The meeting opened with an introduction to the proposal, which involved installing two signs on the property. The applicant’s representation explained that the property’s irregular shape and limited space near the street posed significant challenges for signage visibility. A professional from Sign Source, with over 25 years of experience, detailed the signage plan, emphasizing the need for clear identification due to the building’s concealed location. The proposed primary sign would be five feet high and six feet wide, placed at a zero-foot setback to comply with regulations and avoid obstructing pedestrian access.

Board members engaged in a discussion about the proposed signage’s visibility and positioning, particularly in relation to a retaining wall that could obstruct views for southbound traffic. The retaining wall, coupled with the narrow driveway, required strategic placement of the signs to ensure they were noticeable to drivers, especially those approaching from Cedar towards Northfield. Concerns were raised about the potential obstruction of sightlines for incoming traffic, and members debated the idea of moving the sign slightly to enhance visibility.

The proposed signs would be constructed from aluminum cabinets with a dark brown, anodized bronze finish and white lettering, following feedback from the business improvement district. The installation method would ensure minimal disturbance to existing vegetation, with any necessary adjustments limited to seasonal flower rearrangements. The applicant confirmed that the signage installations would not interfere with existing parking spaces, addressing another concern of the board.

The Planning Board also heard testimony from Katherine Gregory, a professional planner with extensive experience across New Jersey. She articulated the need for variances due to the site’s unique constraints, explaining that a C1 variance addressed hardship cases while a C2 variance provided flexibility. Gregory advocated for the necessity of having one sign on each frontage, arguing that visibility is important for the building’s success and tenant satisfaction. She assured the board that the proposed signs would not contribute to visual clutter, as they would be strategically placed to avoid overlapping sightlines.

The signage plan proposed dimensions exceeding typical allowances, justified by the need for clear visibility from the intersection. Gregory emphasized that the signage aligned with municipal land use law’s purposes by promoting safety and facilitating access to the building. She also addressed potential future tenant needs, confirming that any modifications to the signage would require further board review.

Board members expressed their views on the proposal, noting that the variances met criteria due to the site’s irregular shape and challenges posed by the retaining wall. There was a general consensus supporting the application, with one member highlighting the importance of the signage for revitalizing an overlooked area of town. The necessity of effective signage was underscored.