the whole quality and you could go again, you could go either way and that's a negative quality uh or that's enhancing
quality for the reasons that given. So, um, I understand, Mr. Chairman, we're adding more to a nonperformance site. I I I get that. Um, but I don't think we're at that tipping point. That's what what I'm saying. >> And last question. Um, I I asked Mr. L
about the standard for balancing the benefit and assuming that the benefit has to substantially outweigh the the Give me your analysis of in summary from
that. How do you how do you come up with the fact that the detriment here is substantially out the the public benefit here as a tool of communication is is substantial. It's important. It's called constitutional
free speech. It's um that factors in. I gave you all the the beneficiaries of of what this message board would would serve. That carries weight in my mind that that that positive public purpose carries
weight here. Um and again, there is weight associated with the with the negatives here. That's what we've been talking about all week. So that's at the end of the day where the balancing comes and the board needs to find that the weight is substantially on the side of the positive as as opposed to the negative. That's that's
>> all right. Thank you. One just follow this for you or for our professionals. Are there any properties in River that have two uses? I don't know the answer to that. Yeah, I'm not sure if I have construction
off the top of my head. Um yeah it when we talk about use you know talk about definitions right so definition definitionally what distinguishes one from another you know a restaurant versus a retail use could be two different uses for instance so in
the case of it's part of the variance so um well to be clear the applicants requested that variance I I don't believe I've identifi I'm not 100% sure where that variance came from I think their testimony was that because the ordinance doesn't specifically allow for
it, they're requesting it. Um, so being that we're adjourning and and coming back, we can work into that because I don't have an exact answer. I'm not aware of any I mean obviously there's, you know, different retails and there's different a restaurant and a Pilates studio, but you know, are there any, you
know, they're asking for something that may not even exist in our town? >> Yeah. So what I would say is this is a good time to be reminded that every application has the same even if there were a case I would let you know when it's I don't
care that but if it if it is a variance then it's not that it not that we have to approve because someone else has had it >> but if it you know we're still saying this is going to be this could potentially be the tallest structure in town. So this could be first 60 foot structure in town. This could be the
first to use property in probation. Well, it it's clear that there's two principal uses. It's clear that they're not related. It's clear that one's allowed, one's not allowed, >> and the the prohibition seems to be constitutionally compliant. Um
[clears throat] those are fair. So whether or not you need one, like I'll stop. >> Yeah. But going back to one other question, chairman, I think you brought it up and I asked this I think it was the first day
you put how whether it gets approved, denied or you win in court, you don't it's two separate views because I asked one question. It's static billboard. So unless that advertising banner flies
by itself and attaches itself, someone physically has to go to the site, park at the site, get out of his car, van, truck, climb up there, and do that particular
job. Right. First question I had, what do they come in and can they fit underneath the building where they have parking? rest. What is the parking requirement? And this is going back months. And I think the question was, well, they can park on
the street. It's a separate use. So, they might need a variance for parking in order to have this particular use and make it happen. Otherwise, they're using a four street
parking to establish and maintain the shoes. But again, I'm trying not to help them quite frankly. So, I don't know if they're going to come back with additional information. It goes back to the same thing. And what you heard
earlier, the D1 gets sucked into everything else gets approved. If that D1 gets gets approved, whether it gets approved here or whether it gets approved in another local, meaning down the
street in Hackinack, New Jersey. And that's my opinion. It does not. You need setbacks. You need height. It's a separate use. And this site is particularly suited. And that's why I grilled you more times. And you said on
the record, you can't do it here because of that. But there's nothing to back that up. Nothing. But why can't you do it there? Why can't I drill and go through the middle of the building and meet the setbacks and meet all of these things? Why why can't you?
And I just gave you an example. You can go there tomorrow. It physically exists probably 2 miles from this local. It's expensive, but it exists where they probably would meet the setbacks. They wouldn't meet
the height, but they would meet the setbacks. That's it. I'm done. You got to take the microphone away because some people think it's a dirt, you know, a deadly weapon in my hand. But thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um given that we are at 109,
you want to begin with your Oh, wait. >> There are no members. No members of the public. You want to begin your testimony or do you want >> I I think we we respect for the board in
the time that Brandon chopping up the the presentation. Thank you for sharing. >> Okay. So we can see when we >> our next meeting date is February 11th. That's Wednesday, February 11th.
>> The one after that is the 25th of February. >> Is that going to take I know what that can be February 11. >> So, we're good. My planner's not here. Um but >> for the 11th
>> I don't know if All right. So the application IAT Services LLC 41 Grand Avenue block 1405 lot 4 will be carried without additional notice for the meeting of February 11th, 2026.