The meeting’s most significant topic revolved around the proposed billboard’s impact on community safety and aesthetics. Concerns were raised about the billboard’s potential to distract drivers, particularly on the busy Route 130. A participant drew a parallel between glancing at billboards and using cell phones while driving, emphasizing the risk of distraction. They argued, “If you’re not paying 100% in front of you, you’re going to get hit or hit somebody.” In response, another speaker cited studies indicating that brief glances at billboards, as long as they remain under 1.6 seconds, do not contribute to unsafe driving conditions. This argument suggested that billboards operate similarly to other roadside signs, providing information without undue distraction.

The discussion also delved into the technical specifications of the billboard, which would adhere to state regulations prohibiting flashing or moving images, thereby maintaining a “static message” format despite being digital. Participants questioned the rationale behind Delran’s prohibition on billboards, with explanations provided about state guidelines that restrict the content to avoid explicit material. This led to a broader conversation about the regulation of commercial speech, recognizing the complexities in controlling advertising content while ensuring that it remains appropriate and informative.

Another focal point was the financial implications of the billboard proposal. Questions arose about the tax revenue generated by such structures, with a council member noting that while the potential revenue could benefit the township, it should not be the primary factor in the approval process. The representative from CA Enterprises, William Atkins, clarified that a separate billboard tax is collected by the state, from which the township receives a share. He assured that his company would assist the tax assessor in preparing necessary documents related to this tax, emphasizing that the billboard would comply with state regulations regarding distance and visibility, thus providing free advertising space for the town and local businesses, including emergency alerts.

The meeting further explored the proposed billboard’s compliance with local ordinances, highlighting the need for variances related to landscaping and lighting. Concerns were expressed about the current lack of compliance with safety and ordinance standards, particularly in relation to the existing lighting on the site. Representatives confirmed that no improvements to the lighting had been planned, focusing instead on the portion of the property leased for the billboard. Questions about landscaping requirements were also posed, with a member suggesting that the site could be improved to comply with the ordinance. Representatives maintained that they were prepared to address the variances through planning testimony, but emphasized the necessity of obtaining the property owner’s permission for any changes, which had not yet been discussed.

The dialogue also touched upon the structural integrity of the billboard, with representatives assuring that advancements in materials have enhanced their strength. Concerns about the lease agreement between the billboard company and the property owner were noted, particularly in the context of potential property sales. Representatives acknowledged that such leases typically have provisions addressing changes in property ownership, though specific details were not provided.

As the meeting progressed, the conversation about billboards led to logistical matters regarding the meeting environment, where participants discussed discomfort due to the meeting space’s temperature. Despite these lighthearted exchanges, the serious nature of the discussions persisted.

Ultimately, a decision was made to withdraw the application related to the billboard, with the applicant expressing gratitude for the council’s time and feedback. Following this, the council considered opening the floor to public comments unrelated to the previous application. However, no members of the public came forward to speak, leading to a motion to close the public portion of the meeting and subsequently adjourn the session.