The attorney for the Muslim Center, Tim Arch, along with engineer Sharif Ali, presented the case, emphasizing the sign’s compliance with area and height requirements. Sharif Ali assured that the digital sign would feature appropriate landscaping and buffering to mitigate any impact on neighboring properties. In line with community aesthetics, the sign was compared to those at the Piscataway Community Center and the YMCA.

One point of discussion was the sign’s operation protocol, particularly concerning its illumination schedule. Dr. Safy Fula, representing the center, testified that the sign’s use would be strictly for community announcements and would follow the timing of the center’s final prayer, ceasing illumination thereafter. He clarified that the sign would not display commercial advertising and would feature short clips only during special occasions, such as Ramadan.

Board members raised questions about the height of the sign, debating whether a nine-foot-tall structure was necessary for visibility. Further concerns addressed the frequency of message changes and the hours during which the sign would be illuminated. The board’s approach was one of caution, requesting a site visit and additional information regarding the sign’s usage during special events and its message schedule.

Additionally, the board considered a report from Mr. Chadwick, which recommended restrictions on potentially disruptive features such as flashing, strobing, or animated images. The members agreed to carry over the application to the next meeting on August 15th, allowing time for a site visit and the collection of more information, including a possible letter of approval from the Department of Transportation.

Moving on from the digital sign discussion, the meeting also addressed other property-related issues. An application from Face Field LLC was adjourned until a later date. Subsequently, a settlement about the placement of a fence was reached, with Mr. Oims agreeing to the board’s proposed adjustments regarding the offset and setback from Crestwood Street. The board approved the application.

Another case involved a shed constructed too close to the property line. The shed, which had brought in soil without the necessary permits, was subject to a discussion that concluded with the applicant’s agreement to a township inspection. This matter was adjourned until July 11th.

An additional item tackled was a request to add a second level to a house for more living space. The board recommended ensuring proper drainage to avoid affecting neighboring properties and discussed the structure’s height. The application proceeded without public comments and was approved following a roll call vote.

The careful examination of the proposed developments aimed to ensure adherence to zoning regulations while balancing the interests of property owners with those of the community at large.