The meeting delved deeply into the contentious issue of signage for the new Toyota and Nissan dealerships. The applicant’s representative presented site plan revisions, including a 24-square-foot ground sign intended to aid public navigation via a shared driveway. However, board members expressed skepticism about classifying this oversized sign as a wayfinding sign rather than a ground sign. Labeling it as a ground sign would necessitate a variance due to its proposed size exceeding the 16-square-foot limit set by existing regulations. The representative confirmed the intent to seek approval for the specific sign package, acknowledging that additional ground signs would require further variances.

Further complicating the signage discussion was the height of proposed pylon signs for the dealerships. An exhibit showed that the Toyota pylon sign is planned to be 25 feet high, with height discrepancies due to elevation changes from the road to the sign’s location. According to township ordinances, sign measurements must consider elevation changes of more than three feet, resulting in actual heights of 32.96 feet for the Toyota sign and 42.15 feet for the Nissan sign. Board members expressed concerns about the signs’ apparent excessive height compared to surrounding structures, questioning the rationale behind these ordinances and the visual impact of the signs.

The landscaping plan for the dealership emerged as another focal point. The applicant proposed a mix of street trees and low-lying shrubs along the frontage, with canopy trees within parking islands. However, the plan fell short of the 15% landscaping requirement, proposing only 12.05% coverage. Board members emphasized the township’s longstanding preference for landscape islands and discussed potential modifications to achieve compliance. They raised the need for larger, well-designed islands that could connect with perimeter islands.

The tree canopy removal proposal also sparked debate. The project plans to remove 64.21% of the tree canopy, exceeding the allowable limit of 55%. Board members questioned whether the project could reduce building sizes and parking spaces to meet this requirement. Concerns were raised about setting a precedent for future projects, drawing comparisons to a past application where tree removal exceeded approved limits. The board stressed the need for robust justification for any exceptions granted, proposing measures to ensure compliance, such as tree protection fencing during construction.

Traffic concerns related to the project were also addressed. The board discussed logistics for truck movements, with the design engineer confirming plans to manage higher truck volumes within a shorter timeframe as the site elevation increases. Routing conditions were considered to prevent trucks from using Borheis Corner Road. Safety of left turns from the property onto adjacent roads was debated, with assurances provided that the driveway design met Department of Transportation safety requirements.

The discussion touched on the logistics of fill delivery, with estimates of 800 trucks over six months, and the need for careful planning to manage traffic during construction. Board members sought clarity on the pacing of truck deliveries and the potential impact on local traffic, emphasizing the importance of a well-organized traffic circulation plan.