The meeting’s central topic was an application for a sign variance requested by a restaurant owner who had recently acquired a property on Valley Road, intending to upgrade it into an office complex. The existing sign was described as outdated and inadequate for representing all tenants. According to the applicant, it was not only unclear but did not list all tenants, prompting the need for a more visible and comprehensive sign. The current sign was reported to be legible at only short distances, becoming unreadable at greater distances, which raised concerns for both tenant visibility and emergency responder efficiency.

The applicant proposed a new sign nearly double the size of the existing one, designed to improve clarity and safety. However, discussions revealed confusion regarding the sign’s exact measurements. While the current sign stands seven feet tall and covers ten square feet, the new sign’s area was clarified to be 18 square feet, excluding supports. An existing monument sign, displaying only the address and the name of the office park, would remain but be refurbished. Concerns were raised about the effectiveness of the current signage, especially for drivers traveling at 40 mph, with one participant noting difficulty reading the sign from 15 to 20 feet away.

The board examined the proposed sign’s dimensions, noting that while the building could accommodate up to 16 suites, the design included only 12 panels. This led to a discussion about the potential need for a variance since the proposal exceeded the ordinance’s allowance for monument signs. The necessity for the new sign to both identify the building and ensure visibility for tenants was emphasized, with participants seeking expert testimony on lettering size to ensure legibility from a moving vehicle.

Placement and visibility were critical points of contention, particularly regarding the current sign’s proximity to the curb, which appeared to be less than the required ten feet. Suggestions included moving the sign closer to the curb and potentially removing a tree that obstructs view, or placing it closer to the intersection of Valley Road for better visibility. The applicant’s attorney expressed flexibility on the sign’s location, even considering tree removal to enhance exposure. However, another participant suggested smaller letters might suffice for identification without major adjustments.

The debate also touched on the purpose of the sign, whether it served more as a directory for tenants or an advertising tool. The need for a professional sign designer was acknowledged to create a more effective sign without contributing to visual clutter. A board member suggested revising the design to better utilize available space by rearranging tenant names, minimizing blank areas, and consulting with tenants about their preferences.

The owner of the office complex highlighted the challenge of retaining tenants due to declining business, expressing a commitment to making the property appealing and functional. He noted that the existing sign was modeled after a successful one in Morristown and acknowledged the need to review tenant leases for contractual obligations regarding signage.

As the conversation continued, various solutions were proposed, including modifying the existing masonry sign by turning it at a 45-degree angle for better visibility or considering solar-powered lighting. The board emphasized the need for a sign that enhances both visibility and aesthetic appeal while complying with local regulations.

The meeting concluded with a consensus to carry the discussion to the next meeting, allowing for further refinement of the sign proposal without requiring additional public notifications. The owner expressed willingness to work on the design, aiming to reduce tenant names on the sign and possibly combining existing signage.

In another discussion, the board reviewed various ordinance updates, notably the proposed fence ordinance and home office sign regulations. Concerns about the language clarity in the fence ordinance were raised, with a board member suggesting revisions to ensure comprehensibility before township committee approval. The status of paper streets also sparked debate, with board members advocating for more systematic management and clarity on decision-making authority.