Central to the meeting was the steakhouse owner’s request to classify a large fiberglass statue of a black bull as an artistic feature rather than a sign. This classification would impact the variances needed, as the existing ordinance restricts the number of ground signs a business can have. The proposed 3D bull, measuring 6 feet in length, 2.5 feet in width, and approximately 50.4 inches in height, was intended to sit on the lawn, contributing to the restaurant’s branding. However, there was debate about whether its dimensions should be included in calculations for allowable signage square footage.

The board examined whether the bull statue, due to its branding implications, should be considered a sign, thereby requiring a variance. Legal perspectives suggested that artistic elements used for branding could be interpreted as signs. This led to discussions about the number of ground signs permitted, with one sign already exceeding the allowed square footage. The applicant’s request for two circular signs, justified by the restaurant’s dual street frontages, further complicated the signage compliance issue.

The steakhouse’s ability to host private events, such as weddings, was another focal point. The owner expressed interest in occasionally hosting larger private gatherings, which could necessitate additional seating and designated areas for activities like dancing.

The maintenance of existing landscaping, adherence to Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) requirements for debris removal and tree planting, and the restoration of areas affected by historical dumping were also discussed. The applicant assured the board that ongoing compliance with DEP guidelines would be maintained, with plans to plant non-invasive species.

Further considerations involved the restaurant’s operational logistics, including parking and seating capacity. The current plan allows for 73 parking spaces, which could become inadequate if seating exceeded the proposed maximum of 210 patrons. The board noted that any expansion beyond this would necessitate additional approvals.

Lighting and drainage were addressed, with the board evaluating the adequacy of existing fixtures and the potential for light pollution. A temporary lighting plan was submitted, but discrepancies between proposed and current conditions raised concerns about compliance with operational needs. The board suggested that additional lighting might be required to meet safety standards while minimizing overflow into surrounding areas.

The discussion also touched on potential drainage issues, with members raising concerns about stormwater runoff from the building onto New Vernon Road, which could pose safety risks, particularly in icy conditions. The applicant was advised to assess and possibly re-engineer drainage systems to prevent runoff from affecting the roadway.

As the meeting progressed, the board reviewed two ordinances for master plan consistency. Ordinance 565-25 addressed pool fence height, exceeding state minimum requirements, while Ordinance 566-25 involved signage size reductions for home businesses. Both ordinances were found not inconsistent with the master plan, though suggestions were made to further review specific language to ensure legal compliance.