Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Call the meeting to order. All right. Meeting and notice. Okay. In accordance with chapter 231 bill 1975 the open public meetings act, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided as required specifying the time and location. If such notice is being sent to the Asbury Park Press and the times of Trenton posting this public notice meeting Bolton board and filed with the township clerk. Thank you sir. You're welcome. I would like to invite everybody for a flag salute and at the end we will stand for a moment of silence for those who served and currently serve our country. Pledge

allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. All right. All right, Danielle. Roll call. Chairman L here. Miss Ohio here. Mr. Baramus here. Mr. Katigan here. Mr. Ferrar here. Mr. Lamrose here. Mr. Borghazi here. For the record, Mr. Sinha is absent today. Mr. Borghazi one will be seated for Mr. Sinha. Thank you very much. There any public comments for anything that's not on the agenda for this evening? Yes. Sure. Come on down. As long as it's not regarding the application.

Just a long time res. Just your your Yeah, just put your address. I don't have to swear you in them.

94 Road. I just have I mean I'm sure that you're aware of what's happening in adjacent towns regarding LLC's and property and I'm doing my own research regarding the allowable uses for perhaps RUP zoning and there's LLC's in town that purchase pieces of property. I'm trying to understand down the line if one day um if they actually can because I'm seeing the child care provision. I'm reading the statutes regarding that. But I also see that there's something regarding one acre. They can do one acre. They can submit for that per subdivision. And I guess my question is, is the zoning board is there some sort of stop gap? Is this sort of process or potential on the radar? Been here since the '9s. Bought my first piece of property from a farmer when the balloons used to land in our backyard. So, I just the rural preservation of the the town is something that I'm interested in and just wanted to ask the question. Is that something that's sort of on the radar? Is that a zoning board thing, a planning board thing? Or

I guess it could be either. Well, depends on the RUP zone, Fred, Matt, it's what six acre RUP is 10 acres. So, what is the specific question? My specific question is when you buy purchase a piece of property, if you're an LLC that's purchased a piece of property, out of town LLC, whatever, um you have options because there's the piece there's different provisions under the RUP. You can do the child the child care house, whatever we call it, and we refer to those regulations. Um you can also do the one acre. It says there's a 1acre subdivision that has

there's no no such thing as a 1 acre subdivision. they can submit. No, I know that as far as the that's what the suits puts in the statue. Are they talking is she talking about farmland assessment?

All right. So, so what happens maybe though is 10 acres zone. You're allowed multiple different uses in that zone. Okay. You're on single family, you're allowed family car. There's a couple things. It's all it's all in the orbits. Okay. It's a 10 acre zone. Okay. meaning that if you don't have 10 acres, you have to go and you're doing a use that's permitted, you have to go to a planning board for approval. Okay? One this one I it's a 10 acres zone. So I own I'm an LLC and I buy an RUP property. Okay, and it's 10 acres. I cannot I can not subdivide it into 10 1 acre lots without getting most likely a density variance from the zoning board. Okay, which is almost impossible to get. Okay. Um the 1 acre is more of I own a 10acre farm. I want to get but I have a house on it because I live there and I want to be farmland assessed. meaning my taxes on my farm area are going to be less than your regular taxes assessments on your house, your house. Okay? But so what the town does, they carve out on the 10 acre parcel kind of one acre that's your house invisibil in invisible line of 1 acre. They take that one acre. They assess that one acre the full value of what it is for tax purposes. The other nine acres will be assessed as it's a farm. That doesn't mean it creates two lots. It's still one lot. The invisible line is solely for tax purposes when you want to be a farm become farmland assessed, which there's certain requirements for that.

But that that's all that means there. There is no we don't have provision that you could just cut it up to one acres. It's a oneacre is only dealing with tax issues. One last question. Can a school be built? I don't know. Oh, is it permitted use potentially? That's what I mean. Buildings, I believe it's conditional use. So, they could submit for that, but it' have to go through different requirements. Yeah. Okay. So, it's potential, but it's not. It just it would have to go through layers. What kind of school would you be suggesting? It's not for me. I'm just It's just

Oh, that's a problem. No, it's sort of um could be a daycare because there's been a big push from the board of ed. Of course, they did have to now it was mandatory the kindergarten, but there was a lot of discussion about the low-income preschool program, which is for underserved population, which is not really um part of Milstone's current. I mean, maybe down the line when they get the affordable housing in whatever, but there seemed to be discussion and that's in the record at the board of ed meetings that that was going to be something that they were going to apply for. So these are just things that I'm thinking of longtime resident and just wondering if these are things that are reviewed at the zoning level and they would have to go through I guess

everything everything gets reviewed by the zoning department for compliance. If it's a permitted use it goes to the planning boarding. If it's a nonpermitted use or a height variance density variance it comes to the zoning board. It also becomes a zoning board if it's a single family house and you're acquiring variances like you want to build an addition. We do just the residential one-offs. Commercial would go to the planning board if it's permanent use. If I'm proposing a warehouse in the RUP zone, it'd come to the zoning board because it's a nonp permitted use.

Okay. All right. So, and that would be in the minutes if it gets to that point. If it's well then you would check well if you're within 200 ft of the property they have to send a certified mail to you and it would also be on our website and all our agendas the application name what they're proposing the property address and the zone. So if you check the planning board zoning board those agendas are up all the time. You can see what's appearing before the board you know usually a month ahead of time. All right. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. Those are all the knowledge right there. That's the lady you mother Danielle. Danielle,

she can help you. What's coming on, but I appreciate she's the goto girl. You can't say that. She's just go out. Thank you. No, I appreciate it. No, thank you. Thank you. I'll remember that.

Okay. Anybody else have anything? Okay. So, we will move on to our approval of minutes. So, we have our May 28th, 2025 minutes. The right one. Are there any comments or suggestions? No, I actually just looked at uh I looked at them today. Waited to the last minute.

Is that the new term? I'm good. So, um, anybody have any questions, comments, concerns? Anybody want to make a motion to approve? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. LC. Thank you LLC's. Roll call. Mr. Ka. Yes. Mr. Padigan. Yes. Mr. Mr. Ferrara. Yes. Mr. Landro. Yes. And Mr. Borghazi. Yes. Okay. Thank you everyone. We'll move on to our next one from June 25th. The is that Borghazi? Oh yes. Barovski.

That's the Barski approval solar panel. That resolution came out uh last week with uh reviewed by our professionals. If there's no comments or changes, we need a motion and second from our lives. We did skip a minute. Yes, the June minutes. The June minutes, but if we are going to go to the resolution first, um number 12 I added and highlighted on the copies of the board. It was just a clarification minor clarification. Okay. Yeah, that's the change I mentioned has been reviewed and approved by our discussion. I see one.

So, it's mo motion to accept the uh revision as per our board secretary. You want to do the resolution first then the minutes or we can do both? We can do the resolution. Okay. So, resolution. Anybody want to make any questions, comments, concerns? Motion to approve. This is for the solar, right? Yes. Yes. I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Thank you. Chairman Len. Yes. Mr. Katigan. Yes. Mr. Ferrara? Yes. Mr. Lambos? Yes. Okay. We got to go back to the minutes now. Yep.

Okay. Same goes for the June 25th minutes. No questions. No, we're good. Anyone? I'll make a motion to approve. Thanks. A second. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lost. Yes. Mr. Kan. Yes. Mr. Fura. Yes. Mr. Yes.

Thank you everyone. Appreciate it. Okay. All right. We're moving right along to our applicant for tonight, outfront media, which is continuation, right? Okay, for the record, this is the outfront media application. This application is carried uh from the last meeting without further notice. Uh it is noticed Mr. Borghazi, our alternate one who was not here for the first meeting uh has listened to the tapes and watched the audio and he is uh certified that he's a watched all the previous hearings which only consisted of one. So he's able to vote on this application. Uh this application was carried without further notice. So council please uh re-enter your appearance and you may proceed with your application.

Sure. Uh Edward Purcell, Price Me Schulman, and Deer Mo uh here on behalf of Outfront Media. And uh thank you counselor for for doing that housekeeping. That was item number one on my list. Um

check it off. So, uh, I just thought I'd give a little bit of a refresher at the top of the meeting just so everyone um is fresh in your mind what we're proposing, uh, with respect to this application. And I just have a couple announcements with respect to the application, too. So, Alfred's requesting to modernize an existing static billboard. Uh, that's at block 23.02, lot 2.04. That's a parcel adjacent to Route 33. Uh, and basically what's happening is Alfred's proposing to replace an existing um, uh, doublefaced bill, doublefaced static billboard with a double-faced LED billboard. Um, and that has lots of benefits and we sort of talked about that at the last meeting, but I kind of want to summarize that uh, for the board now. So, the sign is going to be smaller. Each face of the sign will be 211.65 65 square feet smaller. So the total billboard that we're proposing is going to be 423.3 square feet less in size than the existing billboard. There's also improvements with respect to the aesthetics of the sign. So we're going from a sign that currently has seven support columns to a monopole or if the board wants to um a stone apron. We're removing invasive species in the area and just generally cleaning up um the surrounding area around the modernized billboard and replacing it with um na native species. So we submitted photo simulations at the last hearing which I think are really stark on that point. You know what's being proposed looks a lot better than what exists there now. Uh in addition to all of that, all those benefits,

Alfront is offering to provide the township with use of that digital billboard on a non-emergent basis, but you know, guaranteed time, so 6.25% uh mandatory time of, you know, the the the daily um use of the billboard and also to provide the township use of use of the billboard on an emerent basis. and we submitted some protocols um to the board that kind of explained specifically, you know, what that offer entails. What the digital billboard also does is is that it makes it less expensive for local businesses to advertise. If if you remember at the the last hearing, there was some discussion about how a static billboard is sort of like a like a pizza, right? You have one um um advertisement, one copy that's there for quite a long time. it's quite more quite expensive to advertise comparatively to a digital sign where that pizza gets broken up into 8-second slices of advertising. So whereas you know a business may not be able to um be able to afford that whole pie, they can afford an 8-second slice of advertising. So again there's a a lot of benefits that come with what we're uh proposing here with respect to modernization and that's why I want to just announce you know something with respect to the application um outfront is going to withdraw its um appeal because at the end of the day you know this application stands on its own two feet and has a lot of good points to it and I think you know while it was an interesting discussion were having at the last hearing. Um I feel like and I think Alfred feels like it kind of was taking away from the merits of the application which again are are substantial really quite substantial.

Um so you know we're going to continue to request uh the relief that we've requested initially though. So site plan approval um with respect to the use variance was use variances we believe that at most a D2 use variant should be required. You know the intent here is to continue using uh the billboard. Um having said that you know we're also going to put on proofs for a D1 use variance and we'll also put on proofs for the setback variances that were called out by the township. So that's a 100 foot front yard setback and a 15oot sign setback. So I think there's enough kind of here with respect to the benefits that we're proposing to grant those requests but you know Alfront is offering to actually go even beyond that. So all those benefits that I just listed which again are substantial Alfront is going to even add to that. So what Alfront is uh will agree to as a condition of the approval they will stipulate to remove four other sign faces from the township along Route 33. And I have an exhibit here that has that an explanation of which sign faces would be removed. So that's marked as exhibit A22.

We I don't think we have I know the board hasn't seen it. You have copies for the board because I think we're right technologically this is new, right? Yes. No one's we have not seen this. Yeah. So that's let me get a copy. Let's get the board a copy and give me a copy so I can mark it. Mark is a 20. I need one more. So I get Daniel. I got your copy. A22.

I know. is three page exhibit re removal of signs. So I'll just go over this just walk the the board through it. Uh the first page kind of lists um the signs out by way of their DOT permit um their outfront ID number, their size, and their square footage. So these are four sign faces. Um there's, you know, two sign structures. So, two double-faced sign structures that are being proposed to be taken down, but four sign faces. Uh each sign face is 10.7 ft x 23 ft for a total square footage of 247.25 ft. So in total we're proposing as condition of approval um of to take down 998 9989 square ft. Uh the second page of the exhibit shows the aerial that uh Mr. Voit uh provided in his u testimony is A1. So these signs are called out. You'll see the subject area. The subject sign is located um on the northern side of Route 33 to to to the left. And then 1,200 ft to the east of that sign is the proposed the first proposed structure that we're going to take down. Again, that's a doubleface sign. So, if you look, there's, you know, two arrows painting pointing to that site. Each is, you know, each is a picture of um a face of that structure. And then the next proposed um structure that's um a structure that's supposed to be taken down is 500 feet to the east beyond

that. And again, this calls out uh a picture of each one of those sign faces. And then on the third page, um we have a larger picture of each of the sign faces that's being proposed to be removed. So you may be familiar with them as you drive down Route 33. So, kind of to put this in a nutshell, so we're making the subject's sign smaller than it exists now by 423.3 ft. And on top of that, in addition to that, Alfront is also proposing to remove 989 square ft of additional outdoor advertising in the township. So, that's a total of 1,412 total square feet of signage. That's quite a bit of signage. Quite a bit.

What? Not what is when you say take down. Okay. Uh are you just removing the face, taking down the structure and what's stopping those four property owners or maybe there's less two two signs. I know both sides two structures. So So it's two property owners. So what is going to prohibit those property owners from putting up new signs with a different company? The signs being well outfront owns the the sign structure and the sign structure is being entirely they come back tear them down and then they say we're we want new new static signs up because outfront media left tore it down we're putting up new ones.

Well I mean I think that kind of goes into what we're we've been talking about with respect to um intent. So out front is the you know the operator of these signs. The intent is to remove them. Um they are they right now they are non-conforming uses in the zone. Uh so they would be removed and the intent is and we're saying here to you right now as the operator is that they be not be the use not be continued. So the use the pre-existing non-conforming use would be extinguished. In order to get the benefit of that, I think you're going to have to get the owner to stipulate that there's an abandonment of that use on this property. Well, I think you or a deed restriction. Yeah.

Because it comes down to the point I I understand your point is you're saying, "Hey, we're doing what we can do as as the applicant. We own the sides. We're going to tear them down. We can't control, I assume, what the property owners are because you're not the property owners, right? uh you probably have nothing and you're just doing what you can. Is that's fair to say? Well, I mean we have we have leases with those property owners and and under those leases we have the right to remove those signs

and you know to the extent that the lease needs to be purchased or bought out that's something that we would do. You know the other thing I'll say is is that you know Alfront is the holder of the permit. So when we remove these signs and extinguish the non-conforming use, the permit, the DOT permit is also extinguished or removed. So we're, you know, on a, you know, various different levels. When is the lease up on both of those properties? I do not know the answer to that question. Ron, do you know the answer to that question? I think we're like a year itself. help you know year to year

and then couldn't Greg Vela sign company then go back to the DOT and say these people have vacated the area I want I want a sign license and then go to the board. Well, I guess there's there the applicant uh the property owner, you know, could go to DOT to to request a permit. Um, at the end of the day, they would have to get a D1 use variance from this board,

right? They would need a D1 use variance and say, "Hey, we just want to put a static sign up. We need a use variance. Here's the resolution. You approved the digital one a,000 ft away. What's the difference?" We have less impact cuz we're we're digital. So give us our use variance because you already approved the other one. Our LE walked away and took down the structure. We never had an intent to abandon it. They left us. Well, the abandonment Yeah. I I mean, Mr. I mean, any any property owner along, you know, Route 33 has the right to go to the DOT to the extent that they're not within a um they're not crowded out or spaced out by an existing structure.

So, I mean, what I guess my point is to say is that, you know, anyone has the ability to do that. and anyone has the ability to request this board for D1 use variance. You know, as you're aware, every application stands on its two feet and there's no such thing as a precedent here. Um, every applic I can't point to it a separate application and say that's, you know, you gave a D1 use variance to that applicant, so I'm entitled to one. That's not the way D1 use variances work. Buzz's heard me say that speech before, right? Well, I've heard I think I I think I've given that speech too when someone said what you said.

But I but I guess the question the real question and then we can move on from it is and I think I'm correct. I think you've already testifi or your your clients have testified. The fact that you have a digital DP license for your location only prohibits other digital signs with a certain amount of linear footage up and down the road. Correct. 3,000 ft. 300 ft rule. I had a question on that as well. Doesn't stop the digital license. doesn't stop static license within that 3,000 ft either side. 300 ft is the is the distance requirement for static. So it's you have 300 on each side for static. Correct. Because you have a digital

Mhm. Okay. If I get about two water. So, so if you're not if the DOT is not permitting a digital sign within 3,000 ft of another digital sign, does that mean both sides of the road or does it mean only one side? It means on one side of the road, right? So, to follow up on that question, is a 30,000 ft rule apply just only to outfront media or can let's say Lamar or Clear Channel applies to all all applicants. So, it's only one digital billboard within 3,000 ft. No other car no other say carriers, but companies can

How far away from an intersection does it have to be [Applause] 500 may a point. Oh, time out. Time out. Time out. Maybe we're getting to the point to we're asking the lawyer too many questions and then ask your prof have your professional come back re reworn and potentially answer it. Yeah, that I think we're getting into an area that Ron Yeah. You want me? Yeah. I think there's questions here about the cuz next thing you know I'm swear I'm swearing you in counsel. Sir, please raise your right hand. You swear from the following testimony about to give us the whole truth about the truth. I do. Please state your name spelling your last name for the record, please.

Tortillo. T O U R T E L O T. Mr. Tell, you previously been sworn. You're reminded you're still on the road, so you could take a seat. If you want to grab the mic with you, too, that'd be great, sir. Okay. How's that? Is it on? I don't know. Well, maybe I'll just share that one. How's that? Is that working? Hold on. Daniel checking. Slide that one over.

Okay. Uh, I can answer that question about the how far from the intersection. Um, on a roadway like route 33, the state DOT does not regulate any like ramp spacing or intersections. Um, so there is none. If it was a limited access highway, then there's a 500 ft um rule about spacing. But since this is a non-limited access highway, uh there is no such spacing. So you could put it right on the intersection right next to car.

You could place it. They don't look at that um as part of the criteria for citing these on an unlimited access highway. Uh and as previously stated, there's 300 ft between static signs along the same side of the road and 3,000 ft spacing from both sides of this sign. No other digital sign could be located. So, you know, what Alfront is proposing is is that right right now, you know, there's 989 square feet of outdoor advertising that exists right now. That's a pre-existing non-conforming use that Alfront has the the right to operate as a zoning matter, you know, for as long as its lease exists, right? As a pre-existing non-conforming use. What Alfront is proposing is to remove those signs as a condition of approval. So, you know, if the goal is to to lessen the amount of outdoor advertising in the township, which I would think that as a as a non-conforming use is certainly a a uh a policy goal. Um, this certainly would uh bring the township a far way into, you know, reaching that goal.

It depends on that depends on how how you classify it. Right now, you have you're you're you have three signs, three double-faced signs that stand 24 hours a day, right? But then you and you're proposing to remove two of the doubleace signs and have a double face sign that changes every 8 seconds, 24/7, 365. So, it's a fair it's fair to say that there's significantly more advertising going on on the digital billboard than there is on the stagnates um in the in the form of messaging like not even close.

Well, you know, by way of impact, you you rais a good point with respect to the the lighting. These signs, I didn't mention that these, you know, signs that are being proposed to take be taken down, these four signs, they are, you know, lit 24/7. um you know they are visible at at night um as we m you know as was discussed by Mr. void. The um lighting for these type of static signs is not controlled. Uh whereas the the lighting for the digital sign that we're proposing is controlled. So when it gets darker at night, the the the sign gets less bright, much less bright. So it's less impactful, has less um you know, shines less um offsite. Um whereas these signs that exist that that that currently operate and that we have every right to operate in the future, you know, don't have the benefit of that technology um are less impactful in that way and we're we are proposing to remove them.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Maybe we could start with your next witness. Sure. Can I ask a quick question? What's the distance from this uh sign to both sides of the town? I'm just wondering if you get another one. Well, there going to be another one or two more on that side. Digital sign, a digital sign. I think we think the town line ends, but I'm not 100% sure. I think we looked at that in the town. It would be outside of the township in Milstone, I believe. But maybe we could do some work with the engineer just to look at that really quick.

Right. So, here here's what I did. I I drove my car from Sweetman and Milstone all the way to the turnpike. Okay. And then from all the way from the turnpike all the way to Neptune on along Route 33. Okay. So, here's what I found. No digital billboards between Route 30, between the Turnpike and Neptune until you hit Kelly's Tavern and the and the uh marina in Avon where the bridge goes over the Shark River. There's two digital billboards. Coincidentally, Outdoor Outfront Media operates every billboard except the one on Kelly's Tavern. I think they own that. Okay. It's called Billy Boards, but your name, your company name is on every billboard along that road. So between Sweetman and or Sweetman Milhurst, okay, along Manalapen, there's five signed structures within 2.8 miles. Okay, so that's a m that's basically a sign every half a mile. Milstone has four sign structures within two within the entire two mile stretch of Milstone. There's two miles. Okay. Between Woodward

between Woodward and Prodlin Way. Two miles. Definitely.

Okay. And then East Windsor has two sign structures within 2.9 miles. That's the distance between Prodlin Way and the Turnpike. Okay. That's 1.4. 45 miles. I mean, uh, signs per mile. But, oddly, in interestingly, in the Millstone section, out of the four sign positions, they're all within 1,00 a 1,000 ft stretch of the twomile long highway in Milstone. So, I don't know how that happened or why that happened, but they're all there. So, um, Milstone has by far a higher concentration of signs than East Winder and Manalapin.

And what'sing to do is to they're all out front media, right? And what we're proposing to do is to to lessen that concentration by by removing two structures and four sign faces. Where where's the fourth sign? So, there's two on the westbound side and two on the northbound side, I mean, uh, eastbound side, and they're all right in that same area, in that area. So, um, or there might be three on the westbound side and one on the eastbound side.

So, there's anything else on on this, I we would like to get our planner tip to provide some testimony. Uh, one thing I'll just say before George William come comes up, um, after we're done with M. Mr. Williams testimony, one thing we talked about last time was that the board kind of has an option. Does it does it prefer that the um that the pole be visible below the sign that be a monopole? Does the board prefer that uh that it have that apron that has kind of a a monument style um um view to it um to look like it's kind of a faux stone faux stone structure. Um, I just want to call that out now because I do want to have that discussion uh with the board on on aesthetically. We can discuss that after the planner. Yeah. Yeah.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, sir. [Music] Okay. Sir, please raise your right hand. Do you swear from the following testimony about gives the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I most certainly do. Please state your name for the record. Spell your last name, sir. Good evening, commissioners. My name is George Weedle Williams. Williams spelled with an S. W I L L I A MS. Sir, I think the microphone was working before. Not that you don't need I don't know. George, could you just go over your education professional lensure experience?

Certainly. I'm uh licensed by the state board of professional planners, nationally certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners. I completed my graduate studies at the Rucker Graduate School, now known as the Blousein School, just to date myself a little bit. Uh I've been practicing in the field of planning for a little over 30 years with a primary focus on land use of course, but also economic and uh community development planning. And my firm works in a variety of planning specialtities including development of master plans, zoning ordinances, redevelopment plans, uh now planning for sustainability and um civic engagement. I have uh also represent land use boards currently representing the Hoboken um Bloomfield and I just drew a blank on another one. Um land use boards and my firm represents boards in Newark, Orange and Planefield. I've appeared before numerous land use boards throughout the state of New Jersey, but this is my first time before this August board.

Um Mr. Mr. Chairman, we are good, Mr. Williams. Thank you. I appreciate that. And you know it's you have very extensive background. Excellent. Thank you. But we accept your qualifications. Thank you. You may proceed. So, Mr. Williams, could you just tell the board what work you've completed in the preparation of your testimony?

Certainly. Uh I propose I approached this application the way I approach uh every land use application that begins with a review of the local land use documents. in this case, your 2017 master plan and your land development ordinance. All that in the context of the municipal land use law. Of course, I've also reviewed the site plan and site plan application that are before you this evening with their attachments and I and my staff along with the team uh for OFM Outfront Media uh have visited the site on more than one occasion. I also reviewed some of the case law and planning literature in support of the release that we are seeking this evening. uh and I attended the previous hearing. Uh and additionally, I did review the board uh professional review memos that were submitted. I think there's also one uh municipal department memo that I reviewed as well.

Could you just um give us your planning overview of the subject application for the proposed Morization? Certainly. You can see me flipping pages. I'm going to refer to my notes. I was asked to be as brief or succinct as possible and the outline helps me do that. Um, you've heard a considerable amount of testimony from the other members of our team already. I will do my best in the spirit of being succinct not to be too redundant, although I will repeat a few foundational statements for the record. then um give you a broad planning overview, assessment or analysis and then get to the statutoily required uh requisite proofs for the release we're seeking.

George, before you talk about the uh property description, I just want to uh clarify this uh map was submitted to the board and previously marked as exhibit 8 2021. This planning exhibit, your office prepared this. That is correct. It shows just the the subject zone and and the surrounding area that's um over aerial. Is that that correct? That is also correct. Okay. Thank you. You can continue. Certainly. And and the purpose of that exhibit was merely to show this board what they already know. You're more you're as familiar with the site, if not more than I, but just to give you context for the remainder of my testimony about the orientation design, location of the sign, and I'll talk to you a bit more about the OFM approach to uh site selection in a few moments.

We're going to hand this out just because we can't look at it on the screen. Ah, sorry. Good job, council. cuz I was going to ask you to put it up or something. And it's already been marked. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks, sir. And this was a 21 Okay, you can proceed.

Certainly. So, in terms of the foundational statements, again, this is property that we commonly refer to as the Route 33 site, but as council mentioned, as did our engineer in your uh municipal tax records, it's identified. It's block 23.02, lot number 2.04, 04 and it is in your planned commercial uh development zone or PCD. The site is approximately 0.37 acres as testified by Mr. Vote, our civil engineer, and it is uh developed with the aforementioned static signs that we seek to modernize. Again, the project description, I won't belabor this, is to modernize the static signs using the uh contemporary format, which is the LED uh display system with a monopole and or if this Ford so desires, the apron, which makes it uh even more aesthetically pleasing. Um, as was mentioned by both council and our civil engineer, the proposed modernization has a number of benefits which I'll get into in a few moments, but it also includes a slight reduction in sign area of the existing signs on the site. The according to your section 35-5-15 of the code, the purpose of the PCD is uh to promote the use of larger tracks of unified wellplanned and designed commercial development. The PCD will better control highway access, maintain the free flow of traffic along Route 33, and discourage the fragmentation of highway frontage into highway strip or uncoordinated development of small lots. You'll hear me repeat this that the purpose and intent of outdoor advertising is in point of fact to promote commerce and I'll talk a bit more about that as well. Uh as you've heard from council and previous witnesses uh we are seeking a couple of reliefs. the Dvarance uh and

I'll go into that in further depth is required because the proposed billboard uh is not among the permitted uses in the PCD. So we are going to talk my planning testimony will discuss the toggling between the D2 and the D1 and as this board knows the D2 is for an expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use and the D1 is for a wholly new non-conforming use. uh but I think talking about them both in my testimony may be instructive. There are also uh two C variances or bulk and area deviations which were discussed by our civil engineer. One is the minimum front yard setback for a sign. The other is the minimum front yard setback for a uh principal structure and there was some discussion between uh the applicants engineer and your board engineer about that. uh you'll hear me testify that in my professional opinion the C variances may be subsumed if you were to grant either the D1 or D2 variants but we're more than willing to provide proofs for the bulcan area deviations as well. There are also a number of uh pre-existing nonconformities and as you heard from Mr. vote our civil engineer and I will opine now that if you were to grant our proposed uh modernization none of those pre-existing nonconformities would be exacerbated uh and in that sense particularly under the cordini court case I would submit no additional relief is needed for those pre-existing nonconformities in terms of bulk and area [Music] that being said from a general planning perspective a broad overview uh This application is particularly interesting because of the fact that the sign the static sign has existed at this site for close to 70 years. I think uh was testified by Mr. Vote through the use of

um historic aerials and by looking at the OFM documentation for those signs. Uh there will be no changes to the setback uh for the proposed sign as you heard Mr. vote discussed and the dimensions of the proposed modernized billboard will be slightly smaller than the existing uh sign area that exists on a site. Now, finally, this is particularly interesting because as you just heard uh from our council, this is both a modernization and consolidation. That consolidation includes, as you've just heard, the removal of uh four sign faces, each of which are also pre-existing non-conforming uses in at their sites, but also their static signs. Uh and we'll you heard testimony from uh the applicant's representative about the benefit of digital over static and hence the ability to remove those uh static faces. The removal of those static faces, as you've heard from council, also is uh uh important for the community. That 989 square feet of sign area by removing the non-conformities is a good planning uh suggestion. Um

hey um George and that that 989 and that's that's in addition to uh the amount that's being reduced by way of the the smaller sign. That is correct. So that's you know 423.3 ft plus the 999. That is correct. Okay. Yep.

Uh finally I mentioned this in my introduction. I talked briefly about the OFM or outfront media methodology for site selection. Uh I have worked with outfront media for a number of years now um and uh can attest to their approach for all site selections. It begins with the uh permit run as you've heard from both the uh applicant's representative as well as our civil engineer. And then when it's time for the modernization or new build uh there's a considerable amount of effort that goes into making sure that the sign um build and orientation is contextsensitive. By context sensitive I mean typically the team including the civil engineer uh sometimes other experts myself and representatives from OFM will go to the site walk the site drive the site thoroughly photojournal uh to make sure that um the views of the sign are oriented toward the primary audience or the audience which is vehicular traffic along these roadways. more importantly that there's no negative visual impact on uh non-commercial areas by the sign location and orientation. Uh, of course, there are other benefits as you've heard from uh the uh previous witnesses. Digital billboards have the benefit of the public benefit package and the protocols that were discussed very briefly. That means the ability to um advertise PSAs or public service announcements and community events. For this sign in particular, the community event space or municipal messaging space is particularly appealing because it could be seen as a gateway uh uh message center particularly especially if the apron is selected. It has a very aesthetic uh improvement to the area. In

terms of the impact on the surrounding area based on the due diligence or the methodology of O of FM that I just mentioned, I would submit that again there has been a billboard at the site for almost 70 years and the impact of the modernization would be to improve the site. Uh first of all the the aesthetic of the monopole and/or apron, the slight reduction in the sign area. Also the uh lessening of site visits because the copy has changed remotely and most of the technology monitors or the technology monitors most of the operation of the sign such as the changes and or uh dates can be done remotely. Um, with that I will move to and lastly the literature supports what you heard Mr. Torrell say earlier that the digital format also makes the billboards a bit more readable, legible and conspicuous which is a good thing for our target audience which are uh vehicular traffic. We looked at the um exhibit already. With that, I would move to the reliefs. Uh, as this board knows, there are uh six types of devariances at issue before you this evening. In my opinion, are either the D2, which is the expansion of a non-conforming use, and you heard testimony uh from Mr. Vote about uh the existence of the sign at the site. We also heard testimony uh from our representative about the permits uh documenting the longstanding existence of the site signed at the site. As this board knows the D2 um allows the board to uh dispose of the particular suitability requirement of the proofs and gives this board the ability to look at the negative criteria with greater

liberality. And this board knows the negative criteria is a two-prong test. The first prong is no substantial detriment to the public good and no substantial impairment to the zone plan. The D1 and there's a landmark court case for the D2 which I'll discuss in a moment. That's the Burbridge court case. Burbage vine mine hill. The D1 however very similar although it is intended for wholly new uh land uses that are not among the enumerated permitted uses in its own district and does require a showing of particular suitability. So with that for both variances both Dvarianes D1 or D2 the board as you know has to balance the affirmative criteria or special reasons with the negative criteria. I've already discussed what the negative criteria that two-prong test is. The affirmative criteria is showing that if you were to grant our relief, the purposes of zoning would be advanced or the site is andor the site is particularly suitable for the proposed use. Um, and uh if you were to or the use is inherently beneficial, which we're not submitting for uh this application. And last but not least, if you were to deny our application, it would constitute an undue hardship. I'm going to begin with the D2 only because from a very practical sense, it uh it's helpful given the tenure of the sign at the site, but I will end my testimony with the particular suitability requirement for the D1. According to the Burbage court case, as I mentioned, Burbage v. Mine Hill, uh special reasons can also be found when uh the site is uh makes an aesthetic improvement the proposed use can make an aesthetic improvement to the site and

minimize the nonconformity. Moreover, Burbridge finds that you, the board, can uh impose reasonable conditions as part of your approval. The court noted that applications to expand lawfully created pre-existing non-conforming uses offer boards zoning boards opportunities to impose conditions frequently aesthetic which will help in integrate the use with its surroundings and especially important consideration for uses uses which are thriving and therefore not likely to end soon. George, just for a second. So, Burbridge, that was a junkyard, right? Correct.

And that what happened is that there was a expansion of the junkyard, but in a way in which it it helped um alleviate the the the view the view of the junkyard from the from the public view. Correct. There was a squaring off and there was also landscaping that uh mitigated the view of that junkyard. Was it also they moved the junkyard from the front of the property to the back of the property so you couldn't see the junkyard? Correct. Wouldn't that been the most aesthetic part of it that you don't see the junkyard anymore? That was certainly a a significant part of it. Yes. Okay.

Um, Justice Clifford from that court case uh issued a quote that I find myself using fairly frequently, and I quote, "When a lawfully created pre-existing non-conforming use cannot be eliminated, a municipality may and should seek to harmonize the use with its environments. To this end, a municipality ought to require aesthetic improvement as a condition of expansion. A municipality's ability to insist on specific changes as part of the expansion safeguards general welfare. I'll just pause there to say uh the applicant in this application has already agreed to a couple of those um harmonizations. One would be the removal of the invas invasive species at the site, the proposed apron if the board chooses to go that way. Uh as well as I think there's another condition of the consolidation as well.

But even just removing those seven metal support poles and replacing with a monopole. Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder obviously, but I would argue that having done this for a number of years, the monopole, a much sleeker uh sturdier um uh mounting source is much more aesthetically pleasing than the rusted steel supports that are there currently. And if you go way back, the wooden lattice supports. So uh part of the modernization in terms of the uh special reasons again um 40 col 55D-2 are the purposes of zoning under the municipal land use law. I'm going to begin with subsection A. It's a bit of a catchall because it's the first, but I would submit that it's appropriate in this application. And it is, I quote, to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare. In the case of modernized uh digital format billboards that is achieved through the public benefits package and the protocols uh that were mentioned uh by the applicant earlier. Specifically, the general welfare is enhanced by the ability to communicate remotely and filibly um information that benefits the public, not just the applicant. Subsection G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial uses and open space, both public and private, according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet uh the needs of all New Jersey citizens. uh in terms of this land use the appropriate environment and I'll cite a state statute in a moment is proximity to major roadways again the target audience is our vehicular traffic

uh and the proximity or adjacency to route 33 certainly achieves that and has achieved that for uh this applicant for decades. Uh finally before I get into the state statute subsection I to promote a desirable visual environment through good civic design the focus is typically on the aesthetic but I would submit to this board the civic design uh about which you heard testimony from Mr. vote is also part of the advancement of subsection I the visual environment I would argue uh is part of the modernization given the monopole but more importantly the uh opportunity for this board to perhaps select the uh more ornate um apron that's been discussed uh earlier and a removal of the steel structure finally there's a court case and fuzo vile which suggests that if a state policy is advanced, that can be accepted by the board as a special reason. And I would submit that the New Jersey Roadside Sign Control and Outdoor Advertising Act would be advanced if you were to grant our modernization and consolidation uh proposal. That act finds to balance it intent is to balance the need to control and regulate roadside signs and outdoor advertising. Address technological advancements of the outdoor advertising industry. Provide for safety and convenience of the public and the need to stimulate economic commercial activity within a state. In my professional opinion, again, having worked with Outfront Media for a number of years and reviewed the planning literature about outdoor advertising signs, certainly the modernization is about technological advancement, but also to promote commerce uh throughout the state. Uh

Outfront does a market analysis for most other sites and typically the uh it's a 7030% split. 70% of the uh advertisements that are uh leased or purchased are local and the other 30% are ultra local regional and or national. Um in terms of the negative criteria, uh the greater liberality clause applies under the D2. uh and that suggests that the board can look at the negative criteria again with greater liberality because the sign has existed or the use has existed at this location for a number of years as opposed to being a brand new use. The first prong I mentioned earlier is no substantial detriment to the public good. That word substantial comes directly from the municipal land use law. And I would submit that based on uh our review of this application, review of the sites and coordination with the other members of the team, there would certainly be no substantial detriment to the public good. In point of fact, in my opinion, if you were to approve our modernization and consolidation uh proposal, there would be improvements to the site and therefore the surrounding area. Again, most importantly, the aesthetic, but also the technology that channels or controls the lighting in a way that is far better than the older format of static lighting, uh, which is not controlled the way the LED is. Second prong, no substantial impairment of the zone plan. That's your master plan and or zoning ordinance. Uh there was not a lot of reference to billboards specifically in your master plan, but the master plan does include a number of uh discussions about the need to um

promote commerce in Millstone. Uh and again, that is the intent and purpose of outdoor advertising is to promote uh commerce. And as you heard me say a moment ago, according to OFM, that split in terms of advertisements is roughly 7030. So that's a significant promotion of local advertisements. Um in the planned commercial development or PCD, uh there is a um nod to encourage larger lots overall site planning and design and larger uh commercial uses, larger scale retail rather. Again, the LED or digital format allows the applicant to promote uh that type of retail development in uh Milstone. In terms of the D1, uh Mr. Mr. Before we go to D1 different

question on the detail, I know you reviewed the plans and you know that the applicant is completely demolishing the existing structure. Could you explain in your opinion that a detail D2 still applies if the entire non-conforming structure is completely voluntarily removed from the site? Because once you remove it's not there anymore. So how are you really expanding when it's all gone? It is a conundrum of billboard monetizations and I take your point which is why we typically offer proofs for D2 and D1. The D2 is just because it it makes sense legally. However, it is always a bone of contention because the structure is removed. I will tell you that there are engineering ways to uh construct the monopole and keep part of the structure, the steel structure up while that's uh occurring. But I don't want to be disingenuous. The point is that the sign's been there 70 years. The only way to modernize it effectively is to add the monopole.

Can you speak to the the the the purpose or the effect of the intent?

Certainly. Um and that is part and parcel of the D2. There's no abandonment of the intent to use that site for the billboard. Clearly, OFM and the DOT permit understand that this is a modernization and that the intent is to continue the use. But again, we're very comfortable proving under D1 or D2. Well, wouldn't that be the same if I had a old commercial building in a residential zone and I said, "Hey, I want to build a more modern commercial building on the property rather than a commercial building that's been here from 1920. I want to build a brand new commercial building that includes drywall, insulation, up-to-date CAT wiring, roofing, drainage, and the like." Is that an expansion when I have no intent to get rid of the commercial, but I'm demoing the entire building and I'm modernizing by building a new commercial building in the residential zone. Would that be in your opinion still a D2 variance? I didn't intend to get rid of the commercial. I'm just quote unquote modernizing by ripping it all down and going new. And how does that play with the pure intent of zoning is to move to conformity. So when when you tear things down that your zone says, "Hey, let's move to where it is per what is permitted." How do you how do you balance those things?

All very good questions. And again, it's the conundrum of uh billboard modernizations. For your hypothetical, for example, and again, I'm not debating. This is what we go through every time with billboards. Um, there are more often than not standards in local zoning codes that specify the amount of destruction or demolition that lose that uh that that usually it's like 50%.

Correct. There's no such thing for billboards that I'm aware of and I've done a lot of research and again um it is counterintuitive in my opinion to dispense of the D2 argument but understanding the law and the predilictions of boards. That's why I always do the D1 as well. Fred, do you have anything to add?

It's a D1. It's a D1. It represents a modernization of the site but not the structure and and the use. It's I think it's a D1 in terms of uh the especially when it's completely gone. Doesn't mean the site isn't suited to the use. It might be very well suited to the use, but in terms of an alteration or expansion of an existing use, the the structure is gone. Even if it's for a second and then it's rebuilt, it it doesn't necessarily represent a fatal argument or a major liability, but it's gone. and and I would agree with your board. Well, I understand your board planner's point. Again, that's why we do both the D2 and D1. Uh unfortunately, there's almost no way to modernize it without the swapping out. I would also agree your board planner that it's not a fatal point of distinction. Here's why I always do both. However, you're going to hear me discuss particular suitability in a moment based largely in part on the uh existence of the billboard at the site for 70 years which suggests its suitability. That being said, again, if I had to um wrap up the testimony for both D1 and D2, the only missing part for the D1 proofs under the special reasons would be the particular suitability your board planner just mentioned. And and I agree with you, Mr. the the the fatality of your D1 does arise or fall in your proofs for the D2,

right? And and in fact, they are going to be almost exactly the same except for particular suitability. Um, from a professional planning perspective and analysis, I would submit to this board that this site is particularly suited for the proposed use, which will be the modern uh, LED format digital billboard because of its proximity to Route 33. And more importantly, that it's in a nonresidential uh, district. And lastly, that there are no conflicting land uses in the immediate vicinity. That meaning that this billboard, if you were to approve it, has all the benefits I mentioned under the uh D2 and is particularly suited for this site for the reasons I've just mentioned and for the reasons you've heard from our civil engineer. The negative criteria would be the same for both. in my professional opinion

in terms of the C variants or the bulk. Before we get to that, let's finish the D1. Yeah. Okay. Question you you and I you want to ask.

Yeah. Yeah. I just have one question, George. uh you know, Bill uh Boyd testified that with respect to this site because it's in a flood plane, uh the D issued a permit to reconstruct the um the sign um to modernize it. Um because it pre-existed, but you know because and they did that because it it's it it pre-exists you know those regulations is there its grandfather that you know nothing nothing new can be nothing else can be done with with a property essentially because um because of that environmental issue. Is that does that impact at all or have any um impact on your analysis or discussion?

Yes, I mean particularly suitable for this use because it's practically the only use that could be built on the site given the land constraints that our civil engineer testified to earlier.

Could you you've in you're you've already been at 822 which is two different static billboards. Could you explain why those sites are those sites any different than your proposed site regarding particular suitability because they're both on route 33 and I believe they're in a non-resident zone but don't hold me to that. Is there any difference between those sites that you have billboard signs compared to the subject site? Is there any difference for that other than there's a permit for one not for the other? And then the question becomes is did you apply? What's the ch is could they've al and hypothetically would the DP approve it do DOT approve it for a different site if it wasn't applied for this one so if you explain why other than the DOT permit which is not a particular suitability point it's just a permit what are those two differ than the subject site

because they both have signs both on Route 33 and I believe they're not in a residential zone but don't hold me to that cuz I'm not Right. There's probably not in a wetlands either.

Well, no. So, so is there is there anything particularly different about this site as compared to the other two sites that already have signs or any other properties along Route 33 within the township of Milstone that you could put a you could say it's particular city is close to Route 33 non-residential zone. Other than those two factors, is there any difference? And why makes it this different than other other than the permit? Let me try and answer that a couple ways. As you know, the case law does not require us to show there are no other suitable sites for the proposed use. I would submit that while I am about to take a stab at answering your questions, your question rather, it's more of an operational uh question for the um the representative OFM. I can tell you from my collaboration with the team that one of the one of the indices that made this site particularly suitable was its gateway appeal and you've heard I think a couple of the witnesses talk about how this sign is located in such a way can provide gateway messages to uh Milstone. So it's the permit, the analysis that OFM goes through for site selection and the identification of this site as having the most benefit in terms of reaching its audience. Explain that what's the difference like the other sign the first sign how how many square feet or linear feet is it from your proposed

1700. Is that the 1200 11200 everyone that so 1200 is your testimony that 1,200 ft down Route 33 is a creates a different what's the term I'm looking for a a different uh customer base 1 ft down a relatively straight road as compared to the site. No, I I think my testimony is that the OFM site selection is based on a number of factors that this one had the most appeal and I don't think we can discount the permit, but that it was suitable primarily because of its adjacency to Route 33. Does that negate the appropriateness of the other sites?

No. But again, in terms of market analysis, which is a little bit different than uh particular suitability, that would be a question for OFM to answer. Um George with Yeah, sure. Is Is it because the leases on the other ones are going to expire next year versus this one might be a much longer term lease, so it makes more sense to invest in it? That's one of the operational indices I was referring to that I would not know, but the OFM representative would. I mean, I heard mention moments ago that they're a self-renewing annual. I don't know if they differ from this lease arrangement, but you asked a good question,

George. With respect to the particular suitability, um this this sign is located to the to the um east of the additional the other properties or the other signs. Is that is that correct? That is correct. And the border the the uh township border is farther to the east um than here. Is that is that correct? Subject property. That's also correct.

Okay. So, so that means that um anyone that is entering the township on route um route 33 coming the opposite direction um towards towards the sign. So, I guess that was we're a westbound, so they would be going eastbound. Right. Right. Um maybe I think I have it I think I have it reversed. I think um I think we're we're far to the west. Right. We're far to the west. I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, we're far to the west. So, anyone coming on the opposite side coming eastbound, this would be the first sign that they would see entering into the township. Correct. Correct. Coming from Monroe. Right. And that's what you mean. Um, gate gateway. That is correct.

Right. Um, and that's why the other signs, you know, aren't gateway signs because this is the first sign. That's correct. Is that what you meant? That is correct. Okay. I think generally a gateway sign means an entrance to something, an entrance to the town, an entrance into a major commercial area. I could also look at it. This is this is just the first available sign. Well, true. But also then if since we're on the western part, it's also an exit sign, right? So once you Thanks for coming. Yeah. Well, yeah. Thanks for coming to Milstone. We'll see you. you know, you already been through the town. Guess you've already went, I guess, in both ways cuz double face signs.

Correct. And we see um protocols or um renderings that OFM has showed here in other municipalities will say, "Thank you for shopping in Millstone, for example." But the you're not testifying that the sign is solely intended for Millstone businesses, correct? No. Point of fact, council, my testimony was a bit different. I think I I mentioned a 7030 uh split between local and non-local ads.

So, your what's your definition of local? Uh, I'll defer to OFM on that, but my understanding is that it's Millstone specifically and then there's a concentric circle that gets drawn as it goes further and further out cuz 70% of the ads, if it's local or millstone, you're talking 2.7 million ads per year sold to Millstone businesses a year. I'll trust your math. Refresh rate, right? Yeah. Based on the refresh rate of eight one every 8 seconds. Wouldn't Millstone be the hyper local that you referred to that within that 30%.

Local, regional, and then there was hyper local, regional, and national, you're still under oath.

I'm not the the sales representative, but basically what we're talking about is we have other signs as mentioned like an Avon, things like that. So local we have a network of signage so local advertisers could be on even from Avon by the sea say for restaurants or marinas there Milstone promoting that and maybe Avon by the seas promoting something in Millstone. So they all work together. So if their offices are in Millstone is one um and if they're in the general area of Millstone local car dealerships things like that that's all local advertising. It's not a national brand. Uh that's roughly 30%. Uh and as far as like the slices of advertising, it's I don't think it's all those because a client will buy um a month's worth of those 8-second spots. So they don't not every single one is an individual advertiser. It's one client for one slice. If that helps clarify anything.

And then George, with respect to your your testimony, you know, the the township also has the use of the sign. Is that is that correct? And certainly with respect to the location of a gateway, is that an important factor?

Correct. And so in the public benefit package, we talked about the terms that the municipality could utilize to advertise uh events and activities within the municipality or to do things like a welcome uh message as you enter or pass by the sign. Okay, so those are the positive and the negative criteria for the D variances. As I mentioned in my introductory comments, there are also two bulk and area deviations. Uh the minimum front yard setback for the sign requirement is uh minimum required is 15 ft. Existing is 3.25 ft. Uh and proposed is 3.25 25 as testified by Mr. Vote and indicated on his site plans. There's also a call out for the minimum front yard setback looking at the sign as a principal structure. Uh required setback is a minimum of 100 ft for the principal structure. Existing is 3.25 and what's proposed is 3.25. Given the intent and purpose of those two bulk and area standards, I'm going to submit that this is most cognizable under the C2 context. As this board knows, there are two contexts. a C1 or traditional hardship variance which seeks to show uh unique topography, shape, size or structures lawfully thereon for the hardship and a C2 which allows the board to consider if on the whole what's being proposed is a better zoning alternative than a strict application of your code. Uh in my opinion, the C2 is perhaps most appropriate, although there are elements of the C1 in our application. Um the uh C2 also allows you to look at the

characteristics of the land that present an opportunity for improved zoning uh and the planet will benefit the community. For all those reasons, I'm going to submit that the uh C2 is appropriate. As this board knows for the granting of C2, the purposes of zoning have to be demonstrated. Um the same sort of negative criteria analysis and again the better zoning alternative. From my professional planning perspective, the uh purposes of zoning that would be advanced if you were to grant the C2 uh release would be very similar to those of the Dvariants. Certainly the good civic design as testified to by Mr. Vote allowing a deviation from the strict application of your code allows the sign to be positioned on a site in a way that affectuates the purpose and intent of the sign which is its readability from the targeted audience which is our vehicular traffic. The 100 foot setback, for example, is not really intended for signs in my opinion, but actual buildings. And in that sense, the setback would make more sense. But a 100 foot setback for the billboard would take it out of the viewshed of the motorist, which is not uh certainly does not affect the purpose of the sign and um would have other issues uh if that were to be enforced. Um, in terms of the trade-offs, again, the purpose of the setbacks, uh, for the 100 foot, I would argue, are really for buildings, not signs. The proposed setback is most appropriate for, um, outdoor advertising signs and tends to be uh, the standard in terms of uh, setbacks along highways. So, it's actually a better civic uh, design than the actual application of your code. In

terms of detriments, again I would submit there are no detriments to uh the deviation from the bulk and area standards. Rather there would only be benefits and certainly there's no impairment to your zone plan because again I think those setbacks are intended for uses other than the billboard. So there would certainly be no substantial impairment to your zone plan. So for all those reasons I would submit that the board while they could subsume the C variances under the granting of either the D1 or D2 they uh board can also take comfort in the application of the C2 uh relief for those um deviations.

George um one more question just to go back to the D1 in particular suitability. So um there was some question as to you know what makes this location you know more particularly suitable than the other two. Now, Alfront is agreeing to um cease that use to remove those signs. So, you know, is that is that a consideration? The fact the fact that those signs would be removed that those signs those properties the signs of those properties would cease that that that use would cease offsite. Offsite.

Yes. Yes. Um so the modernization consolidation argument is something uh that has uh mitigating factors that support the granting of the relief the D1 or the D2 and also have public benefits again as has been mentioned the removal of uh a number of non-conforming sign faces in the area which uh advance the purposes There any questions for first Williams on the the sea variances or anything else?

Do you address the the town's ordinance for any sign is 15 ft setback? This is a large sign. Why is it 3T? So when you say any sign, are you referring to on premise signs as opposed to billboards? Yeah. So on premise signs tend to def v differ from uh off- premise signs substantially. You think of on premise, you're thinking uh sign on a store phase or a stansion sign, freestanding sign, freestanding sign, stansion sign uh for a commercial plaza, for example.

The sighting of outdoor advertising signs. Again, this has been at this location at that setback for uh decades is a bit different because the targeted audience is uh intended to have a further view than the on premise sign. So the goal of billboards is to capture the attention of the vehicular traffic at a safe distance but a substantial distance away so they're able to uh take in the information as opposed to saying turn right here, turn left there. So they're a bit different. No, Plaza have signs advertising their businesses 15 ft from property line. Yeah.

I don't know how that's different than what you're talking about. Yeah. My experience has been the standards whether it's Milstone or or elsewhere the standards for my argument is if you will that many municipalities have different standards for the setbacks for outdoor advertising signs versus on premise signs for a variety of reasons we don't no you don't we don't have any allow correct that's part of the issue George are there any um before I forget to ask um are there any site plan concerns or what from a planning perspective with respect to the proposed.

No. And that goes to the sub uh purpose I and uh Mr. Vot's testimony about the site planning issues, his careful review of the site and the site constraints and ability to build on the site without any uh issues to the site itself, any negative issues. Okay. Thank you. So I have a question. So if if Outfront operates every billboard along Route 33 and to expand on our attorney's question is why is this site particularly suited when you when you can apply for this type of a sign on any of the sites that you operate along Route 33 between Sweetman Lane and a turnpike? Why no stone?

I should have kept uh our outfront rep up here a little bit longer. Let me take um a stab at answering your question. One is of course the permit. What permits allow the LED format or perhaps do not. Um and the other was and I've heard uh our representative from OFM refer to change in neighborhoods or development patterns that make one site better for the modernization than another than others and to in the same extent other sites more appropriate for the removal of signs because of those issues and he could speak to that much better than I. So also I wanted to ask so we know that you have DOT approval. Correct.

Correct. Does that also mean that you have D approval? Yes. That Mr. Mr. Bo testified to that that we have D approval to reconstruct the sign and that was provided as an exhibit. If this was a brand new sign being put up or being proposed that never existed, is it is it your opinion that the D would would grant approval that it's right in the wetlands? Mr. Mr. Vote testified with respect to that that in that particular situation, the D wouldn't permit something new, but they'll permit a reconstruction, which is what this this is,

right? So the other thing there was testimony given by I think it's your engineer right that the bottom of the sign is 14 ft off the ground. Is that accurate? So if it's accurate what where is the ground at the base in the depression? So that's a that's an engineering question that that Mr. Williams really can't speak to because the roadway is much higher than where

the the um monopole is being proposed to be um secured to the ground. Maybe I I didn't I don't know what it is. It could be 8 ft, 10 ft, 6 feet, but it's substantially different because I was parked in a car at the intersection of Milstone Road going southbound and at the traffic light and I looked left at the billboard and it's like it's like big and it's like right in my face and it's not moving and I'm thinking to myself, this is going to be pretty pretty interesting. thing, you know, to have this thing flashing eight different advertisements at me in the time that I'm sitting here at this light. And I'm not, you know, I'm just curious how I know you you don't mind it. You're testifying that it's not a problem, but I'm wondering, that's why I asked the question about how close should it be to an intersection and and your other expert here said there is no governance on that. So like I to think that a billboard could be that close to the intersection. And I walked it off. It's 150 ft. And most of us live around town here. Our driveways are 150 ft long in a a typical driveway. And I'm thinking, you know, how how would that look at the end of my driveway if I was parked there.

That's true. This, you know, pretty big sign there that was switching switching advertisements every six seconds. Eight. But every eight seconds, rather. Couple things. Again, I'm not the civil engineer, but I did uh was here for Mr. Vot's testimony. He can certainly clarify. I will agree, however, given the fact that the entire team walks and drives the site, there's definitely a change in grade from the road to where the pole will be mounted. In terms of the messaging, and I know

just to just to focus on if you go to C3, you'll see that change in grade the of the plans that we're seeing on the site plan, right? the site plan that shows the the change in grade and you know it's you know 12.45 ft um before the grade kind of decreases. Um Bill, would you mind just come up and clarify that? Maybe maybe the question is from the road elevation. What's the bottom of the signs elevation relative to the road? Correct. From the road,

I guess. So, I'm, you know, while I'm sitting there with the traffic light, I'm I'm wondering, you know, how how could this not be a significant negative impact for me as a motorist sitting here? And and by the way, the sign is probably doing its job because I won't be able to take my eyes off of it, right? So, and it's driving me nuts, right? while I'm waiting there at the at the intersection to make a left or a right a left-hand turn out of Milstone Road. If I lived over there and I had to do that every time I exited my neighborhood that would bother me a bit. I'm just curious that not a negative impact.

Can you just explain existing the proposed the difference? Yeah. Well, you're sworn. Oh, yeah. You've previous been sworn. I have. Yes. Please provide you're still on the oath. Sure. Um the uh the existing and the proposed sign are at the same height. So we know that they're the same height from the roadway and essentially from the ground below. Um the new sign or the proposed sign is smaller than the existing. Right. Right. What is the sign? What's the what's the difference between the road elevation and the bottom of the sign other than it's the same as existing? The 14. Okay.

From from if I'm standing at my feet are on the on the road, what's the height from the road to the bottom of the sign? So that's it's a two-point question. So existing because the sign is larger and has seven support columns versus a smaller sign that has one support column. So the road elevation is elevation 126. Okay. And then the lowest elevation of the existing sign is [Music]

and just to clarify, I'm not asking for the base. I'm asking for the physical digital sign that has an ad on it. Oh, the physical. Yeah, that that's what I'm just want to clarify because I know you were doing something different. Okay. So, I want to make sure. So the elevation of the of the actual sign face is on the existing is one elevation 136.95 and for the proposed it's 138.45. So it's a it's difference of one and two. So it's so the proposed sign is 11 and a half feet from the road height wise. 12 uh highways off off the ground.

Yeah, it's 138.45US 126. 12 ft. Yeah, it didn't seem like that, but anyway, 12 ft isn't that high, but um it seemed like it was like almost almost eye level. The existing one is slightly lower just because it's a bigger sign. Well, my my eyes were probably Do you need a break? Four feet. You need a I'm sorry. I was trying to Oh, sorry. I just want to make sure your fingers weren't falling off. Yeah, I'm a couple minutes. We can take a break. Okay. Okay.

So, my eyes are probably only about 4 feet off the ground. So, the sign was giving me the effect that it was only about 8 ft above my head. Is there an elevation change between the intersection and I don't know, do you have an elevation at the intersection as compared to the elevation in front of the sign that's at 127? I do. The intersection I have a spot grade of uh 125.65. Okay. So, it's just a little lower. Okay. No, it's not much change. Okay. And the distance between the intersection and the sign.

Yeah. About 150 ft. I walked it off at 100. I walked it off at 51 paces. Three from the intersection. From the intersection. Yeah. Yeah. You're you're probably close to 200 ft. I think I testified to that last time. Okay. I walked it off at about I'll just since we're on that topic now, I'll just give you one correction that we had brought up the point of where the traffic light was based on where this billboard was. And what caught my eye was in one section. that said it had to be at least 100 ft beyond. I think your scale you said about 250 ft. I wheeled it off today and it was actually 132 ft plus or minus from the traffic from the

from the one existing traffic signal that's at the corner to where the billboard is. It's about 132 ft on on the opposing lane. Now I'm reading it says it's 100. you're you're you're complying anyway. That correct? It's just I'm just stating a correction that it's not 250 ft, it's 130 plus or minus. Right. To me, that's a big difference. I'd have to read through the record. Right. And the billboard the billboard is skewed

on an angle, I guess, to attract the u the audience going eastbound. So the billboard on old Route 33, the corner of it is closer to the intersection than the corner of the billboard along the new Route 33 at that intersection of Milstone Road. So that connector, that little connector road, the the in the I'll call it the inside of the billboard, okay, is closer to the connector road than the outside of the billboard. because it's it's tilted. The billboard is tilted.

So the both the existing and the proposed I don't know what are perpendicular to 33. Okay. Um the because we're shrinking the size of the sign under proposed conditions. I'm going to be farther away from old Route 33, which is what what I'm going to say to be to the rear of us, which is also a front yard. Are you shrinking the sign voluntarily or because you have a a a um a technology limitation?

I'm sorry, that one more time. So is the sign is the sign being reduced in size because you want to or because the c you know the the modules the LED modules just don't work for that size because the the billboard's not just one giant LED. It they're modules they're that are put together. Um no I I believe our state permit is for a much larger sign. Uh we could certainly put a 14x 48 sign up here. Uh we're we're choosing to go with a smaller 10 106 36. Um

is there a 14t sign available in LEDs? I I think no you can make as big as you want. Yeah. Get your if you want. You can put the sphere right there. You could right there could be. Why don't we Why don't Let me Let's Let's take a five minute break. So our our court reporter's fingers don't fall off. For our planner, Mr. Williams, we

No, we're not done with him. I just wanted to take a little break. [Music] starting to criticize little things I do. It makes me just feel like crying cuz baby something beautiful. [Music] You lost that love and feeling. Whoa. That love feeling. You've lost that love and feeling. Now it's gone. Gone. Baby, baby, I'd get down on my knees for you. [Music] Yeah, we had a love a love a love you don't find every day. So don't don't let it slip away. Baby,

baby, baby, baby, I beg you. Please, please, please, I need your love. I need your love. I need your love. I need that love. And bring it on back. Bring it on back. Bring it on back. Bring it on back. Bring back that love feeling.

Oh, that love feeling. Bring backone [Music] and I can't go on. Bring back that love and feel. Oh, that love feel [Music] [Music] Hey, [Music] hey, hey. [Music] Hey, [Music] hey, hey. [Music]

Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]

Yeah. Ice cream sandwich. All right. Uh Mr. Williams, are you done? I just have a couple more followup questions if you don't mind. Um so Mr. Williams, just uh getting back onto the particular suitability issues. um with respect to the D1 use variance testimony um you know with the with the benefit of um some additional information um the current the lease for the subject property um expires in 2032. Is that correct? That is correct. I conferred with uh the operator while we were on recess in response to your question

and uh with respect to the um the lease for um the other two signs, the other four sign faces um on the same side of the the road, the ones where the discussion we came out of, you know, why is this site more particularly suitable in those sites? Um the lease uh for those sites is yeartoear and it the this lease you know currently expires April 30th 2026. Is that is that right? That's also correct. I did confer with the operator while we were on recess. So it's one it's one lease for both both. That's right.

And and those properties weren't recently sold to developers or anything like that. Well, and that gets to my other point, which I I don't know that question to answer that question, but I I will say that um the the the property um where these two signs are located, these four sign faces, it's 33 acres in size. Is that correct? Correct. And under the state DOT regulations, if there is a change of use and that particular property becomes res residential in use, um outfront would lose its its um state license. Is that correct? That's correct. Because the permits would not be issued for those.

So, so we're talking about the subject property. It's uh what you know roughly.3 of an acre. It's not developable. Is that correct? You can't put a residential house on that on that property. That's correct. For all the reasons our civil engineer testified, right? Incumbrances on the property. So, whereas it's likely with those two signs that we might actually um it's possible to lose the the uh state permit if there's a change in use. That doesn't exist with this existing site. That's correct. Those slated for consolidation, you might lose a permit in that hypothetical. Uh but with this one, are are those But do you know as the planner what zone they're in? I don't recall. I could find out, but I don't recall. I know they're not residential.

Okay. Do you recall? Do do you recall that those are Oh, wait. Oh, sorry. Give me one second. Oh, sure. PC. One is the uh log. I just want to know what zone they're in. Yeah. PC. Yeah, they're all PC. All right. PCD. Okay. And they're not they're not part of uh Milstone's affordable housing plan uh for affordable housing. Correct. That's correct. So these properties would require use variances uh for residential use uh for your theory to go through. They have they'd have to go for a residential use variances be and get approved before you would lose your license. Correct. where they re if they were reszoned for example reszoned or used right

okay and then one more thing George um you know those signs are already pretty small correct um they are the dimensions for them in our 10.75 by 23 ft yes um and so is it in your experience is it uh really possible for outfront to make those signs smaller given they're already relatively small size uh typically the answer would be no given in the outfront uh methodology for site selection, orientation, and dimensions for their signs. And the existing the sign on the subject property we're talking about, that's 12 ft by 49.33 ft. Is that you know, in your opinion, small sign, larger sign,

uh smaller? Yeah. Uh and you heard Mr. vote talk about what the permit uh would allow at the site and you heard uh the outfront representative discuss in his testimony about the different size templates that are typical for outdoor advertising sites but the subject the existing sign on the subject property at being a 12 ft x 49.33 ft outfront was able to make that sign smaller when it modernized it correct correct versus feet right versus these other signs whereas they're already smaller. So it would be unlikely that outfront would do that. Correct. Right. Um is there any procluding to make them larger other than permitting?

Right. Making this the subject sign the modern the other signs the other signs that are physically smaller if you're going to quote unquote modernize them

which anything that would prohibit from you instead of making it smaller to make it larger. Well, I can just say uh for for for the record with respect to the DOT permitting for those signs, um they're at, you know, 506 square ft. Um so total square footage DOT permitting for those signs would be 1 square feet, whereas right now they're they're 989 ft. So we could make them slightly larger under the existing N DOT permits, but we couldn't make them substantially larger. Uh, that's all I had. Anybody else have any m questions for Mr. Williams?

I do not as well. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Council, do you have anything further before we open up to the public? I I got a couple questions for uh maybe go back to our outfront media rep and maybe engineering. You can either do it before the public or No, it's up to you. Okay. Either way, it's up to you. Not my You want Do you want to do you want It's up to him. Public questioning for George or we're not Well, we're going to do public questioning for everybody. I don't have any. No, George. I'm We're good. Okay. So, how about we do How about we do if you have additional questions for Ron and and Ronella and Billy, how about we do that now and then we'll do public questioning for everybody. That's fine. Fair enough. Ron, come on down.

All right. So one of the questions I have for you um is based on the site suitability uh site selection and you had mentioned is a se typically a 7030 you know ratio of local verse uh outside just the local area correct

um you know from my perspective I you know we don't have an overabundance of businesses that you know from from uh from Milstone that would probably benefit as compared to let's say you know Manalpinum or Monroe were though were any sites considered further down either way east or west on on route 33 that might give you a better site suitability part of um our analysis not only from a a sales perspective is part of it like the location we talked about gateway and all of that it's also part of it is um compared to like some other sites this particular lot um there's no risk of future development velment. It's really the only use can put on the lot. So, we look at that. Uh we have a long-term lease there. We look at how what the longevity might be um to be at a particular site. Those other sites have those large parcels. Um we also look at from a planning perspective even like what's the um the merits of the application. So to make this bigger sign smaller from a planning perspective is part of what we consider as uh suitability as site suitability. Whereas the other locations, yeah, you could make them bigger. Um, but then you're you're actually when you do your expanding non-conforming use, you're further expanding it. In this case, we're actually reducing it. So, we do look at the merits of planning aside from the sales location and all of that goes into our analysis of of site suitability.

Okay. So, then the general question just to summarize. So, was Manalapen or Monroe considered? So, we we have several towns we look at. Um we don't um you know, we might have some existing signs that we would take a look at. We wouldn't preclude those towns, but this was selected by sales um for the location and the merits of the the case to be at this particular site. So, to answer your question, we look we do look at uh other sites. In this case, um the best one we looked at was this for the reasons that I stated.

Okay. One other general question for you. Uh getting back to what Mr. Lamros was saying, uh the refresh rate at 8 seconds, do you have the capability to change that to 10 or 20 seconds to reduce the number of you know refresh of of advertising? Yeah, we could do that. We generally like to be pursuant to the state regulation which the recommended of 8 seconds, but um should the board look at that uh as condition of approval, we could look at some other durations like 10 seconds for instance. And and you and you require it to be 24 24 hours a day 365 off. Correct. 24/7. We'd like to operate the sign. Yes.

And one last question I have at the moment. Um when it came to the the brightness or the lumens, did you give us testimony on that? Was that was that I think the engineer but generally I can say over ambient I believe it's 0.3, but the engineer could confirm uh how that works. He did provide testimony on that. Yeah, he did. Okay. Because I think it was like during the day it was at 100% then but it's turned down at night time. That's correct. Just like your dashboard or your phone. Uh the idea would be you have to be able to read it. The light is just there to make it readable. So if it was so bright at night um you wouldn't even be able to read it. So it dims itself down through the photo cell and the time of operation. So automatically dims down unlike unlike the existing

unlike the existing that is indirect illumination which shines up against the board and bounces off and that stays consistent at that intensity. Okay. Does DOT oversees the lighting situation as far as a permanence?

They have general uh statutes in their roadside control act that talks about I don't believe they give specific uh numbers, but it does talk about um regulations that they don't want it to be uh you know a certain uh brightness or glare that would cause distraction. They do have that in the general statute of the roadside control act. Ron, just so it's on the record from you, um can you just speak a little bit about um the fact that the size of the the the subject sign that exists on the subject property 12 feet by 49.33 ft and how that if at all gives outfront the ability to make a smaller sign versus those other signs that are being discussed for uh removal which are 10.75- 10.75 by 23 feet.

Right. So, in what context, like from a state permitting standpoint or just from a from a business perspective that that is out front, would they make a sign like this smaller? Um, the smaller signs, the the 10.75 by 23 ft. Um, is it or is it, you know, or is this sign this sign was picked because it's 12 feet by 49.33 feet. It could be made smaller. It's a bigger sign.

Yeah. So, it it's really from a planning perspective like what the merits of the case are. So yes, you could make those other signs larger, but then you're intensifying or making them larger. This one, we have the ability to make it smaller and make a better application um because it's already large and we have the ability to re reduce it to a standardized sign in industry, which we call 10636 size because it has the same aspect ratio as essentially 1448 or the approximately 13 by 49. It's about the same aspect ratio. Thank you. Anybody else have any other

So I want to expand on the chairman's question about you know audience. Um so you you testified that or your your experts testified that um that the Milstone site is particularly suitable. Um I don't know maybe it's because of permit or audience or whatever but Milstone has a population of approximately 10,000 in Manalapin 40,000 and in East Winds are 30,000 if your advertising ratios are what they they that you testified for local audience. Why why would you choose a site that that has the smallest audience?

It's really about the the state highway the thoroughfare. to traveling motorists coming off the turnpike, traveling throughout, transversing the state of New Jersey, going east, going west. So, this location is a major artery and there's a lot of development and expansion. So, uh New Jersey continues to grow. Um so, on Route 33, it's it's a great site to be um right in sort of the middle of those. So, it's more about not particularly Milstone's population, but the traveling public that travels in and out of and like I said earlier to your questions, um the network of signage is the way it works is the local advertisers have the ability to advertise um there could be another sign somewhere um you know east of this location that promotes business in Millstone or um promotes you know future development that's happening uh in the township. I I get the whole technology the um I mean I I watch the technology grow. I'm I'm actually in the industry there.

So um yeah, just um I would have thought that you know there's more developed areas along Route 33 and I maybe you're trying to capture the audience that's heading to the turnpike. I mean, most of most of that traffic is going to the turnpike. If it's going west, if it's coming east, most of it is coming off the turnpike. I would have thought East Windsor would have been a more ideal location. Now, open up and Route 9.

We have some signage there. Um, we don't have as much signage in this area. So from a coverage standpoint, it's more attractive to to be here again to capture the audience of the, you know, public traversing these roadways because with respect to Route 33, it's not just, you know, people that that live in Milstone that use Route 33. Correct. Yeah, that's what I'm trying to make the point that the surrounding areas, all of the communities uh could benefit um from the different messaging and even like we said, promote things happening in in Milstone that make people aware of what what's happening. And and I'm going to presume it's it's because of this little triangle of piece of property. It's never going to be used for anything else. It has no other.

So your investigation should be like the major consideration. Absolutely. Because long-term plus there's no risk of future development. Sometimes you could put a sign and the developer would come in and we're in their way and we would lose the rights to the sign. So in this case it makes sense. If East Windsor had a triangle that wasn't used used for anything else, I'm sure that they would be in we would consider that as well. That's correct. So really it's not really that it's detrimental for we want to be in Milstone because of the popularity. We're not popular. So um so it's just we're good. We're quietly popular. Plus the people use 33 don't necessarily live in Milstone live.

Correct. Yeah. It's a bedroom community. Is it do you think there'll be more signs like this on Route 33 in Milstone? Um, we're not planning any and we think that the the coverage and the need right now this would be uh sufficient and we're not planning on putting any more in other companies could come put it in. Right. Well, this would Ron this would block you know 3,000 ft in each direction. Correct. On that same side of the roadway is 2 miles long right 10,000 ft. So there's room for six of these. But with respect to if you're you're talking about a it's from a planning perspective and you know obviously we can hash this out

from it's from having having an existing existing sign being able to to modernize the existing sign is a different animal than a whole new sign and certainly what this would be do is on this side of the highway block putting a digital sign here blocks those other signs that are in the vicinity and I believe I don't believe there's any more signs on this side of the the highway in other than the ones other than the ones that we're going to remove. That could be I can just interrupt you for a quick second for some clarification because when I was asking about the 30,000 ft rule, you just said something that piqued my curiosity with 3,000 ft on the same side of the highway. So that mean you can be within 3,000 ft

eastbound and westbound. So essentially two signs could be within that 3,000 ft. Correct. The way it works is on that side, same side of the highway that these signs are on, 3,000 foot protection at each way. But if you wanted to go on essentially the opposite side, like across the highway, that 3,000 ft would not apply because the state regulates that roadway for 3,000 ft, not the one across the street. Um, and we we do have signage there. There's a sign across the street. Are yours? That's ours. Yes. And how many square feet is that? There's three uh sign faces there. They're all 10 and a half by the the ones we're removing, they're all the same size. That's also in a wetland area, correct?

Yeah, they're approximately the same size. They're known as poster panels. Out of curiosity, um the property that the signs are on, are they all owned by one individual or one company or one entity? The ones we're taking down, I believe there's one lease for those. Um, and the ones across the street, we actually own those. So, if it's something that you want us to say we won't modernize those, we could stipulate that we won't um we won't modernize those signs that we have. Would you would you remove them? Indeed, restrict those properties to prohibit signage. That's um on company owned property. We usually don't do that. We're already removing the other.

So, we'll remove the other. So, this is an addition order. We're sweetening the deal here. We're talking about removing the the two signs that are on the the two sign structures on the same side of the street, same side of the highway, and then across the street stipulating to not modernize that sign, which we own that property. We own that property. Okay. And if it helps, we could even obtain the state permit for the 3,000 ft for those for digital, but not build it. That's a bummer. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Any other questions? No, I'm good. Thank you. One more thing. Hold on. One thing we forgot. You mean you brought up what else can you build on this property? The entire property is wetlands

and we have an ordinance that says all wetlands have to be preserved in a conservation easement, but we're not seeing any conservation ement. I don't know if you want to have a segments of this property being a conservation ement or just leave it as it is. It's up to you. Well, wouldn't they wouldn't they required for a waiver if they're not going to put in a conservation as the all the wetlands area that the entire property other than the sign? You could you would require approved. Yeah, true. So, either a you're going to request a waiver for it or you're going to have to put a conservation easement if the board grants the approval. I mean, property owners

I guess I don't I don't know what um they would restrict the property owner would have to say. I mean, my understanding is we can't do anything there. Is that an engineering question to stipulate something? I'm not Yeah, we'd have we'd have to have we'd have to go back to the property owner to to do that. I mean, the property is not really developable because of the the wetlands situation, but certainly um we would need to go back to the property owner to to um to be able to clarify to the board that that's Yeah, but you are putting a new structure there. So, well, no, we're we're re Well, according to D permitting with respect to the D. Well, no. No. Let's Well, no.

Well, let's be let's be honest. You are It's not a fallacy. Just as the DP permit says you're modernizing, you're a tearing it completely down to dirt and then building a new one. I'm just saying but if that but it's brand new. I'm talking Well, with respect to D permitting, the D views it as a reconstruction because the existing structure predates the D regulations and allows us to do that. But do we have bill? It was my understanding is that the D only approved this and they would not approve anything else. Isn't that restriction in itself enough? Right. Correct. So I mean when we talk about a a a restriction, the reality is under the existing D regulations, the only use that can exist on that property is the billboard use because it allow because

they view this as a reconstruction. So So then you'd have no problem for a conservation easement for all the wetlands area. Certainly we wouldn't have a problem with it. It just we can't sign off on that. We can, you know, I can't speak for the property owner, right? We'd have to go and confirm that with the property owner open to the public. All right. We got our engineer coming up. Thank you, Ron. Are we Is there anything different you say? No, I mean I guess Sure. I I can just explain it again to you. I mean, the permit,

while you're flipping through the pages, I got a question for you. What I I didn't see on the plan. Um, what's the rightway for the existing overhead lines? Yeah. There's a there's an easement there's an easement with I believe JCPNL um as long as we don't uh exceed a height that we are permitted to Do you know what that height is? So from the lowest line, which is 115 KV line, what's the distance from the top of the sign to the lowest 115 KV line? And do you meet that requirement to satisfy whether it's JCPNL or First Energy?

We do. We do, but I can get you the height for it. Yeah. See the signage that the language here is um from the from the JCPNL easement. We agreed to provide this as a condition of of approval says that the signage that measures approximately 25 ft in height is deemed permissible within the right of way so long as the height does not increase or additional signs installed without the prior written consent of grantee which should not be unreasonably withheld. So we fall within that kind of carve out broad stroke of a approval. Pardon me. That seems a little bit of a broadstroke type approval, but

that's what exists in the deed though. Um, you know, just going back to this issue about the um the restriction for the for the wetlands. Um, and you know, I guess you know, the reality is we're going to ask for a waiver for that. I just thinking about that. The reality is um, you know, there really is the property is not really usable given the these restrictions. And could you could you talk about that? Sure. beyond beyond just the billboard. I just had one other quick thing with the with the D uh the DOT uh with the distance to the billboard. Did that specify whether it was a static billboard or electrified LED type billboard? Say that one more time.

What you just read, does it specify what type of billboard? Whether it's Do they No. Does it say it's LED? No, it just says just says sign. Just says signage for JCPNL. Yeah, it just says signage. Just signage. But do they know it's going to be an LED billboard? Because there's different restrictions because it's going to be electrified and now you're putting an electrified billboard close to 100 15 KV line. So there should be a setback distance. The existing sign has electric to it. It has you talk about a light versus a whole sun, right? So I I think it just needs something that needs to be clarified versus again the broad stroke of the billboard is within the the setback.

It's an outside agency approval. They're going to have to get approval anyway. Okay. So, why don't you give us the testimony why you think we should grant a waiver for a requirement that all wetlands in any developed area needs to be air conservation.

Sure. Um, so the permit that we got from obtaining from the D that's a freshwater wetland GP1 that's a general permit one and that's for maintenance repair of existing features and it also issues a water quality certificate. So what had happened was because there were seven foundations or disturbance within the uh regulated area of the uh wetland area. You have a um there's a wetland perimeter that that traverses through the property. And then I have what's what's uh shown in this darker dash line is its buffer or transition area. So that's a 50 foot transition area. So you can see that almost the entire property except for a very small piece to the very far east of the property is all inundated with either wetlands or the buffer. So, if there was no sign structure here, um I would not be able to obtain a permit for a new structure. Um I would not there there would be no relief granted to the applicant or me as the engineer if if a if a sign or structure was not on the property. So, the only use for this property is either a billboard The only other one I could think of would be a cell tower. Um, so in the in the in the merits of the permit that we got from the D, um, this is improving the condition that's on the site. They understand that, um, you have a property and a use on it that predated the regulations that are constantly changing um, in the last

10 years. they're promoting this type of work. They want to they want properties to be redeveloped. So you'll you may have other applicants that come in where you have, you know, old industrial properties where the D is encouraging uh applicants to redevelop those properties uh to get them closer into conformance. And that's exactly what we're doing with this site. And that's how the D views us. So, so I don't So, so you don't want to do a You don't want to do conservationism because you don't think the property can be further developed. So, you're saying it's duplicative?

I I think we asked for the waiver, but you have What's the reason for the waiver? Because it's not Because you asked for it, you need a reason why you're asking for it. I I think we did supply a reason for it. Well, because it's not because it's not it's not necessary because the property isn't developable under existing D regulations. Correct. there there's no reason to de-rest it's not like I have 10 acres of property here where I need to de-restrict two acres because I can develop the other eight there there's no reason to do that here you can simply just supply the waiver for it

I'm going to ask a question and I don't know if uh our planner can help me along here if I'm tripping over myself but when the Um, when outfront applied for the permit to reconstruct the sign in the wetland, did was did the did the D or the DOT know that you were going to have to apply for variance? That's right.

Um, they they issued the they they issued the permits on different merits. they they um those permits stand by themselves and require uh the applicant to get municipal approval whether whether you need variance relief uh so be it. Uh but no that's not considered as part of either the D um approval process or the DOT. That's correct. Did you apply Did you personally apply for this permit? The D permit? Yes. Yes. Okay. when you No, not for the DP for the permit for the sign from the DOT. DOT. No, that's that's out front. Yeah.

Who did that? Outfront did which I think you know Ron's office did. I'm Come on up. Sure. But here real quick before we get into that. Um I just want to George, can you come up and speak to the to the waiver request? I just want to Sorry. I just before we lose our train of thought here. I just want to I just I just want to hear I just want to um uh just clarify. Um George, can you just speak real quick to the to that the waiver request that we um requested with respect to the deed restriction?

Sure. And I think Mr. Vote answered the question. I understand what council was saying about it being duplicative being one of the rationale, but Mr. Vote uh explained why a waiver would be appropriate. And under the I think it's the Gafalo GOP court case, if the board agrees with the testimony you've heard from Mr. Vogue that um the waiver can be granted without any detriment to uh the intent of the code that it's good sound site planning, then the the board can grant the waiver. In your in your opinion that exists here based on what Mr. Vote testified to and my review of that site. Yes. Why?

Uh for all the reasons Mr. vote uh testified to given the constraints, the intent of the code will still be achieved based on uh the approvals he has already and given the uh um characteristics of the land. Okay, that's all I have. Yeah, just a real quick question. So, we had this come up when you applied for the do permit. Yes.

What did you provide? So we fill out we fill out a detailed application of um like a sketch that shows the existing sign in this case. Uh and then we we fill out the application that checks off multi- message sign um where it is the location. We give a landmark distance from a particular um intersection or cross street that they could identify where the site is. In this particular case, it's right where the existing permit for the static sign was. This is just an an upgrade to a multi-me sign. So, uh the application is filled out by uh in this case, I direct the uh someone in the office to do it. Um this particular person um that filled this out is now retired after 45 years of uh service to the company. Uh he's the one that would have filled this out. Um I have his name and everything if that's relevant. Um but I I would have directed the application to be filled out. I filled out many myself in my career. The point of my question is it's it's not going to get resolved from answering my question, but the fact that you provide a sketch and you're say you're modernizing it and that's what they gave you approval for. You're modernizing, you're upgrading it.

Did anywhere in the application say we are tearing down the sign and building a new sign? So in that you said a sketch. That's why I want to know if you gave them the plans which would you could read as exactly that's right.

No in in that regard the state um really doesn't look at that. They look at certain criteria spacing from other signs spacing um uh along the highway things like that. In this case they permit the issue. It's specifically we entered it into evidence. You have to get approval from the local municipality. So that's where you submit your plans, your building um print. But the state permit is just allowing us, we meet the state regulation um for all the DOT criteria for multi-me sign. That's the permit we have with the DOT. Um but it's conditioned on municipal approval to actually build it.

So then the question is for the D when you got approval for the D. I assume because D is a little different than DOT, you provided full plan saying You can read this. It says, "I'm tearing it down. I'm putting a new one." Absolutely. That's I figured that. Okay. And then it's going to be in the wetlands. Well, we're actually removing it from the wetlands. The the existing sign extends into the wetlands and we're removing that. So, that's also a benefit. That's part of the water quality. But, you're going to be in you're going to you're probably going to be inside the buffer area though, right? Yes, we're we're now we're solely inside the buffer and not encroaching into the actual wetlands. So that's

You mean you're outside the you're outside the buffer or you're inside the buffer? I'm inside the buffer the entire outside. So that that was that was a bonus and they know that and they issued the permit. That's one of the reasons I issued the permit. This is what they're promoting.

Open the public. Yeah, let's open the public. Thank you. All right. 959. I might as well just say 10:00. Anybody from the public want to step forward? Going once, going twice. Going once, twice. No one. All right, we'll close it at 10:00. Just uh just so I don't forget, I did want to have some, you know, comment about the the difference, you know, the option between having an apron, having that um facade, stone facade or brick facade versus just having the plain monopole. What do I guess the question is you're the applicant, you're designing the project. What do you think is best?

Well, right now it's it's proposed with a facade. So, if if the you know board feels differently, certainly we'd be willing to to change that. I say so roll with with the facade screening, whatever you want to call it, because it at least cover up the monopole and we can go from there. Okay. All right. I think we've beaten this to a dead horse. Do you want a closing statement?

Yeah, I mean, listen, I'll just summarize real quickly. Um, there's a lot that this application does um with respect to the township and the the benefit that it uh proposes. It does that by way of making the sign smaller by making the the the light impact is going to be less than what exists now. the uh positive impact by way of the use. The fact that the township can have use for this, not only for emergency communications, but also to advertise um the township itself, right? And to communicate with your residents and the fact that it's located right at the edge of the municipality, that it is on the gateway, so as people come and as people go, that they can see that type of communication, you know, from your township. I think those are all important factors. um by way of you know a positive criteria. Um I think the fact that we are seeking to not only make the sign smaller is extremely important uh than what exists there now and also the fact that in addition to that we're also proposing to remove um in the area of you know 98 989 square feet uh by way of the other four sign faces. Um that's an important factor. So, you know, obviously if the board were to deny that those those signs stay. Um, it's also important factor that the outfront agreed to stipulate to restrict its ability to modernize that sign across the street. So, if this is approved, this will be likely from our front, you know, the only digital billboard in Milstone because it's going to block a large part of this side of the highway that the the

northern side of the highway. Uh it's we're taking down the signs that exist there. Now on the opposite side, we're agreeing to restrict against modernization, which you know, from a legal perspective, we certainly have a right to do because this is the way that copy is now transmitted, you know, and we we discussed that um and we discussed, you know, D1 variances, D2 variances. I think we provided adequate proofs with respect to that.

I think this fits very nicely into the the concept of a D2 variance, particularly under Burbridge. You know, we are taking what is a nonconforming use, right? Non-conforming uses. You have four sign faces on our side on the north side in addition to the two sign faces here and we're removing those four sign faces and we're making this sign face smaller, these two sign faces smaller. So again, we're making that nonconformity less non-conforming, which I think fits very well into that. Uh I think with respect to the uh D1 use variance I think that this is particularly suitable. Why do I think that? Because this property unlike the other parcels in the township is extremely small, right? It's not developable. It's not developable by way of size. It is not developable by way of those D restrictions. So, it makes sense to put this here because it's going to stay here. Now, if we put this somewhere else on a developable parcel, though, that parcel could be developed with residential use. I understand it may not be in your affordable housing plan this round, but it's a very large parcel. The two other signs that we were going to propose to take down that we discussed as being alternatives and that that property is developable. maybe if not now, but certainly in the future in other housing rounds or whatever else may happen that that issue does not exist with the subject parcel. Um, and I think it also, you know, is unique to Millstone that there's this little triangle that is perfectly fit for this use. Um, and you know, beyond that, I'll certainly just let George's testimony fill in the gaps, but I think he provided a very thorough overview as to

to the basis for why either a D1 or D2 use variant should be um should be granted. And certainly from a site plan perspective, there's no issues with that. There's no coming and going, no noise, you know, it's it's fairly innocuous uh from a site plan perspective. So I think with that I I really do urge the board, you know, not that not just for Alfront's perspective to approve this application, but I think also from the township's perspective because I really do think that there if the goal here is to limit outdoor advertising and to make the township more conforming with its ordinances, I think you have to approve this. So and that's where I'll leave it.

Thank you. Thank you. Board discussion. Just that I I don't like the apron. If it was to be approved, I just like the single single less building. Noted. Thank you. So, I'd like I'd like to make some comments. I don't know. I don't know where everybody's at. It's been a long

It's been a long presentation, two presentations. I certainly appreciate it. you know, it's been very informative and detailed and but I do want to make some of my own comments if I can. You know, I've been on this board for a long time and every decision that I've made is either had a negative or a positive impact on somebody or something, you know, and every one of them has been in some ways very permanent or at least a very very long time, right? So, I take my job very seriously and I and I know that and I and I try to put myself in the position of h how would I be or how would I feel if if this was going to have a positive or negative impact on me before I make a decision because it's an important decision and my role here is very important. I have a lot of authority but I have a lot I have to I have to assume that I have a lot of responsibility too. So there's there's been a lot said and a lot of and and less light and stuff like that. It's moving light. It's different than stagnant light. You know, if you if you lay in your bed and there's a TV nearby and there's a picture that just never moves and your eyes are closed, you probably won't be disturbed by it at all. But if the picture moves from one scene to another, that'll flash on your eyelids, right?

And just to No, no, no. Let them go. Yeah. So, so I, you know, I'm just saying, you know, it's it's a different kind of light. It's really not less light. It's a different kind of light, you know, but I I still am tripping over the particularly suitable site thing because I, you know, all those sites along Route 33 that you have signs on this partic this one you chose. Um, I just don't know. you know, it's chosen because of, I guess, internal reasons,

but they're not, you know, they're not permitted in our in our township in the zone. And if it wasn't there, it wouldn't be able to be built there, right? and and I don't know how it prot how it advances our master plan if the master plan and the ordinances don't permit it. I just don't know how it helps advance our master plan. But um you know and I understand the whole 3,000 ft. I mean, my assumption is that the DOT probably recognizes them as somewhat of a distraction and that's why they don't permit them within 3,000 ft of each other. Otherwise, they pro, you know, people would be banging down the door to put them up because it's a heck of a lot cheap easier and cheaper for you guys to change content on those things than it is to go there with a piece of vinyl. and a professional would go up there and wrap wrap the board with a vinyl. But um I just think that if I lived in that area and I had to come down to that intersection every time that I left my neighborhood and had to wait at that light for a minute and had to withstand eight different advertisements every time I did. it kind of would be a little bothersome for me and I would say who is responsible for that. Okay. And they they would have nobody to blame but me if I approved it.

So that always helps me govern my decisions a bit, you know, but you know, I that's just the way I feel about this application, you know, and I don't I want to see if anybody else has any comments um before maybe I offer up a motion.

No comment. I'll just I'll piggy back a little bit on what you had said, Steve. And just in general, um I do see that sign almost every day. So, I will be going up to that light and if I'm sitting at that light, I will see it change or refresh at least eight times, plus or minus. Um so, to your point, I may be saying like, well, yeah, that if it is an annoyance, uh if it's too close to the road, uh then I could say, yep, I'm responsible for that. um good, bad or indifferent if if it's approved. Um my my only concern is um because of the rural location and really is aside from this the lighting that's on the billboards now is that refresh rate, you know, in the middle of the night in a rural area, there's really not much around. Um is that going to be too much? Yeah. So that's that's the thing I'm trying to balance out. Uh, so I'm not sure if, you know, I'm not disagreeing that, listen, there's not much you could really do with that parcel because it's very limited with the wetlands. I'm just not sure if, you know, a digital or modernization of the billboard is really the best thing for me to make a decision on. Um, in general, seeing modernization, when I'm going up the turnpike and I see billboards, I'm like, yeah, it's great. you know, it's you see them, you know, on both sides of the highway. Um, I'll be honest with you, when I see one billboard and I get to the next one, I already forgot what the last one said. Um, so maybe my memor is like a fish when it comes to advertisement. Um, so it's moot for me. Um but I just don't want it to have a negative impact on the the rural setting of the area with this modernization of you know the the constant refresh you know and again I look at the suitability or site selection. Uh, I do think maybe Manalop

and Monroe since they do have larger areas, more commercial uses than than Millstone, uh, that, you know, in my opinion, I think that might be a better suited, uh, location. You know, I think the 7030 split would probably be flipped. It' probably be 3070 u, because we don't have a whole lot of local advertisement. Uh, so that's pretty much my summary. I think we kind of went over a lot of things and I don't want to de labor it any longer, but anybody else have any other questions, comments, concerns? I'll um as always be different than everybody else. I think they're uh positives outweigh the negatives. I think all these other signs coming down takes away all that obnoxious light. I think they've testified this is less light. I have to believe them because they're the experts on that. I think taking it out of the wetlands is a positive thing and uh this is a better structure in this particular spot than what we have now. And since no one lives there, no one's really going to see the light. Uh people who use it will see it when they use the intersection. I'll see I use that intersection every day. Do I care? No. So, uh I think it's a positive thing. I think George did a great job of explaining why positives outweigh the negatives. And I think it just makes more sense. I also agree though if we do it um the poll only because I think the other thing is kind of obnoxious.

I agree with you too. I think it's a good thing.

Anybody else? Um well after that being said uh know I heard the word gateway and I've done a lot of advertising with outfront for years and I understand gateway but I also understand Milstone's motto has always been at every entrance into this town is an environmentally sensitive community and to me at the gateway into the gate into this community environmentally sensitive community especially right on the Milstone River putting a lit billboard, an electronic billboard there is everything that environmentally sensitive communities are not. So, in my opinion, it aesthetically will change the entrance into this town forever. It'll make a completely new statement about Milstone when you're entering the town, when you're leaving the town. Environmentally sensitive Milstone River, I don't know. I can't swallow it. I understand there's a billboard there for 70 years and that billboard had no harm in anything, but this aesthetically is a gamecher. It's not a lit billboard like we've had for 70 years. This is completely different. It's a completely different form of advertising and it completely changes the gateway into an environmentally essential community like Milstone. That's my opinion. I've been here for 30 years. I left Manalapin. There's plenty of spots in Manalpin. Did you try freehold?

What happened in freehold? There's no sign of this. I did I did try to to to just one. So I'm just trying to figure out why an eventually sense of community would want that as a gateway into it, which it's everything that we're not. It's not a rural character. So to me, aesthetically, it'll have a big impact on the town. And I could not do that as a representative on this board to the Milstone residents and vote in favor of this. Anybody else? Anything for me? Because you're staring at me. So you I'm looking at you trying I'm trying to I tried to put you to sleep. No, I'm trying to look at this guy. I'm trying to look at it.

Yeah, I was I was actually even looking to see like there was one, you know, if there was another type of billboard similar that was illuminated in a rural type setting. Um, but I haven't found one. I know there was one being built down 33 in Howell, but each time I went by there, it still hasn't been finished for construction. It is now finally finished. There's three in how and uh in my and if I was a resident Howell I would as Steve said who is responsible let's just clarify the ones in Howell didn't go before any board mobile

Howell don't Howell and I've looked into it from my other towns they just entered a non has nothing to do with this application has nothing to do they entered into a nonpublic bid to lease municipal property to a company to put a digital billboard sign on, which is completely illegal in my humble lawyer's opinion, but it's completely not relevant here. So, it's I don't want any it has nothing to do with this case. It's just weird, but has nothing to do with application. Don't hold it against them. It by the way, the company is not them. Okay? So, just to clarify. Okay. Okay.

On that, um I have nothing further. Anybody else? We're good. All right, decision time. Okay, this is a use variance uh and site plan approval. The applicant requires affirmative vote of of five for an approval. A vote of four in favor, three against is still a denial. So need a motion in favor of the application or or a motion to deny. I make a motion to deny. I'll second it. A vote yes is to deny. Make it easier for everybody. Nick, you know I mess it up. Yeah. Yes. Chairman Mustin. Yes.

Miss Arpaya. Yes. Mr. Baramus. No. Mr. Kagan. No. Mr. Bar? Yes. Mr. Lamrose? Yes. And Mr. Borghazi? Yes. Okay. Uh, motion carries. Council. And you win this. You did a great presentation. And I'll get you the I'll have a resolution hopefully by the next No, probably August is cancelled. You'll have it in September. Okay. Um motion to adjurnn. Nope. We need a motion to vote except a motion go to executive session to discuss uh pending and anticipated litigation. I passed.

Yes, we are. Uh I quickly talk about stuff the litigation stuff pending and anticipated litigation and contract stuff. You need a motion to go to executive session. Sure. Make a motion. All in favor? I 108. Okay. We got a second over there. Okay. Yeah. You go.