0:01The primary focus of the meeting revolved around the application submitted by Nick Valente of New Bridge Road 5 LLC, which sought approval for signage that exceeded local regulatory limits in both quantity and size. The building’s unique positioning was a central point in the discussion, with representatives arguing that multiple signs on two facades were crucial for ensuring visibility and safety. The proposed signage included a front facade sign of 21.96 square feet and a southern facade sign of 24 square feet, both exceeding the maximum allowable dimensions. Additionally, the proposal called for individual letter signs totaling 42.97 square feet, surpassing the 20 square feet limit.

21:31A representative noted that “when you’re heading from the southernly direction…you cannot make a left turn into the property,” emphasizing the necessity of clear signage to avoid safety hazards. The board explored how the signage could aid in mitigating risks associated with high-speed traffic and the building’s location, as it was noted that vehicles traveling at higher speeds might miss the building without adequate visual cues. The representatives assured the board that the signs would be visible from over 100 yards away, facilitating early identification of the property.

Debate also centered on the illumination of the signs, which would utilize internally illuminated LED lights. There were concerns about the brightness, particularly at night or during inclement weather. It was proposed that dimmable lighting be installed to reduce glare and enhance safety for drivers.

0:01The meeting further delved into the specifics of the sign design, including channel letters mounted on a Raceway and equipped with bird deterrents. An expert witness detailed the aesthetic considerations, noting that the signage was designed to be both visible and appealing, aligning with the commercial character of the area. The neighborhood’s existing signage patterns were also discussed, with comparisons drawn to nearby businesses like a gas station and a golf facility, both of which feature multiple signs. This context was used to justify the proposal’s alignment with local character.

41:54Board members expressed general support for the application but raised various points of clarification and debate. One member questioned the necessity of a front box sign, arguing that “if people are going so fast they wouldn’t be able to read it anyway.” However, it was acknowledged that the absence of residential properties in the vicinity mitigated concerns about excessive signage.

The board also addressed jurisdictional issues, specifically whether the county had oversight over the signage along a county road. It was clarified that there had been no county communication on this matter, and it was believed that county approval was not required.

During the public comment phase, only one individual provided input. After public remarks, the board reconvened to finalize the decision. Ultimately, the application was approved with conditions, including the requirement for dimmable lighting and the stipulation that any window signage must be submitted to the zoning officer or brought back to the board for approval.