54:04A notable segment of the meeting centered on the proposed illuminated billboard at Palam Towing, which had been previously denied by the board. Following the denial, the applicant filed a lawsuit against the board, alleging that the decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. The lawsuit claimed that the township’s zoning ordinances were excessively restrictive on commercial speech, potentially infringing on First Amendment rights. This led to negotiations between the township’s representatives and the applicant’s attorney, culminating in a conditional stipulation of settlement.

The settlement included several modifications to the original proposal. The height of the billboard was reduced from 60 feet to 55 feet, and while one side of the billboard remained an electronic display, the right-facing side was altered to a traditional static display that would be illuminated until midnight. Additionally, the electronic side incorporated technology to limit visibility to a narrow field, minimizing its impact on nearby residences.

1:30:08Public comments were vehemently opposed to the settlement. Residents like Terry Crown argued that the billboard would disrupt the visual landscape and contribute to light pollution.

Nicholas Hamak described the billboard as a “visual blight” and an “invasion of privacy” for the historic Livingston Benedict house, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. He criticized the absence of the Highlands Council’s involvement.

Mary Priki highlighted that the land surrounding the historic house was deed protected, questioning the legality of the settlement agreement and raising concerns about the potential distraction posed by the sign for drivers on Route 287. She shared her personal difficulties with reading signs while driving.

Board members acknowledged the difficult position they were in due to the lawsuit, with some expressing frustration over feeling pressured into accepting the settlement. One member remarked, “if we don’t settle… then we don’t have any concessions on the sign whatsoever,” reflecting a pragmatic approach to the situation. Another member voiced their discontent, stating, “I hate it. It’s ridiculous in my opinion,” while recognizing the necessity of the decision for the township’s interests.

Despite the opposition and internal disagreements, the board ultimately voted to accept the settlement, albeit reluctantly for some members. The outcome was seen as a compromise that would prevent a potentially more unfavorable situation if the applicant reverted to the original plan.

0:00In addition to the billboard settlement, the board reviewed several other applications. Frank and Y Chi sought variances to construct a one-story addition to their property on Bordo Drive. The proposed expansion aimed to accommodate family visits, particularly for their elderly parents and granddaughter, by adding a new kitchen, larger bedrooms, and an additional fourth bedroom. The board deliberated on the variances needed due to the increased building and impervious coverage. Concerns about runoff and adherence to stormwater management regulations were addressed, with the applicant agreeing to comply with the township engineer’s requirements for drainage management. The board ultimately supported the application, noting the absence of public objections and the proposal’s limited impact on neighbors.

18:18Another discussion involved the sign variance application for Avis Budget Group, which requested a bulk variance for a wall sign exceeding the allowable height. The proposed sign was to be positioned at a height of 45.9 feet above grade, well above the 25 feet allowed by existing code. The board reviewed detailed testimony from the project engineer and a representative from Avis Budget Group, who emphasized the necessity of the sign’s height for visibility, particularly due to an obstructing parking garage. The lighting for the sign was designed to be internally illuminated and operate automatically, aligning with the operational hours of surrounding businesses. The board approved the application, recognizing Avis Budget Group as a good corporate citizen and deeming the sign variance reasonable.

The meeting also included a discussion on a property modification request by Ron Parrington on West Morris, involving an addition and various other modifications requiring multiple variances. The board raised concerns about increased stormwater runoff and suggested that Parrington meet with the township engineer to discuss mitigation measures. The application was carried forward to allow for further clarification and guidance.