The most pressing topic at the meeting revolved around the application from Michelle P., representing Signature Realty, who appealed for a variance to install a sign on her two-story building on Millburn Avenue. The proposed sign, designed to be 48 square feet, was compliant in size but faced issues with its height placement, as the local ordinance restricts signs to the height of the first floor. Michelle explained the necessity for a taller sign, citing that the building’s visibility was obstructed by existing vegetation, leading to potential clients mistakenly entering an adjacent parking lot.

Michelle’s representative from Sign Source supported the request, highlighting that the proposed sign would not be internally lit and was crafted from polished brass letters to maintain aesthetic standards. The argument presented focused on the need for a sign that drivers could easily spot, especially considering that many existing signs along Millburn Avenue exceed the ordinance’s height restrictions, catering primarily to vehicle traffic.

Visual aids, marked A2 through A9, were presented to illustrate the current landscape of signage along Millburn Avenue, showing that many businesses utilized elevated signs on false facades that complied with local ordinances. The representative contended that the proposed sign’s height was necessary for visibility from a distance, given the potential obstructions from parked vehicles and the area’s limited pedestrian traffic. This comparison drew attention to the broader trend of signage in the vicinity, which frequently exceeded the prescribed height limits.

Audience member Robert Barton sought clarification on whether the variance would allow the sign to exceed the roof line or just the second-floor line. Another attendee, Jeffrey Feld, raised concerns about the impact of a nearby traffic light on the sign’s visibility. The board addressed these concerns, noting that any future modifications, such as adding illumination, would require additional approval.

The board members appreciated the absence of lighting on the proposed sign, which aligned with community character. They considered granting the variance with a condition prohibiting illumination, although allowing for landscape lighting. This condition aimed to balance visibility needs with maintaining the town’s aesthetic integrity.

In addition to the signage variance, the board deliberated on a separate application for a property on Great Hills Road. The owner, Kiran Bathula, sought a variance to modify the setback requirements for a new construction project. The discussion examined whether the changes would exacerbate existing non-compliance, ultimately concluding that the proposed modifications were reasonable given the unique attributes of the corner lot. The board approved the application, recognizing the impracticality of forcing strict compliance that would necessitate demolishing the current structure.