The most significant topic of the meeting centered on the proposed digital billboard on Highway 35, with extensive testimony and discussions about its height, lighting, and overall impact on traffic safety and the environment. Mr. Vault, who provided testimony on behalf of IAT Services LLC, addressed the board’s concerns regarding lighting intensity and the potential distraction to drivers. He presented diagrams from the manufacturer, Watchfire, and discussed the worst-case scenarios for illumination under complete darkness, emphasizing that the lighting levels had been calculated to minimize driver distraction.

The board also discussed the operational aspects of the sign, including the security measures to ensure continuous content display and the timing of advertisements to avoid driver distraction. The proposed billboard’s height, at 45 feet, was scrutinized, especially its impact on visibility and safety given existing utilities along Route 35. Mr. Vault assured that landscaping plans for the sign’s base would be developed if the applications were approved, addressing concerns about the billboard’s aesthetic integration into the environment.

Public concerns played a role in the meeting, with residents like Diane Sermont and John Damay voicing their apprehensions. Sermont questioned the height of the proposed billboard compared to existing structures and the potential need for tree removal, given the flooding issues in Ocean Township. Damay provided a list of existing billboards on Route 35, expressing concerns about permit compliance and the proximity of the new billboard to residential areas. These public testimonies highlighted the community’s unease about the environmental and visual impacts of the proposed billboard.

Another discussion topic was the rationale behind the 8-second rule for variable message signs, which was established to minimize driver distraction. This rule, based on research from the Federal Highway Administration, dictates that billboards change advertisements every eight seconds. The board debated the merits and limitations of this rule, especially in the context of new LED technology. Questions were raised about the empirical evidence supporting the 8-second rule and whether it adequately accounts for the potential distractions posed by modern digital billboards.

The board also considered the legal and procedural aspects of the billboard applications, including the need for variances due to the proposed height and multiple uses on the same lot. Andy Schaefer, a professional planner, provided insights into the special reasons, detriments, and benefits of the proposed billboard under New Jersey statutes. Schaefer argued that the billboard would fit the character of the commercial area along Route 35 and would not negatively impact parking or pedestrian routes. However, opposing viewpoints were presented, with concerns about the billboard’s impact on the character of Route 35 and its compliance with the township’s ordinance, which generally prohibits new billboards.

Safety concerns were a recurring theme throughout the meeting. Discussions highlighted the potential safety impacts of billboards, with representatives emphasizing that no studies have shown a direct correlation between billboard construction and an increase in driver distraction leading to accidents. The New Jersey Department of Transportation’s evaluation process for billboard placements, based on safety criteria and spacing requirements, was discussed to ensure the proposed billboard would not pose safety hazards.

The public comments section revealed a divide in community opinions. Some residents opposed the billboard, citing concerns about light pollution, traffic distractions, and the preservation of the area’s aesthetics. Others supported the billboard, emphasizing its potential benefits for local businesses and public service notifications, such as emergency alerts and Amber Alerts.