The self-storage facility’s signage became the focal point of the meeting as the case presented by the applicant’s attorney and a professional planner detailed the need for the variances. The main contention was the size of the building-mounted sign, which at 57.75 square feet exceeded the maximum allowed area of 40 square feet. The applicant justified the need for the larger sign based on the height of the lettering required for adequate visibility for drivers on the state highway.

The council’s discussion on the signage was comprehensive, considering factors such as the total aggregate area of all signs being within the allowable limit of 72.5 square feet and the nature of the three smaller signs, which were intended for directional purposes rather than advertising. The applicant argued that the variances would not only provide a desirable visual environment but also align with opportunities for non-residential development as stated in the town’s master plan.

The professional planner’s testimony supported the applicant’s case by highlighting the architectural compatibility of the proposed facility with the neighborhood and the proposed signage’s compliance with the township’s aesthetic standards. Visual representations of the site and proposed signage were provided to the board members, who were familiar with the area and surrounding developments. This led to a discussion about the visual impact of the proposed signs and their harmony with the neighborhood.

Comparisons were drawn to existing signage in the area, such as the LA Fitness sign, to demonstrate that the proposed signs were not out of character. The details of the construction, coloring, and placement of the signs were scrutinized, with particular attention paid to the company’s national branding and the functionality of the signs in directing to the loading area and office location.

After the extensive review and discussion of the signage proposal, the council members voted to approve the signage with conditions. These conditions included a requirement for an engineering review and stipulations regarding the illumination of the signs to ensure they would not adversely affect the area’s character.

Following the decision on the signage, the council moved on to memorialize two items related to variances for building structures. Resolution 153 40 involved a variance for a combo access structure, and resolution 20416 concerned a variance for an accessory structure. Special conditions were discussed for each variance, such as the relocation of structures and the submission of as-built plans, with both resolutions receiving approval from the council.

The meeting concluded with updates on future agenda items. These included appeals to the zoning board and an upcoming gas station project. The meeting was then adjourned following a motion that was seconded and approved.