e e e e e have April oh God 2024 the time is 6:30 roll call and T yes Remy M hereen Hogan here Beno here Sharon Lee here Vincent light here Paul Kel here Anna Cruz here Amanda dures here Eugene horz here Chris Havens here adequate notice of this meeting has been posted at bur Hall filed with the bur Clerk and mail till the a Park Press to River Times the star ler this meeting is being tape recorded in the event the applicant used the services of the court reporter to trans the tapes the board requires a copy of the transcript we will break at about 800m for deliberation of testimony heard this far in the conference room on the first floor public is invited to attend however discuss between board members and the public is not permitted at that time no new cases will be heard after 9:00 p.m. Red Bank Zoning Board of adjustment has made dat policy cut off hour of 9:30 for its hearings any applicants not heard this evening will be carried over to the next scheduled meeting uh Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all meeting minutes for February 1 um move to uh approve those I'll second an Tor yes Rond M yes e Hogan yes vano yes Sharon Lee Yes vinon light yes Paul K yes okay we have a resolution uh extension sure uh Mr chairman uh that is the application um 173 Maple LLC regarding the 173 Maple Avenue property uh we gave approval in I believe it was May of 2022 with a a time frame for which the applicant needs to secure a building permit the applicant's representatives have requested an extension and uh they submitted that to Shauna and so I prepared a resolution for your review and approval extending it now the resolution that I had uh extended it until uh a certain time frame and I think that there was some discussion amongst the board members that maybe we should adopt the resolution extending the time frame until December 31st 2024 so that if that is the pleasure of the board we can adopt that resolution as amended anybody like to make a motion I'll move it I'll approve it second I'll second yesman M yes Hogan yes Beno yes Sharon Lee Yes Vincent light yes Paul k um I had to recuse myself for that so I don't yeah I would not vote on that then so an yes okay new business we have 187 Riverside Avenue okay and Mr chairman as uh Miss crico and her team come forward let's just do a couple of preliminary procedural things first up uh this is a continuation and Jennifer this is round three as I recall and we F we first started February 2nd 2023 and then we were last here January 4 2024 uh so uh with the first uh thing uh we want to make sure sha and Alini that every person here is either eligible to vote or if they're not we we know that and so uh first up I'm going to Mark um now I'm gonna Mark as B do you know Len do we have any B exhibits we do we were up to B and just the record Jennifer kco on behalf the we're up to B7 which was the Red Bank River Center letter all right so this will be B8 we have B8 is going to be a certification uh from board member Vincent light that he reviewed uh the transcripts of the January uh 4th 2024 meeting and whoops so I'm going to mark that as B8 so uh first of all thank you Jennifer for providing the transcripts Thank You Vince for listening to it because it's very important particularly in these continuation hearings now uh alen is everyone here eligible or is there are some people who are not eligible to vote per se so Amanda wasn't here okay so thank Kevin I'm sorry to interrupt but looking back at my notes and perhaps they have since read the transcripts in the original date at our meeting on January 4th Miss Cruz and Mr Havens both had not yet read the transcripts from the February meeting so they were not eligible to vote at that meeting obviously if they were at that meeting so they just have to certify that they read the transcripts from February 2023 or else they would still remain ineligible to vote all right elen have we had any prior certifications or I guess we can ask uh okay so uh Miss Cruz have you uh reviewed the transcripts of that first I'm sorry I'm looking the wrong way okay so and then what about Mr Havens okay so what happens is and and Amanda um you're absolutely entitled to participate tonight and in terms of asking questions and uh making statements and making comments and all those other things but if we do vote tonight um you would not be able to vote and if this is carried over uh maybe you would uh listen to the the the transcripts uh and participate so then um alen how many just for recordkeeping purposes how many eligible uh voting members do we have tonight so so an wasn't here who else it was an count from Counting eight okay and and if it's a use right and so alen just prior to the vote because part of the thing that Jennifer and her planners will be talking about tonight is what specific relief and so again might but we'll talk about that later on all right right so now we're going to swear in uh Shauna Ebanks you are a professional planner and you are the bureau's director of e Community Development and a professional planner and Ed Herman you are an engineer and the board engineer and an all-around good guy so what we'll do if you got if you all could both raise your right hands do you swear that the information and testimony you all are about to provide to the extent you provide any will be the truth the best of your knowledge to help you God that is all right so let the record reflect that both uh Shauna and Ed Herman have been sworn and Jennifer or Alini I don't is there anything new we have to add into evidence to begin with nothing that was submitted I have and once I make my uh formal appearance and I give a quick summary I'll W more piece into evidence and I'll summarize where we were and where we're going tonight thank you all yours thank you so again formerly Jennifer kmco from gri and Aaron here on behalf of the applicant Uh Kevin has always did a great job giving us a summary of you may remember at the first heing we came uh before you with a 40 foot high uh billboard that was much significantly bigger than the billboard that's out there today at the uh January 4th hearing when we returned we came with a drastically reduced billboard uh it's actually smaller in sign face than what is existing there today albeit the structure itself as opposed to the sign face the message or the use is 5 feet taller um in addition to that concession one of the things that was put on the record you're going to hear it all through the planner but just to reframe it is that we agreed to implement the narrow view technology which as I hint at this exhibit you're going to see it repeated on this exhibit and what it does is it significantly reduces the view in which where the area in which the sign can be seen that in and of itself is a reduction of the use however we went a couple steps further um we had right now the sign is lit 247 without limitation it's externally lit the difference being this one is going to be internally lit what we agreed to do was uh turn off the lighting from 11:00 PM to 7 am. so where currently the sign can be viewed from 180 degrees for uh 24 hours a day 7 days a week we're proposing to Li limit where the message can be seen from uh as well as reduce it by 8 hours uh so will not be seen at night which brings it into greater compliance as it relates to some of your other ordinance Provisions uh in addition to that and while not directly related to this site uh one of the things we also offered as a condition of approval is the elimination of six nonconforming billboard signs throughout the uh burrow again it's two signs structures but six spes Al together so it's two non-conforming structures and six non-conforming uses so to speak uh with regard to the the sign message and last but not least I think the most important is we have offered threee Insurance to the burrow 12 and a half% of the available time uh on our sign again we already without limitation we broadcast any emergency public announcements from the burrow from the county from the state Emergency Management but in addition to that we're offering uh 12 and a half% of our time to the burrow during the operating hours of the sign from uh 7 AM to 11:00 PM uh to put up any message that they want and as you remember we moved into evidence that we're currently using our property for that very purpose by putting some uh less techn technologically advaned signage on the property today for the very same purpose hey Jennifer can I just just so I have it so the it was the emergency announcement at any time and then the other was 12 and a half% of our time gets debt donated to the burrow for their use all right and then just not to be uh just so I'm clear did I earlier in the transcripts see that if it was not sold to someone else no the first meeting came to the second meeting I believe of the former chairwoman we committed to it we're going to keep it available got it so thank you solely dedicated for burrow use public use does not have to be an emergency it could be for the shry commission meeting or the cancellation of a planning word meeting or anything else thank you U misso Can can you tell me where the six uh signs throughout the burrow that will be eliminated we can it was an exhibit that was moved into evidence at the last meeting when my engineer comes back up I'll I'll open and have him just go through it one more time okay I I I'm just giving a summary as it relates to the testimony I'd rather have the engineer do it so with all of that the only outstanding item from the last meeting we concluded all our testimony with the exception of our professional planner and one question that came up from I believe two board members was there's a development up going up across the street it was already approved residential development what's the impact going to be on that so or uh engineer who might asked him to come up he was sworn at the last meeting he remained under oath at this meeting Dan doerty prepared an exhibit that I'd like to move in as a27 it's still called nrow view technology exhibit which is one we moved in previously but it's dated with today's date and as I panned it out I mean as Shauna hands it out as you can see there are two photos on this one showing the view across the street and I'm going to let Dan testify to in detail from that property in the existing condition and another showing across the street in the proposed condition so uh Mr chair shall before we get into this exhibit shall we quickly just go to where those other Billboards are being removed and just by way of reference that was exhibit a a20 right let's just walk through these other six billboard faces that were composing for if this board approves it obviously all everything space status good evening um I'm referring engineering this morning um I'm referring to billboard location exhibit dated I think you want closer to the mic yeah thanks dated December 7th 2023 introduc in town between those two locations there are six bases on those two structures at those two and what are the two locations um the first location I'll talk about is uh location 10 on the exhibit this is um located at the or near the intersection of the Conrail Trail tracks and um Bridge Avenue south of the tracks it's basically just north of the parking lot behind the new sickles building so so it's basically right off of shb Avenue sorry shry Avenue that's where you would see it that's where you see it probably Northbound on on Avenue or Southbound going north down on sh L Avenue it's on your right after you pass the sickles building there's two panels okay and then on those same opposes going south down coming over the railroad tracks they'd be on your left and there's two panels back and back so all all of these are on shoes braue yes those that location is on sberry Avenue that's four panels there the other location the other location is um right at the Eastern parking lot entrance to the train station parking lot there's um a single sign as you enter the parking lot and that's got a sign on the other face so that's those two two faces and what street is that that is Oakland Street 84 Oakland Street I'm sorry what number Oakland Street 84 so Mr chair those are the six panels that we're offering to permanently retire from existence so with that um we handed out uh a27 could you describe to the board uh what a 27 is what did you prepare there the 827 is entitled narrow view technology exhibit different from the previous one as Mr Gro indicated D April 4th 2024 um this was in prepared in response to the board's questions about the U proposed development at6 side across the street from us to the north um because that property is approved but not yet constructed it doesn't it's not reflected on the aerial photos that were used for all these exhibits and just to clarify your firm was the uh engineer that approve that was the engineer of record for that application so you got it approved you had all of the plans in your the approved plans in your possession and what you're showing here is the footprint of the building as approved that's correct okay um so that that gray area in the middle of the plan it's a light gray surrounded by a darker gray that's just the textures that came right off the site plan documents for that application um we've we've dropped that on to the aerial photo to the correct scale and approximately same loc the correct location probably get or tape or two um and as you can see it's oppos directly opposite of our site um again this is this exhibit was originally prepared to show you the view of the sign and and where that view is so the the dark gray areas on the bottom part of the exhibit are areas that are out of view of the sign even under the previous technology and then the cross-hatched areas on either side of the sign are the areas that the narrow view technology further reduces from what would be proposed or or result in from the typical technology for LEDs and that's that cross hatch darker portion on either side so as I look at that some of that cross-hatch it cuts off the building so a portion of this building will not be able to see the sign message at all that's correct the the right half of the building and of course the Eastern facing units or the northern facing units wouldn't be able to see it um the um you'll see in the middle the clear area that's that's the the area where the LED signs would be visible from um and under the the narrow view technology um and then also on the western side of the building all the units that are facing the West uh facing um Route 35 and the Beyond they would not be able to see it because their windows are turned 90 degrees from where but let's so you have something labeled number one did you personally go out during the crane test to uh and if the board remembers we previously did crane testing and it was explained to you in detail uh to hold the height of where the proposed sign's going to be in a panel so it could be an accurate simulation so you observed it and were you stand in the location of label number one yes that location is is right about where the uh southwest corner of the building along the Riverside Avenue Frontage is I said at that location and took photos of the tram test um occurring across the street you'll see um at the bottom left is is that photo that I took that day okay and just this photo currently is during the day so the the lighting on this existing positions will be shown but at night someone in the apartment behind where you were would be able to see the lighted sign that we'd have out there correct in fact as I'm looking into the South the sunlight is coming from the south and casting a shadow over the existing sign so it might be difficult to see but that existing sign is right in the middle of the photo on the left hand side and In fairness to the board the first floor elevation of those apartments are approximately 4 and2 ft higher than the sidewalk is that correct correct so you're actually taking the photo about 5 feet down from where someone would be in a window that's correct okay and then the proposed conditions photo position number one that's showing what the proposed sign what they would say that's correct using the U the crane test which has a placard on it which is located at the height and horizontal location of the proposed sign um Alfred media uses that photo and that visual location of that plat to place in a simulation of the sign case and that's what you see on the right photo the proposed conditions reflecting um the sign not only the sign location but also its height compared to um the existing surroundings and in that photo the existing sign face is removed from the photo it's it's photoshopped out okay any questions as to this exhibit any questions from the board yes any questions from the public and again Mr M I would just ask the public questions limed to just what he testified to tonight excuse me to just what he testified to tonight okay well that's what I I was just asking if had questions about this okay is that okay okay okay no questions next oh wait a minute so you got to come up absolutely that one doesn't work there is one what happened so then the answer is yes it doesn't work speak in put it closer to you okay it uh my name is Victor R I own the property surrounding the gas station uh the side of the billboard so I own beer Vino the lot behind it um and the lot uh around it so the only thing you know let me just swear you in for the record we s uh do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide to the extent you provide any will be the truth the best your knowledge to help you God yes thank you spell it can you spell your last name for our friend r a l thank you your question so my first question the public will have a chance to speak on the other issues this evening yes so tonight is today at this moment just on this issue there just on this issue yes I'll I'll speak at the end when okay when the public is thank you great you know I just have a couple questions also um what is the effect on the you yeah that's just um the building behind the billboard um can you just explain the effect or or how their view has been affected by sliding of the sign you know from his current position on the left to where you have it in the proposed photo position number one on the right hand side I'm talking about the blue house behind the sign sliding from which position where it is today to the 21 fet over to where it is post this house looking this way old sign and the new sign and Paul just for the record is it the your question dealing with the property to the immediate south of the existing billboard yes okay I mean it does seem that there is a few Windows there that are currently not blocked that will be blocked that for to say um I think actually it might be the opposite you look at the window are you're looking at the new exhibit correct I'm looking at the new exhibit so right now there's structure multiple I beams and structure that are supporting the existing sign um that will be all removed and'll be one onle so for the majority of the bottom of the sign there'll just be that one pole and you know this is just from this perspective but you can see um the one the the left second floor window is blocked on the existing conditions photo and the right photo the right second floor uh window is is not blocked by the existing sign by the see the exting and then there's an attic window above that that is slightly visible in the existing conditions so you know out of those three not first floor windows there's one and a half or one window block and then in proposed conditions the sign is raised and you can see from this perspective it blocks that Attic Window but the the two second floor windows are exposed you can see them in in the photo under the proposed conditions and this is right so the view from those two windows though if I was to look out those windows I would be staring at the back of the well if you looked up you would but if you looked directly out you're seeing under it well when you say up how far would one have to look up the way I'm looking at it if someone's looking at that window the predominant structure that they see first thing they're going to see is that billboard right I no I well compared to existing conditions it's very similar so in existing conditions the sign is lower so it's more impactful on the ground floor and the second floor and as you said when you look out the window do you look right or left or up or down um you know I would say that or of this building is blocked in existing conditions with the existing building being lower and in front of the second floor and also the first floor Windows although we can see the first floor windows from the existing conditions view sure we can see them um but like you said the sign would be the predominant thing that's opposite them in the first floor and in proposed conditions that sign's going to be now higher and out of their way on the first FL well I'm not sure out of its way it's is inappropriate well characterization not of it way I mean either way it's whether it's in this current condition or the proposed Condition it's in its line of sight I would say both signs are are within the line of sight of the house they're really just in different locations right but you but your testimony is that from the first floor there's less of it in your line of sight yeah and from the second floor there's less of it in your line of sight and and especially when you consider the fact that the structure is reduced to just the one pole as opposed to seeing uh I think it's four to I think it's six stanions across the width of the sign so looking right and left right looking right and left up to the bottom of the to the bottom of the line there's going to be less that you're looking at and there's no Shadow impact from either sign because this is all North facing we're looking North the sun's behind us so we're in the cast of The Shadow of the house itself also how tall is the building going directly across the street the most five stories I'm sorry five the new building across the street is five thank you Mr Dockery uh follow-up question to that the distance from The Mike uh Mr dockerty the the house that was being referenced as behind the sign uh can you estimate the distance from that house to the back of the sign six feet sorry six feet to the property I'm saying from the house itself I think I made this a similar assumption on my first look did ask at the last meeting and there was testimony and then also I didn't think it was six feet I thought it was one or two feet oh there's a there's a distinction between where the base of the poll is and where the action sign is and that's those setbacks are actually shown on the plan that we submitted okay we're taking it from the closest which is the base and that is six feet it's six feet to from the back of the sign to the property line but the lot behind us that's vacant is 50t so that's that house that appears in the two photos we were just discussing is actually 56 feet behind the sun well no not the house the lot is 56 feet behind the sign the house is then set further back from that so the house in question that you said was right next to it is more than 55 feet away okay the six foot is the distance between the back of the sign to the property it's going from one to six as it relates to the poles so the pole is almost right on the property line but the sign itself is set back six feet and then what was that that the what did you say about the 55 feet the the property of the house that Mr Cano am I saying that correctly was asking about just the property line is at least 56 feet away from the back of the sign not the property line the propert the the house right the property line property line is 56 feet away the house is further than that than that okay there's an intervening line between us and the property that has that's the L okay now understanding i' ask him a question you need to ask him a question you you can come up just state your name again for the record uh and you're still under oath yes is there any photographs showing my lots and how they would be affected by this new sign I know it's there now you weren't at any of PRI yes I was first meeting yes I I'm your property Mr R was in between this house and the sign so that would be the vacant property that you that's taken from 55 Rector that's from the lighthouse recor where pict being this is the house here correct ask so that's the view well how about from Pino from the other side my parking lot like if I ever wanted to be build any parking now this is disrupting all the I owner own that lot that's a comment not a question but I can what I comment question I've been there for since 1988 all right but your your your question is for uh witness we don't have all right so the question is do you have does the witness have any pictures showing the impact on the beino site the beino site and more directly the lot that this is from place from Lighthouse across the street my property surrounds all of the you know okay the whole property so Jennifer the answer is no okay and just a question question from Mr R followup to that um are you aware that the sign that we're proposing now is actually smaller in area than what was than what's existing today uh I understand the sign is different it's about the same size no it's 100 square feet smaller yeah the actual face of the sign correct the part that you're talking about what you would see is 100 square feet smaller it still affects me I I'm not suggesting it doesn't I'm just asking if you're aware of that it's an existing nonconforming use I would why would we change anything all right so we'll come back do you have any more questions because we're going to come back to your comments later on I have a question for Mr R is it is yeah there was a house there that's ailable a lot and the Lots where beino is they're all buildable lots and I'm 60 years old my plan is not to run a restaurant for the rest of my life okay um and that's the value of what I own great thank you I have another question yes record my name is Jenny Herman I this the place I've been president of Red Bank for 30 years and Mr Herman I think you were swearing in at the the first meeting that was more than a year ago and said we're just going to swear you in again uh do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide to the extent you provide any will be the truth the best your knowledge to help you God thank you um the um Jennifer you mentioned a short while ago that the sign will be six feet from the property line Mr property is that correct we're talking about the sign has two elements sign pole which is on the ground that's not 6 feet that's 6 feet the current sign is 0.1 that's 26 but if you look at the plan that we moved in is A9 if we ask me that's what I was I six in you know just hold hold on one second our court reporter friend is looking at me saying we can only have one person talk at a time so he's asking about the the question is I recall from last year testimony that the current s was 6 in from property line the property line with the lot we're talking about and now you said it's 6 feet but I want to show you the distinction here if I can so the existing sign the poles are 0.1 inches. one feet away the proposed sign the Pole right here the existing is 0.1 the proposed is 6 so the pole is 6 the sign face right here that's where the the fieldb face is going to be is see that six feet right here yes the sign face which is what you're going to see is six feet from the property the portion of the billboard closest to Mr R's property is six at the at the mon or seven Ines from his property correct and the current one has five or six poles that are only 0.1 from his prop so I'd like to ask the planner this is not a plan Oh I thought just our he's not just he's our engineer we have a professional who will be did I answer that thank you like a clarification this an inches how many inches from Mr R's property line to the base of the sign that was any of the I didn't hear question I'm sorry how many inches water all over sorry about that um how many inches from Mr R's property line is the base of the sign the proposed base of the sign is6 feet which is about 7 and2 in seven inches from the property line and what's the current base current non-conforming wasn't my question but the proposed one is 76 feet from the prop 6 feet so that's you seven and A4 inches and then the existing one is1 feet which is one and a quarter and forgive me if I don't already know but what's the current ordinance for setbacks 10 first for an accessory sign it would be 10 feet if we need a use variance there are no requirements 10 feet similar to my home you know where I live it's also 10 feet so existing non-conforming is practically right on his property line the proposed is about seven inches from his property line when the ordinance is 10 feet and just to address that because it seems like a a conclusion and we didn't offer the planning yet but I just want to clarify a couple of things if the board determines that we need a use variance for 10 click step back which app to accessory signs doesn't apply and there are no requirements bulk requirements for this use in the zone so arguably under a case price versus AI it's assumed in the use variants there is none we're giving it to you by way of comparison what an accessory sign would be and the reason why I asked about the existing sign today is because as you know the existing sign can stay forever and as we get to the planner and we're going to talk about the positives and negatives of the application we have to look at what the existing impact is with five or six stanions at point one versus one stanion at point six and that's the only reason I asked for it on the record my planner is going to rely on it during her testimony okay thank you I'm sorry shaa very sorry he any other questions for this witness okay let's move on great like to call my last Witness I believe the board's familiar with her 'll have her SW for the benefit of the few public that are here will uh have credentials on the record uh good evening missone good to see you if you could state your name and business address please keny good to see you as well name is Christine Naro n a z r o Kone C and business address is 125 Half Mile Road s 200 Red Bank New Jersey all right do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth the best of your knowledge to help you God okay and Jennifer just in conjunction with you said we actually have a bunch of new members so who might not have heard so we'll just go through Christine's uh amazing credentials right so Christine if you recognize you've been here before but some of the board members might not be familiar with your work you take a moment to offer your educational experience background that qualifies you as an expert in the field of planning Jersey yes good evening chair members of the board I do see a lot of here tonight leard I am Christine theone I'm a licensed professional planner who has been qualified here in the Barrow of Red Bank on dozens of occasions I have been practicing landage planning for 28 years in the state where I have also been qualified before about 450 other planning and zoning boards so I'm out a lot at night doing um applicant witness testimony I teach Planning and Zoning courses for the roer Center for government services I am also a court appointed affordable housing special Master my licenses are current and valid I just renewed my license uh last week so my planning license is current invalid um and I'm also the planner for the caser Redevelopment Authority in Atlantic City but by and large my practice is representing developers before Planning and Zoning thank you m you're welcome thank you so Christine considering your expertise in this area just to start you've had the benefit of being at all of the meetings hearing all the testimony and been involved with the plan preparation and the presentation yes I was present in February 2nd 2023 meeting I was present at the last meeting in January I have been at all tagging on site I have been past this site hundreds if not thousands of times as I grew up in the area so I have been to the site I have been to area uh the restaurant adjacent to it on many occasions I've been to the lighthouse across the street from it I am a mammoth County resident for nearly 50 years now so I'm I'm quite familiar with the site and more equally as importantly as being familiar with Red Bank and the site you are intimately familiar with the bu's ordinance and master plan I am okay so based on the application that's before you and recognizing that um it's not the same application we started with in February 2023 would you please walk the board through from a planning perspective what we're seeking what your expert opinion is on the interpretations questions interpretation then in the alternative because again said at the original hearing we're going to present our case of the interpretations and all of the relief all at once so the board can consider everything together so in the event that the board does not agree 100% with your interpretations and decides that we need any of the variants releas I'd ask you to please also go through the statutory criteria and where it falls on this application I will attempt to do all of that uh as efficiently and as clearly as I can because there are you know a lot of questions it seems like a straightforward application but when you deal with existing nonconformities on a piece of property the law and your ordinance treats those differently than you would some other uses so um as attorney crico indicated the first thing we're doing is seeking some interpretations so before we even get to the interpretations with regard to um our application so Mr Herman your engineer last issued a report dated January 4th of 2024 in that report on page four he outlines what those interpretations are so I'm going to go through them I think way and way to go through them and offer the board my opinion on those interpretations the first matter 1.1a on page four of that report Mr Herman writes and we've requested a notice for these as well the applicant is requesting anation from the board on whether or not a preex non-conforming billboard is considered a principal structure sluse or an accessory structure use I would submit to the board that it's my that this billboard is a principal use this is a principal use it is not subordinate to any of the existing uses on the property which is the The Bridge Avenue gas station the defunct gas station building so that one's pretty simple it's a principal use and it's a principal structure in that as a structure it's not related to any other structure on the property correct I'm I'm going to get into that yes but yes it is principal structure as well there is case law that makes it very clear that when you're dealing with signs that all signs compose a use and a structure and they look at that as there's the medium and there's the message so if you will the medium is really the structure right that's what supports the sign it can be a building with a sign painted on the side of it or in the case of this site it can be the structure is those six metal supports that are existing out there to support the use or the medium which is the sign and the message or the advertising that's being displayed so yes I I believe it is both a principal use and a principal structure it is not subordinate to any uses so that's my opinion on it so we agree with that on that we do moving on to B doesn't go it's going to get a little more complicated so B reads Mr Herman's report the applicant is requesting an interpretation from the board on whether a pre-existing nonconforming billboard is considered a non-permitted use or a non-permitted structure rure so in this case we are it's my opinion that the billboard is a non-permitted use because in the burrow of Red Bank you don't list signs as a permitted use principal principal permitted use you allow them as an accessory use but not as a principal permitted use further when you define billboard here that bank you define billboard as um a structure including panels of poster paper attached to it utilized for advertising and establishment an activity a product a service or entertainment and which has an area equal to or greater than 200 square feet so in Redbank the way Bard is designed designed or defined it doesn't reference an off-site advertising site so if I were looking at a sign if you will on the light house across the street from the subject property and the lighthouse had a 300q foot sign and it was on the same property I'm going to say that under your ordinance that's a billboard because again that definition reads a structure including panels of poster paper attached to it utilized for advertising an establishment an activity a product a service or entertainment and which has an area equal to or greater than 200 square feet so that's a billboard in red okay so my my question is and I think I offered this at the beginning of the hearing uh the state at least in their regulations and a lot of other municipalities distinguish between an on premise sign which would be the sign on this property that says the burrow of Red Bank because it's on the property it's advertising the use on the property it's accessory and an off premise sign which is advertising something off of the property which makes it a principal use so unlike the state definitions and unlike most other municipalities Red Bank doesn't have that distinction correct I would say in most instances and I've done quite a few billboard applications the closest one to hear that I've done is probably the one in eatown uh on the riko site there's an existing LED billboard testimony on that so I would agree that in most cases the definition of billboard throughout the state usually addresses some type of offsite advertising component and I would say as a planner generally speaking if somebody asked me what I would say a billboard is I'd say it's typically an off-site advertising sign but so but here in Redbank that's the way it's defined and that's a difference with a distinction here because it relates to whether the use is permitted as a use or a structure right and and again the reason why this is important is because if there was a definition as to the type of message meaning on premise or off premise that would be the use correct but in Redbank billboard is only defined as its size so it's only defined as a structure not as a use because it's it's silent as to what type of advertising is there correct because it's not offsite so the difference becomes very important because that's the difference between a c and a d variants so we concede that as a structure we're non-conforming because structurally we're bigger than the uh 200 square feet we are and structures bigger than 20 square feet that are also signs are not permitted so we agree that we're a non-conforming sign structure yes correct a non-conforming structure okay um so we're a non just so I have it right in answer to to the question we believe we are a noner permitted use because it's a sign that's a principal use as opposed to an accessory correct and more non-permitted structure based on the square footage of the sign of the billboard yes okay so excuse me I'm a little confused one saying sign the other saying billboard is there a distinction between those two there there is so Christine would you say that by definition a billboard it's just a sign that's 200 square feet or more so we are both a sign and available in Red Bank yes okay so any sign that's 3 2011 square feet is a billboard okay whether it's on the site or off the site per your definition here in Red Bank yes that whether it's on site or offsite anything greater than 200 square feet in the burrow of Red Bank per your definitions in your zonings is aable and Mr chair just to go one step further to clarify the the reason that I say that is because it comes down to the use which is advertising for something unrelated ated to something else on the property that's the use that's not permitted as a principal use or an accessory use so again we're going to get into it in Greater detail but as we go through I just want to address each of these so we agree with um we agree with B that it's a non-permitted use because it's a principal sign it's a principal use right and it's a non-permitted structure because it's by definition a billboard because of its square footage and billboards are non- permitted structures correct okay and the next one I'm sorry you agree with B we do for different reasons for different reasons right for the reasons we stated for the reason stated based on the definition of billboard we agree with me and I agree right and and the reason why that's going to be important as we go through the tests and what type of relief is required because it's going to come down to whether or not we're expanding the structure or whether or not we're expanding the use so I'd ask you to give us a few minutes to get there yes so we will get there the next part and and it's again just to we are in my opinion reducing the use and expanding the structure but we'll get there C is the applicant is requesting an interpretation from the board on whether a pre-existing non-conforming billboard is subject to both requirements applicable to permitted signs or principal structures so it's my opinion it's not a permitted use in the zone so it's you can't apply the underlying br1 standards to use that's not permitted the any bulk relief would be subsumed into the variance relief if you were asking for Relief um there was a section in the br1 zone that talks about all other uses and that would require a 10- foot um setback so that's what we've applied here because it makes the most sense based on the structure of the ordinance so I would agree again with Mr Herman that since Billboards are not a permitted use they are not explicit bulk regulations in the underlying br1 Zone here the next one is so that's an agree we got that presuming the board concludes that the pre-existing non-conforming billboard is a non-conforming use the applicant is requesting an interpretation from the board on whether the modernization to digital including relocate including reconstruction and relocation of a pre-existing non-conforming billboard requires a use variant for a non-permitted use so here um we diverge I do not believe we need a D1 use variance or a use variance it is my opinion that when you look at the use here the sign we're retracting that it is an uncontroverted statement that that sign which is four the billboard sign which is 4 180 square feet is being reduced by 100 square feet so it's being reduced by 20% wait let me just let me just interr I apologize because I think we're going a step further as it relates to getting bigger smaller I think add in correctly if I'm wrong what you meant by this is is that I I think you're alleging that once we remove the structure we're abandoning the use I think that's what you're saying and and we disagree with that well disagree with that when New Jersey the case law is very clear in New Jersey that when you abandon a use you need an overact or an intent to abandon so for example if you had a non-conforming use on a site and it sat there vacant for 20 years and for 20 years it remained untouched nobody did anything to it there was no overt act or intent to abandon it in my opinion that would remain an appropriate non-conforming use so in the intervening time where nothing happened on that site the use was not abandon here the applicant is modernizing the use Mr anall gave very clear and specific testimony that when you are changing from a static and that's the language in a indry the static just means an existing billboard that's the paper and it's not changing so when we say static we mean an existing billboard that doesn't change change the copy on it Mr anel was very clear that the intent here is to modernize this billboard and that in order to do so you simply cannot utilize the structure and replace it with an LED that's just not how the technology works so when you're looking to modernize your billboard you have to remove the existing static billboard and then replace it with the LED because the techn techn technology to take it from a static to an LED doesn't exist and let me let let's take it a little bit further so we have the billboard structure out there today and we remove the panel off the front because it gets changed let's say once a month so wouldn't that mean then that if we remove the sign message then we're according to how Mr Herman is interpreting it we're abandoning the use which is putting the sign we shouldn't be able to put it back but it's a function of how the sign works the only way to change the message is to remove it and replace it to remove the board yes and as it relates to modernization have are you familiar with case law in New Jersey from a planning perspective where it's been held that um if any Technologies arise and the only way to meet them is by replacement of non-conforming structures or uses the courts have held that in fact that does not require a new D1 variance absolutely and what's de site on that case if you know it we do uh we do attorney PCO will get that for you Mr thank you so let me just real quick um mon uh Lane versus Bigalow Bigalow is b i g e l w okay 135 njl 195 back in 1946 when they were modernizing an automobile repair garage to a full service station thank you wa there's more okay um um Mo versus Bridgewater Township that is 69 New Jersey Super 1 1961 that permitted the evolution of extraction equipment at a non-conforming quarry and more is m o o r e yes thank you and again that is in a situation where that became new technology for the ability to extract whatever they were extracting at the Quarry they were alled to bring on that new equipment and it wasn't considered an expansion or a new use and then uh similar to this uh there was a case called Lamar Advertising versus Union it's unpublished and I can email you the unless you want me to read it into the record I can email you the S great thank you um and uh in that it was a court de it was a court decision that uh the application should have been approved to modernize the existing billboard with LED technology because just because it has to be replaced in order to be upgraded doesn't make mean it's a new use or a new structure and then um EXC before you move on to the next one in that situation was the applicant in that case also moving the structure over off the top of my head I don't remember but it there was definitely a replacement of the structure in its entirety okay but we're not sure whether or not it actually moved it any no but again that has to do with the bulk not the use and then uh okay yeah and that so those are the cases thank you okay so in your opinion based on the fact that oh let me go a step further so an intent to abandon a non-conforming use would be to not renew a permit for example correct or to let it dilapidate to the point that it wouldn't be usable anymore or to remove it and not have a plan to rebuild it if you removed it and were sitting on your site or you filed an application for an even if you filed an for an intervening Redevelopment of the property and decided Well you know what I want to go back to the use I'd say you know you have an abandonment issue there and that you took it down with the intent to develop your property for something else changed courses on that and then went back to what you previously had you have an issue there with with your abandonment and the courts are consistent with that that that a change of use or an intervening use is an abandonment of that use so in this particular case have we maintained our do permit throughout absolutely kept the existing sign in good repair and uh kept it rented out and a regular basis I can't recall a time when I drove past the site and it didn't have an advertising message on it and as a condition of the dot uh permit to digitize uh this sign we were required to remove the roof sign so we did do that but in doing so it was only because we had a permit to upgrade this and modernize this correct that was removed with the intent that this sign would be modernized to and then finally the existing sign is still remaining and it will continue to remain and the only way that it will be upgraded is if this board approves it and should the board not approve it then it will remain there as it's permitted to As a matter of correct so every action was done with the intent of modernizing the existing structure on the property so unlike a typical um situation where the uh building is removed just because you know they knock it down or they want to in this particular case the only way to upgrade or keep the technology moving forward with the times is to replace it correct so alternatively when you have an abandonment there's an overt act or intent to abandon here in my opinion you have an overt act and an intent to to preserve really to preserve and modernize and to go one step further what Mr T had asked t t and I'm sorry I struggled that a little bit um what he had asked in your opinion relocating a non-conforming structure does that in any way affect its use mean and he's asking that it's in a one location and we're sliding it over does that abandon the use in any way or or create the need for a new use variant just because it's in a different location it does not because if you recall Mr ant's testimony from the February 2nd hearing he that was done as a response if you will to the highway changing from a two-lane to a four-lane road and trying to place it appropriately to to the mod road so it goes in hand in hand to modernize Highway which was it originated 60 plus years ago right okay so your opinion is I'm sorry interrupt Kevin is appropriate that I ask you a question sure um I'm I'm a new board member and I just and for many of the sessions that I've been to I've been about non-conforming that they brought to the board and asked us to vote on it's never been assumed just because at a non-conforming garage and they've had it for 150 years that it would be permitted automatically to modernize that garage we vote on those things is this a similar application it is it is it possibly is I'm sorry it possibly is in some respects and that's an excellent question and we're going to have a lot more discussion on that and so keep that uh percolating because that is a very important discussion and we may or may not finish it tonight and just uh for full disclosure you're throwing a lot of excellent law and facts and there's a lot so we might the board might uh later on need a a written submission so we can sort of absorb it but we'll we'll take care of that later on submission at the beginning of this application a year and a half ago this was my initial memo every case I just cited this board has now had for a year and a half right and and now that we're hearing some professional planning testimony because your list of things that you apply apped for is is plentiful which I appreciate because we did that to cover everything but we might need some additional information but we'll maybe not we'll go forward and just to address and I'm I'm sorry I'm asking same dor dorus uh yes my uh it's calano actually yes but dor well that's conf I got married like a minute ago so two people right now congratulations thank you how about I just call you Amanda that's great I won't remember your other last name um Amanda just to answer your question this board wouldn't typically hear a change to a non-conforming use unless it was being expanded an applicant can only come before this board if it needs variance relief so you either need see and we're going to get into it in great detail you either need c variance relief for the bulk standards or it let's say I had a garage apartment that's not permitted and I literally am not changing it at all everything staying the same I'm painting it and I'm renovating the interior and it's a pre-existing non-conforming use I would submit a permit to Shauna and I would get a permit because there's no variances being triggered I understand for a renovation right so certainly not for dismantle remove you know dismantle take down and relocate right so again and and so the distinction is the modernization doctrine applies to new technology that's inherent to the use like a quarry getting new mechanical tools like a dairy farm going from you know milking the cows manually to bringing in the uh mechanical milking and in this where it's static the only way to convert it to digital so I don't know that it you've had any like this and and I think one of the things that you're you're pointing out and which we will need to confirm and further verify is where is is there a distinction between modernization and the relocation even if it's not great or if it is great if it's a different size if it's closer to the road further away from the road so those are some of the things and and again it's after we hear the testimony and your arguments and the arguments of your planner and the arguments of our team we might have to Red digest your stuff but so there's a there's a lot so stay tuned for that because excellent question another question um the town a distinction between plain painted signs which we have a lot of and illuminated signs is that true and I mean illuminated signs are a tough thing to get in Red Bank right there's yes there's standards for signs and whether they're external or internally illuminated yes the town doesn't routinely allow retail stores to have illuminated signs they can't just change their sign on their wall to an illuminated sign I think that would depend on the location and the specific aspect of the zone that they're in I don't think there's a fair blanket answer to that statement without being seems to me it's not just modernization but it's a radical change in the nature of the sign to go from illuminated to flat and unlighted it's very different thing we don't need a variance as it relates to it being digital or as it relates to being internally illuminated versus externally illuminated so as it relates to that regulation in EDS letter there is no variance related to that we're gonna come back to that that issue so keep what's here what the team says and then we're going to do some hear from our team and we're going to do some other research So Christine to to take a very long discussion and summarize it in your expert planning opinion excuse me uh you do not believe it D1 use variance is needed I do not okay so Jennifer you saying you do not agree with letter D does this mean that they could convert every one of their signs to electronic signs without any review well let's let's and I I hate to keep saying this we're going to come back to that but one one of the things that we're going to be focusing on is the distinction between modernization and relocation and and what are the factors and we might have to dig into some of the uh the case law and hear uh from from our team on that but that's one of the things that Jennifer is asking us to review and interpret in our analysis of this application and Mr Havens in this particular case as you're going to hear as we go through it we need variance relief regardless so there'd be review so we're not suggesting that it can just be done with that review because as you're going to hear we need variance relief as it relates to the structure s so we're going to get there yeah that that was not my concern very it's the fact that you can convert every single sign in Red Bank to an electronic sign that's a big deal well you can't Mr aens if you recall Mr anall gave uh extensive testimony with regard to the DOT regulations and the spacing between where these multi message signs are permitted so the state actually limits where they can be how close they can be to other signs and the like so you can't just wholesale convert all of them they're regulated by the state as well there's also other Governors Mr Havens in the ordinance in Red Bank as to where illuminated signs can be and what they can face so there's definitely other governors in your ordinance that addresses whether a sign can be eliminated or not so so moving on to the next interpretation point is that presuming the board concludes that the existing non-conforming billboard is a non-conforming use the applicant is requesting an interpretation from the board on whether the increase in height requires a D2 variance for the expansion of a non-conforming use despite the fact that the sign face is being reduced in size so this is one where I would say my opinion here is that the vertical structure is being increased so that's being increased from 22 to 27 feet tall however the use of the sign is being reduced by 20% from 4 to 380 so that's to from from sorry 480 to 380 so that's a radical reduction in the size of that sign so in my opinion and and I'm going to talk when I when I get into the justifications because it's our inter it's our intent regardless of how you rule on all of these interpretations I'm going to put the testimony in to justif by in my opinion the D1 as well as the D2 so I'm going to walk through those groups and give you a little bit more color on why I've come to these interpretations which will hopefully help you but I I struggle mightily as a planner where we're reducing something by 20% we're reducing a third of the amount of time that it would be operative and and be visible because we're shutting it down in the overnight aners between 11 and 7 we are uh removing six other sign pH from from the community at large so I struggle mightily with the interpretation that that expands the use and get into that a little and in E it doesn't appear that Ed took a position that we needed D2 variance because he's saying you can't need a D2 because you already need a D1 is that how I read that Ed so in your opinion if the board agrees that with us that no D1 variance is required then the next question we asked is whether or not a D2 is required and in your opinion a D2 is not required correct and and then the last interpretation is whether site plan approval is required and we are we've asked for site plan approval so we're agreeing that site approval another agree so that's good so that's a nice segue because we have well we're not necessarily agreeing that it's required because we don't know the architecture design it let's just leave that one to the side regardless of whether or not it's required it's all our it's been agree that our plans indicate all of the necessary site plan requirements is that correct that need for this I would say that's a fair statement yes Fair fa okay so you offered all your expert interpretations as it relates to what relief you think we need and just by way of summary we don't need a D1 in your opinion don't need a D2 but we do need some C relief um yes see in case the board disagrees let's assume the board decides we need a D1 or they decide we need a D2 from a planning perspective if we do require that relief how do we meet those standards based on the totality of what we're presenting so the standards are different for a D1 and a D2 the standards are different for all the sixd variances that are out there and so I'm going to go through the D1 first then I'll go into the D2 and then I'll I'll address the BS while I'm doing that so in Z case law is clear that the boards reserve the right to Grant D variances for D1 use variances under either the medii or seek appr proofs the seek appr proofs are reserved for an inherently beneficial use and you go through the for pron seek a balancing test that's not applicable here so I'm going to provide the proofs under the D1 medich standard which require me to go through the particular suitability as well as the positive negative criteria and the medich reconciliation so in this case I I believe that this site is particularly suitable for the proposed uh billboard and off-site advertising sign it is um an existing location here since the 1960s this B board has been in this location recent iteration of the master plan this is recognized as a busy location having up to a thousand cars per hour coming through this area so certainly in my opinion that renders the site particularly suitable for this type of advertis in medium um so I I believe we meet the particular suitability burden of in addition to particular suitability in order to substantiate our burden of proof for a D1 use variance I have to demonstrate that the positive criteria are satisfied the positive criteria come from the municipal land use law at section 40 colon 55 d-2 they are not unique to the burrow of redbag and they're identified by letter and not number in the landage statuto we have to advance one or more of those in order to meet our burden of F I believe there are two that are Advanced by this application criteria a talks about promoting the general welfare attorney crico indicated that in addition to being available to the to the municipality for emergency messages we are also proposing that 12 and a half% of the Billboard's time will be made available to the burrow for things whatever that might be of interest to the burrow to promote the many activities that function in the downtown Riverfront Park whatever so in my opinion that certainly promotes the general welfare when you combine that with the advertising for um emergencies first just a step back and tied in with that when we talk about whether or not this site is particularly suited for messaging wouldn't the fact that the burrow currently advertises on it with their temporary signage also further enhance how appropriate it is for advertising and messaging it would C particular suitability it would certainly seem particularly suitable given that on any given day you can drive and see uh the police sign I would even know how it's a temporary sign but it certainly sits out there it was out there today so I was out on the site as recently as this morning and there is an advertising sign there um with Community messages so yes that was certainly speak to uh the Burrow's position on whether this is suitable to get messages out to the public since it appears as if a police sign is routinely on the property putting out Community messages and and that's part the general welfare that the site lends itself to doing that so I think that that's an absolute benefit and you said there were two what was the other one criteria g talks about providing sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses so this in my opinion is also Advanced by this application uh there is absolutely sufficient space in this location to support this app ising sign as well as a use on the site right the site has functioned harmoniously with these two uses on the property um historically it's been it's been here since the 60s um we can certainly develop it and having the site even in the relocated location will do will do no violence to any um ultimate intentions to redevelop the property so I do think criteria G is advanced again we would meet our burden of proof for the positive criteria if only one purpose of the language law were Advanced but I think that certainly those two can be considered by the board as satisfaction of the positive criteria and Christine doesn't our don't our courts hold that once we've established particular suitability that satisfies the positive criteria in that because of the particular suitability the general welfare is uh met so it's really the general welfare is met based on the particular suitability as well as the actual public benefit being conveyed by donating 12 a half% of the advertising time correct as well as advancing one or more of the purposes the landage thought so those two purposes are purpose a and purpose G and again those both purposes and letters are not something that I Su up with they're not my clever uh clever language it's it's in the municipal land use law and those two purposes are identified in my opinion by this application okay so what else so that moves us to the negative criteria and this is a really important um important part of the the planning proofs in this because the negative criteria and the land use law does not ask you to P this or any other applicant to a standard that there be no detriment that is absolutely not the test in the negative criteria the negative criteria does not ask you to hold the applicant to 100% compliance and Perfection with your ordinance what it asks you to do is evaluate the application and evaluate it um against the public good and the Zone plan weigh those two prongs of the negative criteria and do a balancing and determine that the benefits of the gr of the variance would outweigh any detriments so I think that that's very clear and this substantial is a term that's that's in the statute it's a substantial that so again I think it's very clear when evaluating the negative criteria associated with any variance that we remind be reminded that the test is not no detriment the test is a substantial detriment and again because as we know in New Jersey non-conformant uses can remain forever part of looking at the detriment is the impact of the current non-conforming use versus the proposed and whether or not there are any um improvements in that so yes and that I'm going to talk a little bit more about that when we get to the D2 expansion of a non-conforming use because that's where that becomes really important because the D2 when you're dealing with the D2 expansion it's very important to look at the betterments if you will the conditions that can be imposed on the application to lended law harmoniously and when you're dealing exclusively with the D2 the case law is very clear and it's a burdge case and what that tells you is when you're dealing with an existing non-conforming use it directs you as the evaluating board to review the negative criteria with greater liberality because it the use has already been there the area is accustomed to it so when you're dealing with a non-conforming use the case law is very clear in Burbridge that we look at betterments and we view the negative criteria with greater liberality given the fact that the use is already accustomed the neighborhood is already accustomed to use have you listed the detriments say it again have you listed the detriments I've heard the two in the betterments yet so Oh I thought you gave me the first two betterments with the no so my in my opinion the two betterments are the sign is being reduced 480 380 square feet which is a radical reduction we have agreed to not operate Des sign between 11 and 7 that becomes particularly important when you look at the impact on this it doesn't currently exist in an operation mode it lit you mean the the uplights yes yes it's lit it's lit from Dust to Dawn so and also Christine one of the things that I was just gonna go to was currently those lights can be seen from behind the sign for example because they shine on the sign and they can be seen from people behind it or on the side where in the proposed is the testimony from Thiago John anel and uh and Dan are because of the louvers that are inherent with this new technology there is no spillage of light or visibility of light from the side or behind that will be my third point but I'm not ready to move yet so if I could just get through this that would be great so when you're evaluating the negative criteria you have to evaluate the impact on the public good but you also have to evaluate the impact on the Zone plan in section 490-1049 restrict any illuminated sign located on a lot adjacent to or across the street from any residential district and visible from such residential district shall not be illuminated between the hours of 1100 pm. and 7 amm unless the use to which the sign pertains is business during those hours so right now you do have a situation where that sign is eliminated for those hours and we are proposing to eliminate that as part of this application so in my opinion that's a third of the time that the sign is going to operate we are going to shut that down in conjunction with this application and right now M attorney CRI is absolutely correct that we are going to improve the technology and Implement What's called the narrow view technology which doesn't exist today so even though we're switching or proposing to move from a static to billboard the narrow view technology will actually allow for less of an impact to the adjoining properties than exists today given the fact that there's no control of that light spill over so that is my third point is that eliminating the narrow view technology it's also not eliminate eliminate implementing the narrow view technology is certainly a benefit and something that the board can consider um when evaluating the negative criteria and Christine let me just ask you a question before we go on as it and I know that you're speaking about generally the comparison between a D1 and D2 but unlike a typical D1 variance where you have a vacant property you have another use there and you're coming in and proposing a new use that would require a D1 variance in this case it's either the existing sign and all of its detriments or all of its impacts or remain or if the board determines that D1 variance is needed and we look at what the detriments and impacts would be based on this revised sign so different than a typical D1 where it's no impact at all you get the impact here we have the unique situation where there's impact either way it's just going to be the impact of the existing sign versus the proposed sign so because of that even in the D1 comparison well they might not look at it with the same liberality the the impact of the existing sign versus the proposed sign and all of these betterments as you call them are key because if the board doesn't rant this use in the D1 which is what we're talking about right now all of those benefits that are currently considered potential detriments to the existing non-conformity don't occur correct correct so and there and there there are impacts there are impacts to the existing sign the light spill over the visibility of the existing sign the proximity to our neighbors that existing sign is 480 feet in square feet it's got a 22 foot high height and a 10-ft bottom clearance but if you go out and look at it it's got six metal structural supports that that are clearly visible to the Neighbors the new sign is proposed at 380 square feet in size 27 feet so it's 5 feet taller and it's got a clearance height of 16.5 from the ground up so I think Mr doy our engineer did a great job of explaining to you that yes it is it is both SIDS are going to be visible from Mr R's property there is no doubt about that and both SIDS are visible from that residential lot that sits has a property and then um there's a residential property next to it 100% both are visible now both are going to be visible if the B so moves this and we do re re the I think it's going to be better it's going to be the the cone vision technology is going to reduce the light for the adjoining residences and the bottom you're only going to see one pole as opposed to six individual brackets that are out there and it's going to be a little bit higher so Chris a question um I I think this sign is feared towards people driving across the bridge making that turn so they can see different advertising current static sign it's there you see it all the way across the bridge as you're coming up to a turn as this digital sign is changing back and forth and back and forth okay every eight seconds I'm sorry not back and forth back and forth but it changes every 8 seconds you don't see that as a distraction to any of the people in their automobiles I don't the do is very clear an8 it's called the dwell time right that's the industry language is the 8C dwell time the do regulates that so absolutely and we've been issued a permit for it we're unsafe we wouldn't have we wouldn't have gotten to the point where our permit's going issue well straight away I understand that but we're talking about a big curve right here where it's a nightmare tourn without having distraction and you know I'm just I'm just confused if if you need a digital sign there's certainly a lot of uh straightaway in Middletown and in shoebury I'm 35 so I you know so again Christ you the same questions were as of her engineer I think both Engineers Mr Thiago Thiago and um Dan again Christina is testifying as a planner and as to how it meets the positive negative not with regard to driving and distraction and and things of that nature she's offered her opinion that she does not think of changing message every eight seconds for the full eight seconds will be a negative impact to the drivers from a planning perspective is that your opinion that's my opinion and one other question is it relates to the impact of the existing sign and and speaking about uh Mr R's property and and any other property that sits behind it um there's a distinction between being able to see the non-conforming structure and the non-conforming use and what do I mean by that I mean Mr R can't see the message of the current sign right he cannot and in the proposed condition he won't be able to see that message either so it's a non-conforming he may be able to see at an angle he may be able to see the current message but based on the new technology it's going to eliminate that message from his view altogether yes so the only thing that Mr R or any of the neighborhoods outside of the narrow view call they're just going to see the non-conforming structure not the message they will not see the message they will see the structure so we're reducing the amount of people who are going to have any impact from the use which is advertising for something other than a principal use on that property correct can can I ask a question I don't know if it's their right right um it's on topic to what you're discussing but you had testified uh earlier about there being 12% of the time um where you allow the burrow to use and advertise sha tree commission meetings and things like that I believe it was 12 and a half% or 120 Minutes in 24-hour day the 24hour less 8 hours so 16 hour day right and that's the positive um criteria for the for the use variance one of them so I I guess I think the most negative to me is that you have every eight seconds a different advertising right so for Mr roll's business for someone who cuts hair in town for someone who sells a doughnut who sells a shirt every eight seconds you could promote you could be promoting people who are driving by to go to different towns to go to a restaurant in Middletown to go get a haircut in Ocean County to go to a restaurant in Middle sex County to go to the American Mall to go skiing every month how is that not a detriment to the burrow let me finish how is it not a detriment to the business owners in Redbank when you're literally advertising in Red Bank every eight seconds to potentially go out of town instead of coming to redb we understand your question and we did provide um I believe it was at the first meeting no it was the second second meeting we provided a list of advertisers who were on our sign and how many of them were in fact physically located in Red Bank such as Leonardo jewers Jersey Mike Subs um Jud Shaw injury law a number so we provided the burrow with a list of of advertisers now not all of them were in Redbank and how I come also is that in your master plan wait before you go to the master plan I just have one quick question uh also you were here when Mr testify that those smaller businesses in Red Bank that couldn't afford a static sign for an extended period of time now have their piece of the pie piece of the pizza so now more Red Bank smaller businesses mom and pup businesses actually have an opportunity to advertise on a billboard where thousands of cars are going by it every day where they otherwise couldn't do that correct and in the master plan there's a statement in the master plan where it deals with economic development and how it reads this is a Verbatim recitation to support red bank's small and emerging businesses to help them remain competitive in a challenging retail environment and better serve the community so I think that this does create an opportunity because exactly as attorney crico said when Mr um anall was explaining he said some of these smaller startups or um smaller businesses might not be able to afford that static billboard but they may be able to afford an eight you know another 8C or one slice of the pizza so I think when you look at that goal in Red Bank which I I thought was compelling right red bank's small and emerging emerging businesses to help them remain competitive in a challenging retail environment right we don't have to be um really seasoned planners to know that brick and mortar retail struggles well let me ask the followup well I guess that's where we where we disagree I don't believe it is a benefit in fact I don't believe the River Center thinks it's a benefit either I mean they speak for the business who better to speak for the businesses right than the uh the r center for the businesses they represent the business owners and they're against it I imagine this is one of their reasons so I don't agree quite frankly I appreciate your opinion as to you do think that offering the opportunity every eight seconds to every company out there somehow going to trickle down to where a couple mama and pop shops in Red Bank can can advertise rates seconds now I don't I think it's a detriment I personally think it does so I if you can convince me otherwise I'm willing toen before you do that just a couple of things I would rather not no one from the River Center is here testifying or under oath I can't ask them any questions I'd ask you not to assume what the reasons are whe they do or don't support isn't there the letter in evidence there is a report and as it relates to the report and if they're and if they're going to offer testimony so I I would just ask for that and again you're talking about different types of detriments and different types of imp so what I what I'm hearing you saying correct me if I'm wrong that you think having a billboard that changes messages is somehow going to have more of a detriment on the commun on the business community in Red Bank than having a static billboard that can rent to the same out ofse out of country businesses and that you don't see it as a benefit to public service of allowing the emergency ACC the emergency use and the 120 Minutes in during the 16 hour period I think that it is nice that you're going to do that for the burrow um I don't think it out sorry I I do compliment you for offering that to the burrow I don't think that outweighs the negative effect on the businesses in red ma um some big chain stores that don't exist in Red Bank could come in here and say let's go to Outback instead of Mr R's facility they could say let's go to the some Hotel in New York or they can say a hotel down the street in Middletown or let's go to Ocean County go to this park I think it's a detriment quite frankly to have all at the advertising focused on bringing visitors who we want to come to our town I'm not out of town and that's great I'd like to finish the the testimony but I I don't know where anyone offered any testimony that the advertisers are going to be soliciting out of town right I I agree I remember that there was testimony that in fact I think it was 30% or local and we expect even today and we expect even more uh if it's changed to multi message I believe that was the testimony of Mr onel so well I understand that it's your opinion that that's going to occur that isn't based on any testimony that was offered you're not saying that every advertising every eight seconds is going to be a local business right there's going to be a portion of that's local not but going to be available so just like Outback would have the abil ility to purchase so just okay and I think that the test that was offered was that based on his experience Mr on felt that when you move from a static to an LED or digital platform that you see more local advertising did submit um as part of the record in this application a list of current advertisers on the billboard that was at least um at least a third of local business all right so 30% for the local businesses 70% be advertising for people to leave expected to grow with expected to go upwards so at least more more in the favor of the local businesses businesses there's nothing on the record that indicates that the advertising will be to encourage people to go out of Red Bank and there's also nothing in the testimony to suggest that we're encourag 100% going to be encouraged to come to Redbank I think that's all that's my only point and and respectfully the burrow in its Community messaging of 12 a half% of advertising that they're getting for free and use it to promote Red Bank businesses the entire time okay and the other um question I had is when you remove five of the what are they call the poles expion expansions and I know was a abandoned gas station there now do you have to do any soil testing before you do any work there is it a clean site um as it relates to that location yeah um if there isn't I don't have the answer to that but if there are any requirements to do soil testing in the area where we're digging they would we would do that and follow all St yeah but currently we don't know if it's a contaminated site or not um off the top of my head I don't know that now and I'm sorry um sh can I or lenie I know there was just a reference to did we Mark in and I'm looking for it but the file's too big was there a memo from the Red Bank River Center yes all right and we did Mark it into the record yes okay all right the first meeting and just out of curiosity do you have that alen or right exactly all we we we'll get we'll get that so we we'll come back to that I know is the Redbank River Center of the burrow or is an independent organization of I'm sorry it missed there District No I know that the district is and I hear that it says that there that the River Center wrote a memo there a organization known as River Miss we have the director of River Center here if you want to ask questions about that he could probably answer best the reason Mr mass that I'm asking is because entities when they appear before Municipal boards like this have to be represented by Council so that's all I'm asking to make sure proc I want to just make sure the procedure as follow that was the reason I was asking Kevin was you know whether or not it's like a a HPC or an organization of the burrow or whether or not it's an independent agency that's all and I just want to be clear also that my opinions are not related solely related to what I think the River Center thanks th these are concerns that I have for businesses in town personally okay I just want to make that clear I would like to just say with Paul as a representative I'm opening two new restaurants in town on Broad Street I want them coming here and I I love that someone brought up Outback because if you soon as drive in and I see anyone that's not in town I wouldn't want to see it either we're we're struggling in town I want to open these new restaurants I love beino I want I want people to come in here and be like oh I didn't know that kza was opening up on Broad Street this summer I didn't know that the broadwalk was available and we could walk by in my opinion I agree with Paul I want people coming here I need this town to be what it was 15 years ago and there's no criteria for 30% have to be red bank there's nothing like that right in the in the offer correct but again right now if if if we if the application is denied and we don't modernize we have seven billboard faces in Red Bank and one in this location that is still going to oh yeah but seven compared to maybe 17 or 20 in that day you know to me is not is not a change in the benefit it was not a change in the benefit I apologize and ju and just for the record I'm not gonna go into this but we can address it later on but uh B7 is the Red Bank River Center memorandum from January 4th 24 and it just in the opening paragraphs it says uh that the executive director uh wrote this letter saying I'm writing to state that we strongly opposeed this variant application to construct an electronic billboard at this location or any location within the buau now there's a whole bunch of other paragraphs and we can go into that later on and there may be Merit to this or not Merit but I just wanted to to say that just for the record thank you for finding that so quickly but we can come back to that and I certainly the planner appreciate the views of everybody it's just my opinion and it's my experience in representing these type of Ls elsewhere in other communities that we have had situations where we've been support of Economic Development agencies in town for the very reason that it does give smaller businesses a opportunity to get a piece of that pie so that's been my experience as a planner that we have had support for other Billboards and other communities due to the fact you know what I'm sorry can okay due to the fact that it does create an opportunity and as a planner with that experience when I read that Master Plan goal of red bank's desire to support small emerging businesses like somebody who might be opening up to Small restaurants in town it gives you an opportunity so with that it seems as if your court reporter or our court reporter needs a break I think so we'll take a 10- minute break and I would just suggest that we're going to turn the mics off but board members um refrain from commenting or or having conversations on the application I know I'm just trying to think is that is that newer or old I don't know this one is she might have the 2 or 24 happy birthday okay okay I think the phone your have more to present and you know what Mr chairman may I respectfully suggest that we just do a roll call for the record T here Raymond Mass here Hogan here vano here Sharon Lee here Vincent L here PA Cano here Anna Cruz here Amanda Daris here Eugene Horowitz here Chris Haven here thank you so pristine I think that we uh spoke at length about the D1 and in the event the board determines that we need a D2 variance what is the test that we need to demonstrate in your opinion do we need that test so the D2 and the the governing case there is the Burbridge case and that case was about a junkyard and the junkyard was doing quite well and the applicant of that junkyard was use and they modified renovated it improved it um and they made improvements in in addition to just mere beautification of the use so really the Crux of a Burbridge or an expansion of a non-conform use case is to try to impose conditions on that use to make it more harmonious and more compatible with its existing surroundings understanding that it's a neg it's a non-conforming use or structure and it has the right to continue and it can continue but it creates an opportunity to impose conditions on the use that make it more compatible to the surroundings um and and perhaps closer to conforms with the Zone plan so here are the cessation of the overnight hour from 11 to 7 not having the lit sign over 11-7 which is contrary to the ordinance um here in Red Bank to me is one of the reasonable conditions that could be imposed additionally as Mr dock presented this evening as well as the last time this application was before the board we are proposing to eliminate six sign faces Mr do gave you an exhibit I believe it's 8 F in evidence and it was sign sign location 10 and sign location 12 on that exhibit sign location 12 is the one over uh essentially at the end of Oak Street in the parking lot of the trail station uh if you have an opportunity to go look at that one it's currently advertised ASI group and Norman Hobbies law firm and also um sign sign 10 which is essentially across from the momber law firm and that's got four faces to it though it's currently advertising the f w web hbac The Bagel Station and then on the southern elevations are are advertising Wawa the applicant is proposing to eliminate all six of those faces those sign faces uh a question came up the last time we were here as to would we agree to a timeline to eliminate those and I believe the applicant answered in the affirmative that yes we would absolutely um agree to a timeline to eliminate those non-conformities so you look at that and you look at the introduction of the narrow view technology the reduction in the size of the sign the improvements uh although ever so slightly in the um setback going from 0.1 to point 6 for the structure the supporting structures to me there's a lot of things that the board can look at as far as um the negative criteria and the mitigating conditions or the betterments associated this application understanding that when we're dealing with non-conforming uses and we're dealing with the negative criteria you know I guess a good way to explain it to me is progress not Perfection right our test is not are we held to a standard that there's no detriment we know that this sign is currently visible and we know that it will continue to be visible so we try to work in the context of that to bring it to be more compatible and more harmonious the neighborhood and where we can close your IND with own plan so from a planning point of view it absolutely is accomplishing both of those things and I think when you look at bdge and you understand that case as a practicing planner I would use it as a textbook expansion if I had to on a D2 proofs I would say you could certainly make arguments here that you are making improvements if you were considering this a D2 um so I think we would certainly need our burden of proof additionally when you look at the fact that going back to your master plan the most recent one which was looked at in 2019 there's a specific statement in there that talks about investigating options to phase out non-conforming signs so understanding that we would be eliminating six of the signs if this application were approved there is some opportunity to implement the master plan I think also when you look at the master plan recognizes the current area as an unsightly entrance way that does a poor job of introducing visitors to the burrow I think having a sign that's going to have uh at least some percentage of its daily activity devoted to burrow activi better job burrow in what is considered by your master plan an unsightly area so when you look at those you know the modernization the public service announcements and the community benefits the opportunity to promote the local economy um I think that the board can certainly conclude that the uh the D2 proofs would be satisfied and that when you're dealing with the negative criteria um that you can look at it with greater liberality because the use is already in the area the neighborhood is already a use and this is an opportunity uh for betterness and also one of the things that it looks at for a D2 is can the site accommodate the use or the increase in the use of the expansion and based on all of those factors the site has accommodated it for 60 years and in your opinion will continue to the site accommodated it for 60 years so if it can accommodate the structure in its current format it can certainly accommodate a a smaller sign on a slightly vertically increased structure that sits um not in the same location we are coming 17 feet further to the west and the the structure will be off the um side property line6 where point where point1 is existing um1 ft so I think certainly the site can be supported and that was one of the criteria that I used our criteria G and the positive criteria as well as you see in planning there's a lot of overlap between a lot of these contents sometimes it seems repetitive but I think without a doubt unequivocally the site has been supported and will continue to be supported here um in the future so statutorily even and the other thing I should say is that the C variances and it is an important distinction is that you increase the structure the support structure from 22 to 27 feet um that would be a if if you found that to be a non-conforming structure the relief would be for the increasing of structure not a use so that is in my opinion unequivocally a c or a bulk variance akin to that setback variance that we would require and of course in my opinion we would meet the statutory burden of proof for that if it were D variance here um the bulks would be subsumed but I think that certainly the positive and negative criteria is is really I think particularly in the negative criteria is very substantial in this case in that the Burrow's ordinance for signage is is clear that you do not want these signs illuminated overnight eliminated that and taken that off the tick the the sign pH smaller I think you know there there are certainly um improvements to in with the in narrow view technology I think those are the probably three the most three of the most significant things but it all plays together in the negative criteria right we don't evaluate them and charry pick them individually in fact there's a case on point to that the pollen case in South planfield said when you're looking at these applications you look at them all holistically right you don't we don't have to cherry pick and look each one of them and I think when you stack up the betterments of this application in my opinion we we more than me statutory and we advance certain pures of the master plan right the master plan recognizes that this area is not particularly welcoming and doesn't do a great job welcoming visitors to the burrow and I think a new and modern uh attractive sign that gives the burrow the opportunity to advertise not just local businesses but local events as well uh creat some opportunity there as well as the opportunity to um modernize and phase out existing non-conform signs which this does and those signs you know if this application is not approved will certainly continue in their current location so with that said missco I don't think I have anything further onir there's something you want me to go back over um we would open Christine to questions from the can I ask a few questions chman um I just I took a couple of notes and uh none of these are intended to be got you questions uh so if it sounds that way it's not but just the first question I had just um procedurally so your opinion was no D1 variance is necessary and no D2 variance is necessary and and this is I guess a combination for both the planner and the attorney so you said no D1 no D2 and Christine my notes or my Ric extion is you said yeah I think there's a a C1 I mean I'm sorry yes I think there's site plan and Jennifer you said no there's no site plan what I meant was we're providing a site plan okay I didn't mean that one is required I meant it's really a mood point and that okay provided it but we don't I don't think site plan is required but here here was my question if at the end of the day it you don't need any D1 or D2 and you just need a site plan and a bulk C variance wouldn't that be before the planning board yes it would be so again and we discussed this it's our opinion that no site planes required and we're only here per your zoning officer for C variant relief however because on the receipt of uh Ed's letter and as we talked about the the multiple conversations and emails you and I have had as to this there were there were a lot of other issues and the board engineer felt differently so originally the jurisdiction was vested in this board because it was our opinion and the zoning officer opinion initially no site plan was required and we just needed C variance relief that's the position we're maintaining however because all of these issues were raised by Ed uh we had to address them one by one so I will agree with you that if this board determines that no D1 is required no D2 is required and site plan is required then we have to go to the planning board for site plan approval with potentially bulk variance relief but we're here because we're saying we don't we don't plan has no jurisdiction because there is no site plan involved we're giving you the information that you would typically give on a cyan but we're steadfast in our position that no cyan is required because we don't think that the use is substantially changing or even architecture it is because it's going from static to digital and then I guess just that I don't sorry just so I don't uh deviate from I have still have other questions but Ed just in terms of site plan what what is the issue do we say site plan is necessary or they're exempt from site plan and we look at what the exemptions are yeah in my letter uh on page 3F I kind of outlined that question regarding what is exempt development therefore uh not requiring site plan uh I of it was my opinion as noted in item two C2 uh I'll read the whole thing just for clarity yeah good so it says site plan Andor subdivision approval shall not be required prior to issuance of a development permit for the following uh C says exterior alterations which are not otherwise restricted by this chapter and in the opinion of the administrative officer item one do not material materially change the means of access item two do not substantially change the architectural design or appearance of a structure uh on that one I said is it is our opinion that this element fails therefore indicating a site plan would be required uh item three was do not substantially increase the apparent size shape or mass of a structure but that says the it's to the administrative officer correct and in this particular case your administrative offic said that site plan was not required and I guess now that we have all this other information we're going to have to come back to that I I don't don't know but so Ed your opinion is it it's it's not exempt that was my opinion as AAL letter yeah all right so and that's again I think you're You' You' indicated that you've provided the information but it just again it just the point is at the end of the day when we all go through this very large Maze of what interpretations we're we're doing if you know I guess you have to be careful what you're wishing for um or I mean it is what it is but if it comes up that the answer is yes site plan and no D1 and no D2 and yes C variances then you're gonna have to take your show to the planning board okay so then the other thing is um that I was asking and uh to uh Christine Kone I know you talked about you know balancing and and and you said very eloquently about the 480 square foot to the 380 square foot and the the reduction in the lighting in terms of the hours and uh the slight Improvement in the setback but when you're saying that and I I said this respectfully you didn't really mention the 22 feet versus the 27 feet increase in height now is that something that we just ignore or we just say hey that's one factor among many factors to that specifically and for to answer your question further The Zone allows 4 so the br1 now just so I know the loan allows 40 feet for what principal principal structure okay and and again our structure is nonperformance so the applicant's position is the structure is being increased in height and that needs a variance because you have a provision in your ordinance that says nonon forming structures cannot be increased in height so we agree we need to see variance for that and I think Christine testified to it what we're saying is is that the increase in height in no way impacts the use that's non-conforming it changes the structure the uses that we have advertising as a principal use so the fact that the sign is getting bigger doesn't change the use what we're saying is the message is the sign face and and that the expansion of the height is a c variance as it relates to the structure the board May disagree and May in to the height increases the use in which case that's why we gave the testimony okay with regard to the D2 so that's one factor among the many other factors that that you've referenced Mr K to about the medium and the message and I two parts to it every sign has a structure and you so the medium is the structure of the message is the use and certainly in this Zone the BR Zone allows for structures as of right to be 40 feet so we are nowhere near violative of the structure and then I'm sorry formity okay thank you and then just in terms of and maybe this is not a planning question but you talked about the in your word slight Improvement in the setback from 0.1 to 6 now um is there a thought that if there's ability to improve it it should be improved more or that that I mean how how do you deal with that one of the things that she offered and I I'll turn it over to you but just to remind you one of the things she offered is is that where we're locating it and I think Mr anel also testified to this it's important where it's located because it's in no way going to affect the overall development of the site which is the intent of your master plan your zoning ordinance River Center everybody would like to see the site get developed with a viable commercial use and a permitted use in the zone so I I think we're balancing the variance as it relates to the stepb back to impeding the future development of the site thank you I think that was offered at the last of one of the other meetings with Mr anol and and then I'm sorry uh Christine you had indicated that and you you basically indicated that I think it was the master plan that talks about unight entrances to to the buau now specifically reference this as an unsightly entrance right and and how I think it said unwelcoming it doesn't welcome visitors it was um the master and record is an unsightly entry way that does not that does a poor job of introducing visitors to the Bur okay and I guess the natural followup to the question is is how if you have a new billboard is the site still going to be unsightly or is is your impact your impact is just on the billboard you you have no is the site still going to be unsightly well the site and welcoming whatever the word is going to be been out to the site you know the site lacks curve appeal today right we've got that existing old tired building there but what it does is it does a better job of of welcoming people to the burrow and what it does is it puts the the proposed billboard in a location where it's not getting in the way of redeveloping this property so can you move the billboard to a different location on the site you can of course of course you can but when you try to balance as plann Earth right when we when we look at these sites and we look at sites that we're redeveloping you certainly would want to move the billboard in such a way if you're going to do that and you're upgrade and modernize the structure then from a planning point of view it makes the most sense to do that so that the remainder lot can still be developed in such a way that it meets the the goal and the vision of the the Burrow's master plan okay okay but but the your application is just the billboard and the site will still be what it is until it's developed we're only the billboard application aspect of the site and Kevin may I just ask one follow we go to the next one I think as we talk about welcoming um to the burrow I'm sorry welcoming to visitors I think without our donation of um free advertising time for the burrow to actually speak to these visitors that are coming over I think that by doing that that actually furthers this very purpose by giving the burough the opportunity to visually welcome visitors right Christina absolutely when I when I saw that in the in the master plan I was like wow this really does you know it actually says it does a poor job of introducing visitors to the burrow what a nice way to introduce visitors to the burrow you could put welcome to Red Bank as because it doesn't need to be for just emergency um it was for any purpose so multiple times a day we could have that sign flip to a welcome to Red b or come visit certain shops or this is what's happening come to our Easter bunny egg okay and and then you had testified about in in response to some of the questions about the 8C rule I think that what you call it the 8C rule a DW 8 D time 8C Dell time and just out of curiosity is there any to your knowledge any studies that differentiate between Billboards that are in commercial I that are in strictly commercial areas or Billboards that are visible to residential uses is that an issue or not not that we're aware of not okay and the other thing Mr chairman this is not a question but I just um GNA make a quick comment um and I would caution the board members and I'll I'll do more research on it uh but I know we were talking about concerns about uh hey is this going to knock out uh or limit or restrict advertising for non- Redbank businesses and I think we have to be a little bit careful because most of the uh or not most but a lot of the uh case law that we read uh dealing with uh Billboards has to deal with you know are you regulating a zone are you regulating a structure or are you regulating speech and and so that might touch a little into that but that that's one of the things that I have on our our note to to to research and um just last question and this is is for Miss crico I know at the first meeting you indicated that you would have the owner here to testify and I just are you having the owner to testify I know I I think I might have referenced that he was sitting in the audience I don't know okay okay all right um so and again because the few we have a lease we're here with our property right as an applicant that's a uh as a lei and we have their Authority any questions related to the Future development of the site or if he's going to keep it or sell it or what he's gonna do I don't know that okay and I I'm I thought you said you were having him so I I made that that I might have misheard that all right Mr chairman those were my questions for now I have a question for Mr after hearing the testimony from the applicant do you still think that a D1 is needed because obviously we count on you for a lot of uh information and guidance on what we should be doing yeah I I struggle with that concept a little bit and I think we've been back and forth multiple times and Kevin Shaun and I have have bounced this around in many many different Arenas uh I still have a problem getting away from the D1 concept just in totality of the of the presentation um but I think you know part of the challenge in the administration adjudication of this case is is there're the key questions that we the board will have to uh rely on the witnesses testimony and the board Prof guidance from legal so I I'm still not fully there yet okay uh saying it's not a D1 okay so so as I'm as I'm looking at the D1 is we're eliminating a structure and putting up a new one is that correct a new one in a different location with some different characteristics that's non-conforming corre thank you anybody else have a question testified so I just want to ask him a question as to his testimony uh with regard to the D1 Ed are you familiar with any of the planning principles in the cases that were referenced with regard to modernization and how that does not require a D1 and do you want to answer that you want well I think part of the thing that I had said earlier is we're going to and that's why I have those citations of those cases because hearing the specific arguments that you're making and the specific testimony from Miss Kone and the specific questions from all of the board members I do think we're going to have to research the the the nuances this is a very very very nuanced case I understand Kevin and the only reason I asked that was to caveat to the chair's question to added that it's based on the general understanding in planning and Engineering as it relates to typical uses and unless he's intimately researched the modernization and and I I don't know I I think it's important for him to offer that his testimony is or is not based on the modernization theory and if he's familiar with it that's all I had read the cases uh what was it almost two years ago now or was it last year yeah see seemingly a long time ago uh I will attest that I did not go back in reread that section um I I think the the struggle I have with the modernization and I recall reading it uh I didn't think it was clearly spelling out the allowance to relocate the sign uh in my humble opinion I think I landed on the spot that if you had the existing sign where it is today and you rebuilt it I would lean more towards the in the exact same SP the exact same location under the eyes of let's say for instance that the structure the substructure the the support system would allow a modernization of just taking off the face of the sign panel itself not touching the structure for instance 100% I would agree that that's modernization in this particular case they're changing the physical location as well as all the substructure which was the single biggest criteria that I was struggling with in affirming that I agree with the modernization under those specific criteria that we have if it was in the same location the only way to modernize it was toose the structure but we did it in the exact same location I would feel a lot better about that being yeah noted any other any other questions by the board for Miss gone uh I don't know that this is a question more of a comment allow comments later all right questions right just a question and I know referenced at the beginning that that property has I know my m i speak loud oh I'm okay um my question is more about that property like you said has that unsightly building and this where you you were talking and I don't know whether or got confused this is is the principle this is the principal structure versus that there's two principal structures there's two principles correct so a if your your PR you can only be an accessory structure and I'm going to read it from your ordinance because I I think that it's important that I use your language and if You' bear with me one second I'll get the right piece of paper but essentially an accessory use or structure is one that is subordinate to or incidental to the principal use on the property so because this is its own use and because it's not incidental to anything it's its own principal structure so for example in a in a shopping center we have a let me think of one that you have in town that has some that has a site on it in a in a shopping center if you have a retail building and then a fast food restaurant or both on the same site they're not incidental to one another they're independent uses so you have two principal buildings you have the retail principal building and you have the um fast food principal building you have two principal uses on there in the same way and I think this is something that um I think and tell me if I'm wrong that that agrees with that there is more than one principal use on this property and it's only one that's one part it's not sub provided or anything it's one one property currently two principal uses on it and we're not changing that okay it works you I no I'm done okay any other question no I do have a question comes back to the I think the the D2 section of of your testimony which re uh uh involves the expansion of a use is that correct correct um you to I I totally understand what you're saying when you say the sign is smaller and that I you know I accept that agree with that but the but the use the messaging is vastly expanded wouldn't you agree no you wouldn't but uh the the the the messaging is you know I can't do the math that fast but where you have one message permanently there maybe for a month or a couple of months now you have messages every eight seconds that seems like a huge expansion of the use but it's only one message at a time so that's devoted to that is being reduced but but even if you decide that Mrs Tori or Miss Tori I'm sorry um if you decide a D2 is needed either because of the height or because of the number of messages that are going out we believe that based on what we're proposing here on balance we still need the test for that expansion all right okay and that's why we went to the trouble of going through all of it anyway even though we don't necessarily agree that it is an expans any other questions from the board for this witness any questions from the public for this witness on and down my name Thomas you got put that right up right up to you closer to you you got you gotta move the mic really close or sit down my name's Thomas Wilson although I'm not a Red Bank resident I reside right over the bridge midd town right over the bridge and I'm quite familiar with the area okay what we're just going to do is swear you in for the record do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide to the extent you providing will be the truth the best your knowledge to help you got thank you Mr Wilson Sean is asking you what your address is Mr you made some references uh pretty substantial when it came to uh I believe two MERS we asking get the mic really close bring it up to they were talking they were talking about traffic and you were giving your opinions as to some of the traffic problems no no boy I must miss something now then let me rephrase everything uh to speak into the mic and I'm just listen Mr Wilson Mr Wilson I'm sorry we're not trying to be obnoxious and it's not necessarily for amplification purposes but some of the people who are not here tonight are going to have to read the transcripts and you're saying very important things and if you're not picked up in the mic it'll not be in the transcript and the court if there is litigation will not be able to review it so speak really right into the mic thanks do you have any uh respect to Traffic Safety engineering what is your certification I didn't offer any testimony with regard to tra Traffic Safety engineering and I extensively testified about my credentials not includ in traffic safety engineering well obviously uh you had said some things that the board's attention so that you did make some comments as to traffic just to just for the record I believe the question by the board was whether or not you thought it was a detriment in busy traffic to have a uh billboard change every eight seconds and I believe what Miss Kone says that from a planning perspective it is not and the do regulates traffic safety and they've determined that the 8C what is it called 12 the 8C dwell time on a digital billboard is safe so what she offered was is that the state regulations and the do have found it safe she offered no opinion as an expert in traffic well do we have a letter here from do we do we submitted the permit let me ask a second question you did make reference to the fact that uh now that this new sign would be helpful to the local businesses correct my opinion yes I thought it created an opportunity for the local bu so you're going to REM be removing six different signs correct six other signs in the Barrow yes now I'm sorry is it six signs or six sign faces two sign structures so if you get rid of six sign faces structures whatever it may be and now you're going to have this one taken its place plus the fact you're saying that you're going to give the town uh 12% of the time involved economically isn't what you're saying a fallacy you're G to have the company the applicant here losing the income from six different signs you're taking another 12% off the top for the town what's this going to do with the uh advertising rates for the little guy how are they going to afford it did you ever look into that so I didn't offer any testimony on the economics um it's not really appropriate in my opinion for the board to be resting their decision whether positive or negative on the economics of an application so the statutory you're the one you're the one that sat here and said to this board it's going to help the little guy how's it going to help the little guy if the rates go there was no testimony on the record Mr chair that the rates were going to go up as a matter of fact John anel who is a representative from the company who would be selling this advertising indicated that in his experience and I think that there were hundreds if not thousands of billboards that they operate throughout the nation that the uh cost of the individual 8C uh slices of pizza are far more economical to the little guy than to than the larger one again that wasn't testimony that Christine offered it was her plan inclusion based on the test donate from Mr antall he was open for public question at two hearings I he's not here to answer that question now but Christine just testified made a planning conclusion based on the testimony provided by the applicant okay so we're running around in circles here do you understand that we don't believe that to be the case well I know I'm getting dizzy from it all right you're running around in circles economic do you see that there's a economic situation what what you're saying that you're going to be helping out the little guy cuz you're sitting here you're saying these are the things that will be beneficial to give you the right to AAR let's go back to uh land use planning and every land use 101 great okay teach great you sat here and said that this sign's viable to begin with the sign that's there is viable correct so I never said those words I never is itable I believe someone said I believe it was uh Council who said the existing sign to stay there for that doesn't mean it's economically viable that means let's go back to just you said it can stay there forever under the municipal land use LINE non-conforming structure and non-conforming use as long as it's not abandoned can remain yes exactly so what is the hardship here something concrete you already have have a sign there that's perfectly good it's viable it's been there 60 years it'll be there 60 years after we're dead and buried what's what is the what is the hardship with respect to this sign we never claimed to see1 hardship for this application not one time did we claim a hardship a hardship is not required for variance relief it's one type of variance that is not the type of variance we're seeking it can be used to justify a variance but none of my testimony to support the D variant was predicated on hardship testimony have you have you done and look have you yourself in your planning for this done any traffic studies not relying on someone else your own Common Sense we don't do traffic studies don't you think you should I wouldn't do that I'm not licensed to do traffic studies well isn't it true that this is one one of the most traveled highways in the whole area if not State I don't know what is the traffic volume on that road I didn't do traffic counts the master plan has a statement in it that this area get up to a thousand cars per hour so that's not my opinion and what I did was I said this is a direct recitation from the master plan it's not appropriate for a planner to do traffic impact studies on your planning don't you think you take it into account that she's so again Christine's being offered as a professional planner to offer her expert opinion as to the um compliance with the municipal lus law she's not being offered as a planner of this application there's a distinct difference here so all you're saying is that she's here as a planner just giving an interpretation of what's put down in paper as to certain requirements that's exactly what a professional planner does she's offing her expert opinion as to whether or not we meet the planning proofs as required by the municipal ly's law correct well has anyone for the applicant made any type of traffic study no as was stated at the first meeting the traffic safety is regulated excuse me by the Department of Transportation and that's the appropriate body who makes the determination if this type of billboard is safe or not safe based on the state regulations and they have issued a permit confirming that we meet the state safety regulations and it's safe the state issued that permit they've already made that decision I submitted the permit to evidence so I I think your question at the safety may be more appropriately placed with the Department of Transportation as to why they issued that permit if you think that it's not safe but this board is only here to speak about is it a principally permitted use or not and the billboard exists the safety issue was already decided by a state agency uh I would argue no because you're the one that's bringing up the fact that you said that this is a that there's certain de uh detriments but there's certain benefits that you can use to get your variances I I didn't I brought that up because that's what the statute provides so right that's what the statute provides now we have we're on a major road which might as well tell you if you look at the old traffic studies when they did the Mr Wilson I I I totally understand your your source of doing this at the end well yeah but I mean right but but just for the record I I want to because what you're saying is important but there's an process but which we have to uh handle this now Christine cfone is a planner and she's testifying as to whether or not the planning criteria and the statute have been satisfied now she's saying they have I don't necessarily know if the board is is buying everything she says and maybe they are maybe they're buying a lot of it maybe they're buying none of it I mean that that's what will ultimately come but in terms of the questions right now uh you if you have questions for her on her planning testimony and for instance we can't ask her engineering questions because she's not an engineer we can't ask her architectural questions because she's not an architect and admittedly traffic is always an important issue with everything we do but she's not a traffic engineer and she didn't testify other than reciting the 1,000 cars in an hour but so I I I get where you're coming from but some of those questions are not necessarily Jermaine for this witness but definitely for comments later on and I don't know if there's going to be other witnesses that you might have questions for later on that's fine I appreciate sure and again I I don't we're g there's gonna be comment period later on and so I want you to come back when we have that Mr and you're still under oath yes um we spoke briefly about Redevelopment the master plan on the corner and the fact that the site has been horrible for many years uh probably the most trafficked and into Red Bank um that we have actually I think it's a disgrace the way it looks and the way it's been and recently I was under contract to buy the property and part of uh the contract was that it would be impossible to really develop that site to its fullest potential with the bull billboard because under the these are questions question I'm getting well yeah okay um it would it we talked about the development and the right to develop that property in the suitable development that the billboard would allow that quite honestly we went through many iterations of buildings and sites and things to do on that property I Mr chair and just it's just to keep the record clear Mr R is offering testimony and he's welcome to do that at the end at the public portion but right now if there's a question but offering your testimony and your experience on how to develop that property that's for at the end for when you're making an argum you also offered testimony on developing the property as part of the master plan so rather than offering your opinion or experience I'm just asking if you could ask a question to the planner and save all that for the end okay have you have you decided or have you did you tell the board how big of a building that you could build on that property could you build anything else than what's there on that properly property proper property currently because your lease with um the gas station um states that you cannot block the billboard in any way so what type of building would you build on the pro you could certainly repurpose the existing building another building uh the Zone allows you to go up to 40 feet tall it doesn't mean you have to go to 40 feet tall and it's going to depend what you put in there the burrow has different requirements for parking so the square footage that you can develop is also be dependent on how much square footage are you going to have if you have an office building right if you a medical office building that's going to require a lot more parking than say if the phone consultant our office there you have a much lower parking demand so all of those factors go into how you can develop a property but you can actually build taller now because if we raised it by 5 feet then the bottom of our billboard is 5 feet higher which allows for a building that's 5 feet higher the vertical clearance right now since 10 the proposed vertical clearance is 16 and a half so in my opinion um yeah you can absolutely still develop this property you can develop the property one story 16 and a half people I don't know if I I'm not say one story 16 Mr chairman that's your characterization Mr R respectfully not mine Mr chairman it's patently absurd to say this sign would not block much you got to speak into to the mic for once it's absurd to say that this sign would not block a much larger and better use of this lot someday maybe not under current zoning in the future it would have an enormous impact and when you build Mr we're going to be behind any development so we can't block it because we're at the back of the property right so to build anything good on this BL you have to block your sign obvious but that's again so just to clarify things we have a lease to maintain the current sign at its current height and clearance so that restriction on the property exists under the current sign the proposed new sign gives it an additional fund fee I've been in a real estate business for 40 years and what I'm saying is if you make a much more valuable sign on that site because I believe the use is not even close to the current use use that sign's dead that's there and nobody even notices anymore illuminated sign is a radical change and it would be much more valuable than what's there now which would make it much harder to displace for a building this is all theoretical of course expect but it's patented obvious let's keep it to questions right now so so so basically we could build 16 ft right on your sign and we cannot block the a building could not block that sign correct I don't know that we are limiting it to the height I think that what the lease says is that the view of the sign can't be blocked so I don't know the actual height of a building what will or won't the Ang indicate this the limit of the size of the building to go there certainly you can step a building back there's architecturally things that you can do to work with the existing constraints from the site done all the time doesn't have to be a you know an ice box or straight up and down box you look at the site problem going to be on to redevelop that site it would be impossible to go higher than 16 feet and not block your time and be in violation of the lease so to talk about Redevelopment there it's almost impossible again I was under contract I'm no longer under contract okay you can't question so I want to get through this we're have a lot of time for comments uh right now it's strictly questions for Miss gal and just you're still under oath um I must say uh sorry excuse me at the start of your testimony I was impressed with your credentials about being a plan um that said did you also go to law school I did not okay so I would move to the board Mr Ken that virtually all of the testimony of M Kone that preceded the break be stricken they're all opinions uh she told us about case law she told us about the meaning of definitions in the ordinance she did everything that a lawyer might hope to accomplish I don't think she has presented to this board her credentials as a lawyer and uh she just went at at from the last two questioners say she's not she's not a traffic expert well she's not a lawyer read so I suggest all their legal opties okay Mr Herman isn't familiar with planning testimony and how it works in New Jersey but the the entire job of a planner is to interpret the ordinances to interpret the statue to indicate if it applies or not and to take into consideration the legal decisions through our New Jersey courts and how they impact planning so respectfully to Mr she does not test testifying as to Legal conclusions as an attorney we wouldn't bring an attorney to testify as you know an attorney doesn't need to be under oath and offer testimony I'm here as a member of the bar will make the legal arguments based on the expert testimony of my Witnesses but certainly you cannot offer planning testimony in New Jersey without taking into consideration the statutes and the cases that apply that planning throughout the state have she she can certainly make I I was speaking I'm gonna let him finish and then I'll I'll address it she can certainly give us her opinions what's good for the neighborhood uh what increases value or decreases value no she can't she but she cannot uh give you legal opinions um they're just not in her expertise any more than traffic opinions would be or engineering opinion okay and I Mr call sure all that Tes sure and uh I appreciate the comments respectfully I don't I don't agree with them and I would I would I don't think we can strike the the the her comments from the record and uh but you do make an interesting point now the the planning uh the planner and the professional planner certifications are very interesting and in some respects they are uh interpreting case law and in fact uh it would be inappropriate if a use variance is necessary not inappropriate it would be problematic if a use variance is necessary and a planner didn't come testify all the cases that uh Miss cfone was citing I think it was Burbridge and medich if you read those cases they're all have arguments brought by planners um again she's not a lawyer so we cannot take legal advice from her but uh I do believe as a professional planner she can give her opinion as to whether or not uh certain criteria are satisfied I appreciate your your your comments and that would be my my answer but I do appreciate your comments opions I don't think recogniz based expertise thank you okay thank you just so I don't interrupt you now that you finished that we can offer a professional planner can offer testimonies to the value of the property or the or the economic impact so to correct that that's not part of what professional planning is um M uh do you have an opinion as to how the uh if the billboard you're thinking was built what impact it would have on Mr R's property about seven Ines away I don't think it would have any more impact on Mr R's property seven inches away than the existing billboard does I think in some respects it would have less of an impact you have the structures a little bit higher so it has as Mr doery um indicated it's going to have in some respects a little bit less of a vantage point from that property it will have less of an impact with respect to the light spillage onto Mr R's property and the structurals that are there now there are six of them there where you'll have one to look at if the application were approved versus six so in some respects it's going to be a little higher a little more open on on the bottom the bottom levels so I don't think it's going to have a real negative impacts at all on Mr R's property and in some respects I think he'll see some improvement so if Mr was offered to build you a house there would you like living that your windows would be I'm actively looking for in Red Bank to run my business of so if Mr R wants to build me a a building there to operate ccg out of I'd be more than and just to follow up on the question your building wouldn't be seven inches from the property line would it would you could you couldn't put your building on the property line so the sign wouldn't be seven inches from your building not be and how about the next property you no impact on that property I would say no would have even less impact than than Mr rty L it is this will be a disaster the next one will be certainly not a disaster absolutely my opinion absolutely not I think those opinions affect your credibility but they are what they are I would ask Mr Kennedy that you ask the uh public to not offer side comments or opinions uh during this questioning period I think it's inappropriate to infer that her credibility is somehow change I don't think the Public's aware that we're going to ask questions thank you um you talked about modernizing the billboard that exists are there other ways to modernize it without um Mak an electric no Mr anall specifically testify that there's no way to modernize this without demolishing the structure and rebuilding it so there may be no way to make it electronic but you can certainly put new wood trim on it you could replace the members you could make it better looking you could make it more attractive there lots of ways to improve it indeed you testified that clients's been doing that for 60 years they can keep modernizing at that way if you had a 50-year-old uh CR airplane uh with the only way to modernize that be to make it in check I think you're talking about it sounds to me like you're talking about maintenance modern St it may be operators want to do but it doesn't mean that red has been well I think what you're asking me about is maintenance versus modernization so the things that you described in my opinion are maintenance not modern in your opinion does is red required to allow it to be modernized in my op the case law is very clear that modernization is permissible so yes the applicant is is allowed under the law to continue to operate and modernize their use but you're not modernizing it you're making it we are modernizing it by making it an LED sign so we are proposing a new structure which is part of the modernization and Mr Herman I'm just going to say one of the things that we are going to be further researching is the you know what is that distinction between modernization and modernization relocation and that's one of the things that I think we're going to have more I'm I'm sensing that some of the board members as well as Mr Herman and myself had some questions on that so that's what we're going to do some more research on um you testified and um Jenifer also testified I didn't testify offered legal argument okay uh that the property would be easier to develop if your sign application was approved than if it was not am I correct you are not correct that sounds to me like a mischaracterization of the testimony offered you said it would make it easier to develop a problem didn't say that okay um there was some testimony um question from Mr the lease on your property are you seeing the lease I not um your attorney say Le the attorney's not open or I'm not a witness for this case okay now just you you've answer other questions before if you don't want to answer them i' yes I've seen the lease okay uh did you submit the lease uh I'd have to speak to my client I don't know if we did or didn't certainly we would be considered subit a redacted version of it uh there are certain things that no we wouldn't be willing to share but as it relates to what the limitations are I would think that that's something I could do but I'll speak to my clients it seems that the limitations are substantial and the ability devel to develop a property and I'm a property developer would be much more difficult if it [Music] couldn't again the lease terms apply to the existing sign so the only question becomes is it more restrictive or less restrictive if they Grant a new signs you heard from the testimony we're increasing the clearance or the height of visibility by 5 feet so it's the applicant's position that the same lease provision to a lower sign is more restrictive and I think that might be what you were referencing that we went into that discussion and if we're allowed to make it 5T higher we're reducing the limitation because we're giving a 5 foot more of an envelope to develop and it depends Le contemplates a pedestrian view of it a motorist view of it that you may not even be able to build one Store and could I just add for the record Mr Herman just excuse me sha as part of the application package the owner of the property not the billboard uh operators but the owner of the property submitted an owner's letter of consent correct okay okay and I think okay and and I've observed that the owner is in the audience tonight and maybe he could clarify what the leaste Restriction is on building the building or putting anything in front of this sign it seems to me that the applicant has a major Financial stake in this sign and I can't imagine that they would enter into a long-term it has to object again and and again I I'm just trying excuse me you're excuse me this is working try this one over here good yes okay we only have a few minutes left um and I think there's going to be some more questions there's obviously going to be a lot of comments so maybe now is a good time where we end this and move on to uh getting time for another date to finish all right Jennifer I I don't um Mr chairman just IND yeah sure what I'm just saying is Mr chairman just indicated our witching hour is in about five minutes so um he's saying this sort of sounds like a good time to break and get a time when we can all come back and and meet again and uh and what I was just going to suggest is uh whenever we're going to get a date certain in a moment um did you feel the need to do any further legal submission based upon some of the nuances that have been um or you just going to rely on what you previously submitted I'm okay either way I don't want to I don't know but certainly if I submit anything I would give it to you in ample time so you could offer sure a response to it to the board your analysis of it I would never leave you at the last minute so that's very much appreciated so sorry but again this is a I would just go ahead sure I mean hold your Mr Herman just so if we're going to adjourn it and and I don't know if you're going to finish with Mr Herman or not but if we are going to adjourn it we'll establish a date for the new hearing and a date by which you have I'm going to submit anything when I would get it to you right thank you Mr har do you have a number of questions that you think you could get done in like two three minutes or take a little longer yeah we I have one question forair Mr um I think the issue of the development of this property matal consideration for those on the I think you should request the applicant to submit the Le that we'll all know what kind of restrictions there are okay so uh Jennifer you had indicated that uh you would talk to the clients about uh submitting a redacted uh version if the concern is what Provisions the development then I will speak to them about submitting sections of the lease certainly not sharing the entirety of the leas and and names and dates and everything else but and I would say confidential uh proprietary information or information as to what's being paid and things like that would not be the purview of of this board I'm fine with that is sure as long as all the terms that might restrict the got it and again I'm not conceding that we're going to provide it suggesting my client as limited request and and you're on notied that that the members of the public and maybe members of the board have that as as a question so this you know so up to the applicant to submit it or not and if we submit it you can affect that'll affect your decision one way if we choose not to then you can use that oh I'm not saying that but I mean it's a it's a it's a concern so the request is there and you'll respond have to object these are comments I can't take two people time I'm putting an objection I'd ask if you could ask mrman to B his comments and his opinions as to what evidence will or won't be to the end at the public Bo that this is just Mr chairman Sor as I said you know if you had a question but this is going beyond the question and we'll have plenty of time for comments that's and we appreciate any questions or comments that anybody in the public has but at this point uh you know we we're looking for questions any comments you'll have plenty of time for that and Mr Herman to your point the jury's still out on we're going to see if they submit the lease and we're going to see if it's a materially important to other members of the board and and then then we'll figure out what what what what it means if they do or they don't do it but we'll see what they're going to do first good now so we have April give me a moment to grab my phone now I'm sorry what was that date April 18th so April now the only thing would be Jennifer if if we are doing a submission and and we're going to submit is that is that enough time for you and just as importantly enough time for me to digest everything that you're gonna be saying because I will distribute your your information to the board I just make sure my planner is available and then all right we have May 2nd and what would be the next date May 16 what were our choices April 18th I can't do May 2nd I can't either so 4:18 May 2nd what's the other date May 16th I'm not here on May oh wait on I can't do May 16th I can do can you do the 18th of what April yeah I can do 18 Again that what's the date after that June 6 I'm leaving for London June 20th you know I'm actually out the 20th I'd like to be here July 18th and again I'll talk to my client about it but just let me look at availability July 18th you're not available I'm in Al I'm already committed I can't August 15th I can do that okay so can I have Mr chair so we can carry without the need further notice may have 10 minutes to discuss my client between the 18 of August 15th absolutely thank you so much so the the tape is still running so let's uh we won't we won't have any conversation a minute yeah do know e e all all right now Mr I mean Miss kmco um sorry no your your microphone microphone oh sorry uh uh Mr Herman had just asked to speak on the on the adjournment and I said don't speak until you got back in the room so you had a question sir so I'm fine with that date if it works for all with you but because it's four months from now because this application started a year and a half almost that I think it's fair to the neighbors if the applicant uh sends out new notices as to the new hearing date because I know last year when we were here um there were a great many residential Neighbors on North Bridge who were here and I don't know if they're not here because they don't know what's happening but with a four month delay I think it's appropriate and respectfully in response to that at each of the meetings they've had the opportunity to attend and hear the new date that's being offered well I'm not sure why we would have to have an enhanced notice requirement when the delay isn't do anything we're doing it's not that we're asking for it we would love to stay here till 3 in the morning and get it done sure but in the interest of transparency that that wouldn't be so great with all the people have to have work and things like that we do that all I'm suggesting is this is the process and when you adjourn and the public is aware the municipal us to put it on the record and carry the notice and there is there is uh certainly a requirement that that we can adjourn it to a date certain without the need for any further public notice now this has been going on for a long time and it has not been through the fault of the applicant that's doesn't really matter it's just uh Mr Bo Mr chairman does the board have any particular preference we routinely adjourn things without uh re notice um and first before Jennifer do you on behalf of your client consent to extend the time frame within which the board has to act I do and I would that I don't just in furtherance of that it because it's something that's regularly done by this board and all board I don't think it's going to this differ so the only thing I'm going to say it's it's not it's perfectly fine to say no new notice is required and we do that now it has been a while again through no fault of the applicant and it will be between now and and August 5 so I don't think we' be treating you separate or differently I'm totally fine if we do not require them to re notice I would defer that to to the board Mr keny before the board speaks to it if I could just have 60 seconds this is not your typical application this is been goinging for 15 or 16 months it's now being ajour another four months this is not like an application where people come and agreed again this is extraordinary in that respect no nothing to do with the applicant is or what they're doing but it's extraordinary to expect people to remember uh when that's I don't disagree with that um Mr chairman is there a preference of the board Bo have any problems with not Ren noticing or do you think we need to Ren notice I personally don't think they need to Ren notice I think it's for him I would agree with uh Paul uh I think there's tremendous interest in this application in the community as you can tell we have members of the press here I think there will be will spread and people need to mark their calendars and Mr Herman's welcome everybody okay so I all right so but but it was a Fair Point Mr Herman um but again I think that is important for all members of the public that we're gonna journ this hearing till August 15 2024 at 6:30 p.m. without the need for any further public notice so Mr Herman if some of your friends have already left or couldn't come tonight please let's make a concerted effort to let them know because we certainly don't want to do anything uh without the public being aware of it and uh so no further notice is required Jennifer kmco has consented so we need a motion to carry this application to August 15 2024 630 p.m. without the need for any further public notice can I make that motion second you just do all in favor all in favor anyos or okay and then the last minute for the cheat our cheat sheet is uh Jennifer if you're gonna submit a brief uh to me how about you submit it by July 15 okay and uh and then if you're going to submit the lease you'll redacted you'll you'll do that and then shaa um you'll send the transcripts to to a couple of our friends and Jennifer when you get the new transcripts if you wouldn't mind submitting them to myself and us uh because that will facilitate those who are not here tonight as we always have thank you motion toour motion to adjourn