The central issue of the meeting was the proposed digital billboard on Riverside Avenue. The applicant’s representatives presented their case, advocating for a modernized billboard equipped with narrow view technology and internal lighting, which would have a curfew to minimize light pollution. Additionally, the proposed billboard would allocate a percentage of its display time to borough announcements.

The board’s discussion revolved around the complexities of zoning laws, focusing on the interpretation of whether the billboard, if modernized, would constitute a new structure or an updated use. Christine Naro, a licensed professional planner, provided expert testimony on the application’s adherence to zoning ordinances and case law, including whether the digital transformation necessitated a D1 use variance or a D2 variance. Naro argued the site’s suitability for the modernized billboard based on historical presence and traffic volume, meeting positive criteria for variance approval and mitigating potential negative impacts on the community.

Debate ensued over the impact of the proposed digital sign on traffic safety and local businesses. Concerns were raised about driver distraction due to the frequent change of advertisements and the possibility of luring customers away from Red Bank businesses. However, others argued that the digital platform could benefit smaller businesses by providing affordable advertising opportunities.

The technical aspects of the proposed billboard also came under scrutiny. The board members discussed the potential expansion of the non-conforming use and examined conditions that could make the billboard more compatible with the surrounding area, like the cessation of overnight advertising and the reduction in the billboard’s size. The slight improvement in setback from property lines was also considered in the context of future site development.

Further discussion highlighted the longevity of the existing non-conforming sign, which had been in place for 60 years. The board considered whether the sign could remain indefinitely without being considered abandoned. There was a consensus that hardship was not a prerequisite for variance relief. Traffic studies were also a topic of debate, with references made to the master plan’s statement about high traffic volumes, questioning the need for a dedicated traffic count.

The meeting touched on the potential economic implications of the billboard, with members inquiring about the rates for advertising and its impact on local businesses. There were also calls for more research on the nuances of the case, including the expertise of speakers on traffic safety engineering.

Towards the end of the meeting, the concept of modernizing the billboard without it becoming electronic was debated. Participants discussed alternatives to LED technology, such as physical improvements to the current structure. The lease agreement on the property, which could affect the development potential, was also reviewed.

Finally, after extensive discussion, the board decided to adjourn the hearing until August 15, 2024, without the need for re-noticing the public. This decision was made despite some debate over the prolonged duration of the application process and whether a new notice was warranted. The board concluded with directions for the submission of a brief and the sharing of transcripts from the meetings.