The most notable point of discussion involved Jersey Mike’s request for a larger sign to enhance visibility at its location on Route 27, Somerset. The application proposed several variances, including one for sign location, another for the area of the sign, and one for the vertical dimension. The representative for the applicant emphasized the necessity of the sign due to operational challenges, citing that approximately 30% of their business comes from digital orders, with delivery drivers often confused about the location. The representative argued that the lack of adequate signage resulted in Jersey Mike’s underperforming in sales by about 18%, despite increased traffic past the location.

The board considered testimony from witnesses and visual aids showing the property’s layout and current signage visibility, with a focus on the proposed sign’s potential to improve customer access and increase sales. A technical expert testified that the proposed sign dimensions were necessary for visibility, especially for fast-moving vehicles, and a professional planner highlighted the unique challenges faced by Jersey Mike’s compared to other businesses in the area. Ultimately, the board voted in favor of the size increase, with four members supporting the variance and three opposing it.

In contrast, the board faced a split decision regarding an application for a cannabis dispensary on Amwell Road. The proposed location was in an R20 residential zone, where such retail use is not permitted. The applicant, represented by an attorney, argued that the dispensary would not increase traffic and emphasized the economic benefits it would bring to the community. The proposal included maintaining the existing deli while establishing the dispensary, with plans to ensure compliance with state regulations and community engagement.

However, the application met with considerable opposition from residents and some board members. Concerns were raised about the proximity of the dispensary to Samson G. Smith School and other community spaces, as well as potential traffic and safety issues. Public comments highlighted the potential negative impact on property values and the character of the neighborhood. The board was divided, with some members expressing concerns about setting a precedent for similar applications, while others argued that the lack of state or local restrictions on proximity to schools made it difficult to deny the application.

Despite the applicant’s assurances about security measures, traffic management, and compliance with regulations, the board’s vote resulted in a split decision, with four members in favor and three against the variance. However, the application did not pass due to the requirement for a majority vote.