At the heart of the meeting was the Paul Miller Auto Group’s application for a Land Rover dealership, which necessitated a D1 use variance due to the location in a General Commercial (GC) Zone where new car dealerships are not explicitly permitted. The attorney for the applicant emphasized the strategic location of the proposed dealership, arguing that it would not negatively impact residential areas and would generate limited traffic. However, the proposal for three freestanding signs became a focal point of contention.

The dealership’s request to install three distinct freestanding signs, each representing one of the brands—Range Rover, Defender, and Discovery—sparked concern among board members. The applicant’s attorney argued that the signage was aligned with a national rebranding strategy and that their placement, approximately 90 feet back from Route 22, would minimize visual impact. Despite this, board members worried about setting a precedent for similar requests from other dealerships, potentially leading to a cluttered commercial corridor. A board member remarked on the importance of maintaining a consistent aesthetic, noting that other dealerships in the area had adhered to a standard of one sign per business.

James Hunter, an experienced architect, presented the signage layout, emphasizing the distinct branding of each vehicle type. He explained that the decision for separate signs was a corporate directive, not a local preference. However, concerns about the size and visibility of the signs persisted. A board member questioned the practicality of the small lettering. The applicant acknowledged this but maintained that the signs’ primary function was to convey a recognizable brand image.

Further complicating the application were the numerous variances requested, including those for landscaping and loading space dimensions. The applicant proposed a 12 by 32-foot loading space instead of the mandated 12 by 50-foot space. Additionally, the landscaping plan fell short of the required number of trees, proposing only 15 instead of 114 due to the site’s condition following previous development. The applicant expressed willingness to work with the board to achieve compliance, potentially through contributions to a landscape fund or planting trees elsewhere in Bridgewater.

Stormwater management also featured prominently in the discussion, with the applicant detailing plans for five distinct basins to handle runoff effectively. The proposal aimed to meet best management practices, with applications for necessary permits already underway. The applicant assured the board that the design would not negatively impact downstream areas, and an operations and maintenance manual would be submitted to Somerset County once approvals were on track.

In terms of operational details, the dealership plans to house three car brands under one roof, with a showroom divided into sections for each brand. The inventory is expected to include 30 to 50 new cars and an additional 30 used cars, with security measures relying on signage and fencing rather than personnel. The dealership would operate with approximately 24 employees, potentially increasing over time, and service customers were projected to outnumber sales visitors.

The meeting also touched on logistical challenges related to vehicle deliveries and compliance with fire lane regulations. An agreement was reached to ensure that no cars would block fire lanes, aligning with the board’s safety concerns. The dealership committed to preventing offloading on Route 22, instead utilizing designated areas within the site.