The most notable issue was the proposed signage for the new Ross store. The application included requests for multiple signs, exceeding the number allowed by local ordinances. The council members expressed varying opinions on the necessity of the additional signage, debating whether it was essential for customer wayfinding or if it would unnecessarily clutter the storefront. Courtney Hornung, representing a national sign vendor, explained that the signage package consisted of a channel letter set, entrance logos, and an under-canopy flag mounted sign. The board members were concerned about the aesthetic impact, particularly the vinyl graphics proposed for the windows, which some members felt could detract from the property’s appearance.

A council member articulated strong opposition to the additional signs, arguing that the existing large sign provided sufficient visibility. The discussion included a detailed examination of window films, which were intended to enhance aesthetics and security by blocking visibility of in-store merchandise. However, concerns were raised about the durability and visual impact of these films, with calls for more subdued designs.

In response to these concerns, Hornung assured the council that the proposed materials were durable, with a warranty and features to withstand fading and damage. Adjustments to the design, such as using more solid colors, were suggested to create a less busy appearance. Ultimately, the council decided to defer a final decision on the signage until the next meeting, allowing time for the Technical Review Committee to assess the materials and provide recommendations.

While the signage debate took center stage, the council did reach a consensus on the installation of a trash compactor. The compactor is to be located at the northwest corner of the building, surrounded by a six-foot high solid fence and additional landscaping to provide visual screening from nearby residences. The council was assured that the compactor would operate within local sound ordinance limits, with waste pickup scheduled to occur once every two weeks. This frequency was noted as an improvement over traditional dumpsters, which require more frequent pickups.

The site’s proximity to residential areas prompted discussions on noise and visual impacts, with assurances given that the compactor’s noise level would be comparable to that of a car. The engineer noted that sound mitigation measures, including a solid fence and existing foliage, would further reduce potential disturbances. The council was satisfied that these measures, along with the proposed landscaping enhancements, would create a buffer that minimized the compactor’s impact on the neighborhood.

Discussions also covered operational logistics, including delivery schedules and site accessibility. Concerns were raised about potential conflicts with nearby residential areas due to delivery hours and traffic flow. The council sought clarification on these aspects to ensure that operations would not negatively affect the community. It was noted that delivery and waste removal vehicles would access the site via Route 22, and delivery durations were expected to be approximately an hour and a half per truck. The applicant expressed willingness to adhere to specific operational hours to alleviate the council’s concerns.

The council also addressed accessibility issues, particularly for individuals with disabilities. There were discussions about ensuring that ADA-compliant routes were available through the parking lot, with suggestions to create pathways through existing islands to connect with nearby sidewalks. The council expressed appreciation for these considerations and highlighted the importance of maintaining accessibility standards.

As the meeting concluded, the council decided to approve the site plan application with conditions, excluding the signage issues. The approval allowed for the interior work and compactor installation to proceed, while the signage matters would be revisited at the next meeting.