##VIDEO ID:S8kQ4g1BvAw## first day of November time is 630 roll call an Tori here Raymond Mass here Eileen Hogan here van Euro here Sharon Lee here Vincent light here Paul cagno here Anna Cruz here Amanda califano she's absent Eugene hor here Chris Havens here adquate notice of this m post of bar Hall filed with the pro clerk andil to the Asbury Park Press Two River times in the Star Ledger this meeting is being tape recorded and in the event the applicant uses the services of the court reporter to transcribe the tapes the board requires a copy of the transcript we will break up at 8:00 pm for deliberation of testimony heard th far in the conference room on the first floor the public is invited to attend however discussion between board members and the public is not permitted at that time no new cases will be heard after 9:00 p.m. that bank's owning Board of adjustment has maintain a policy cut off hour of 9:30 p.m. for its hearings any applicants that heard this evening be carried over to the next scheduled meeting Pledge of Allegiance the United States of America and to the Republic which stands godible andice for all okay so we have 187 Riverside Avenue okay and Mr chairman as uh Jennifer kmco will shortly re-enter her appearance uh let me just do a couple of preliminary procedural things uh first up this is a continuation I I think this is our third prior or third public hearing first was January 4th of 2024 2 was February 2nd 20 24 and the third was April 4th 2024 and uh Shauna is everyone here on the day tonight eligible to vote awesome um and do we have to enter into any certifications or we've already done that cool thank you and uh you'll recall think we were supposed to come here August 15th and at the last minute the applicant had a team had a scheduling issue and uh asked to be carried so we actually had to adjourn the we didn't actually have a meeting so there is no uh statutory or case law provision uh saying you just put a note up on the door so I uh asked uh Miss crico if she wouldn't mind uh Reen noticing and she of course said of course she would and uh so we appreciate that and uh speaking of the new notice that was issued is there anyone here with any questions comments or concerns regarding the sufficiency of the new notice they received okay don't see any the board secretary and I reviewed it and found everything to be in order so I would continue to be of the opinion that we have jurisdiction to to proceed and we have a couple of things to Mark into evidence uh since we were last together on April 4th 2024 uh Jennifer I think we're up to a29 a28 a28 a28 that's F all right so a28 is going to be the variance plan prepared by Dynamic engineering dated May 4th 2022 last revised July 22nd 2024 consisting of four sheets and a29 is going to be a letter of amendment prepared by Dynamic engineering and that was dated July 30th 2024 a30 is a narrow view technology exhibit prepared by Dynamic engineering dated April 4th 2024 one sheet a31 was a uh a letter and a legal brief uh uh supplied by Jennifer crico dated July 31st 2024 Mr chairman you'll recall we had asked Jennifer to do that and was excellent um legal brief I thank you for submitting that and uh that was distributed to everybody we'll have more on that later on a32 is the tnm associates uh most recently revised letter Ed I have that dated September 13 2024 that jobes okay and then I don't lenie I think rep on the B side B8 so correct okay I don't know it was in my package and I'm just going to um Jennifer there's two things I want to introduce just I don't know if we did it already uh one was a review memorandum from John Ducker um shaa he's the Fire official I never got a copy of it okay um excuse me go ahead all right so that was dated January 3rd 2023 10:21 p.m. uh Jennifer I have a copy here I'll get that's so we're going to mark that as B8 and I think we marked this but I'm not sure B9 was a memorandum from the Red Bank River Center it was that was already marked right that was already marked okay so we don't have to mark that one and and Jennifer just so you know the document that was B8 the uh review memoranda from John duer just says work shall comply with the New Jersey uniform construction code including but not limit to the electrical subcode so it is I think fairly benign and um so now let's swear in uh Shauna Ebanks Shauna is a professional planner and she is the uh director of the be Burrows Community Development Office and we're gonna swear in Ed Herman Ed Herman is our board engineer and board planner so if Shauna and Ed if you could just both raise your right hand do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide to the extent you provide any will be the truth the best your knowledge to help you gu I do all right so let the record reflect that uh both of our friends have been sworn and with that we will turn it over to Jennifer Kook chair members of the board excuse me you really need to be real to that that never happens for me good evening members of the board uh Jennifer kmco from the LA from lanso Grim andaron here on behalf of the applicant and I am going to sit down and then I'll be able to just I want to stand for my appearance as the board may remember we had uh concluded our planning testimony at the last meeting uh the public did not have the opportunity to finish questioning by the time the cut off date cut off time occurred so we agreed to bring our planner back uh to finish public questioning we are not proposing to give uh any affirmative testimony from the planner so obviously any questions would be limited to what she's testified to uh at the last meeting additionally as you'll see and if the board may remember um a a I think it might have been added and a member to the board took took issue with accepting this as an upgrade or modernization based on the relocation of the sign uh so as a result we have uh returned the sign the new proposed sign uh in the same location as the existing sign so we do have the uh new variance plan that was moved it is a28 uh that just shows that it is purely an upgrade with as you'll hear the shrinking of the sign face the reduction of the uh column supporting it and it stays the same height as before 20 from 22 feet to 27 feet so that's the only change that's the only testimony that uh Dan will be given so I'd ask the board just as a matter of uh preface to when he testifies that any questions for Dan be limited to what he's testifying to tonight that his testimony was closed out from the prior hearings with all of that I got a question so so you're basically saying that this new billboard will I think part of the um ordinance says that um what's it say it says will not be moved from a foundation first courting so so you're going to keep the existing support no we can't and again if you read my legal brief that I submitted and as you're going to hear through my testimony the section that you're referring to is actually within the design standards of your ordinance not the zoning section and as the board knows as I'm sure Kevin and your planner SL engineer will advise you that any um with a design standard just requires a waiver uh not a Ed but again I'm going to go into that in great detail as I summarized my legal argument for the board but no just like the original and as was a testimony from two Engineers as well as my client the only way to modernize a static billboard is to replace the foundation there is physically no way to stick a digital billboard face on a a uh on the foundation for a static billboard so again we are proposing to replace the structure but we are maintaining the use and as you're going to hear we're actually reducing the use quite and Mr chairman I would also just add keep that uh question in mind because we're going to have some talk about that later on into the and when we get into the standards but I'm not clear is it going back in the same spot that yes it is kco could you just clarify the statement that you made a little while ago about the same location I think you may have misspoke but just for clarity discuss the height you said something about it going from 20 the same location but at five feet taller okay I don't know that it was clear in my mind it wasn't clear I just want to make sure we heard that it's repeated numerous times in my brief and it was so again not not saying you didn't I think you may have just misspoke you said that at least I took it to be confusing it indicated it's still going from have to make happy to send the transfer all of that said I'd like to reintroduce Christine Kone for the our professional planner who testified in April for The Limited purpose of answering any additional questions based on our testimony at the last meeting good evening Miss Kone and you know we normally you're still under Earth but just because it's been a long time let's just swear you in for the record uh I have an abundance of caution just state your name and your new business address good evening it's Christine cfone business address is 52 Reckless place in Red Bank New Jersey 07701 testifying tonight as a liced I'm not testifying answering questions as a licensed professional planner based on the testimony that I've offered the last heing the rer do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth the your knowledge to help you God yes thank you so I think the last meeting we entertain questions from the board does board have any additional questions for Mr okay I do have one um I just wanted to know uh because the um the post is going to be so close to the property line um how will um workers Ed are doing whatever they need to do on the back of the the billboard access that in you know are they going to be over in the other um person requ excuse me it's an LED sign the goal would be to modernize and upgrade the sign so we have less people coming to use the sign I think the testimony was offered at our first hearing that many of the sign controls can be done remotely okay but uh it looks as though uh when you look at at the back of the LED sign Billboards it there there's like a catwalk that really extends pretty far out and there's other um things on that that particular post going up Dan who's our engineer yes going to walk you through the new billboard as being proposed can answer those questions that's not within the purview of mone's testimony nor would she know how it's constructed or serviced but Dan who presents the design will be happy to answer that question okay but I will just add Miss Bru that the existing sign I'm is actually closer to the property line than the proposed sign we're actually moving it albeit a matter of inches it is based on the function of how the structure works we're going from 0 one to0 five so again the existing structure is on the property line as proposed it will be and I'll let Dan answer how that will be serviced perfect and you know what can I just because that is an excellent question and just I will forget about it later on but just as a practical matter we as a zoning board let's just assume for purpos this discussion that the application is going to be approved we as a zoning board can never give anyone the right to use someone else's property so they're either going to have to figure it out and stay on their own property or they're going to have to get permission from the neighbors and things like that but that's an excellent question but we couldn't even grant them that power okay any additional questions from the board before we go to the public okay any questions for M gone from the public all right and Jay just state your name I think you were previously sworn but we're just going to swear you in again state your name and address uh Jay Herman pick it up close to you just pick it up there you go Jay Herman 11 vist the place in red you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide to the extent you provide any will be the truth the best your knowledge to help you gu yes thank you um Mr C um I know that the engineer is going to talk about how to service the back of the sign but you probably know the southernmost part of the sign or the support is how close to the property line with uh with Mr R's property southernmost um I'm going to defer that question to our engineer to answer you don't know how close it is testify as to the new structural supports that are being proposed so he'll tesy um at the last hearing we talked a little bit about the reduction in value of Mr R's property no I have to object nobody dis nobody talked about that a question may have been asked in that regard but there was no dis discussion on a reduction of of uh value to Mr st's property and just for clarification when you're referencing Mr st's property are you referencing his restaurant property to the east no the property to the South okay so the single family residential property I guess it's Zone single family there's no residence on it at the moment it's the property closest to your build so again and and forgive me for wanting to be specific but are you talking about lot three I this property here where there appears to be a parking lot yes yes I okay so not the single family home and there does appear to be a structure here can you identify Mr R's here I I don't know what structure well you're concerned about the impact his you're concerned about the his property I just want to understand what the use is on that property and what exists on the property I believe the use was parking at the moment yeah I'm sorry you're gonna have to speak into the mic I I believe the use was parking okay very good so you don't want to testify as to how close no I'm sorry mic no it's it's I know we all know this the microphones are not just for amplification but they're also so that um our friend the court reporter can can hear and if there's ever litigation it's going to be so in the words of uh chairman manuso we have to all act like rock stars and and speak in right into the mic as a matter of record I don't have to sing though do I no not yet it's a matter of record based on the plans that were submitted and were moved into evidence the proposed monopole is 0.5 feet and the back of the sign is 1.1 feet as compared compared to the existing sign that is 0.1 ft so we're moving the structure further away from mr's property all I asked was how close the part the southernmost part of your sign and frame and related materials how close to this I indicated that as five five feet six inches all right okay so my next question then as a planner is do you believe that having a billboard six Ines from Mr R's property will reduce the value of his property I'm not qualified to testify on the value of property you're a planner I am and you're not qualified to do that evaluation expert to so so M CRI do you have a witness who will testify to the dimunition of the value of Mr R's property no I do not nor do I believe one is necessary for the variance proofs we're seeking here particularly considering the existing sign is already much closer is in a state of disrepair and this will be cleaner and less of a nuisance to Mr R's property so the answer is no now what there's no ruction value of presenting an expert as to the reduction of value okay that's e e e expert to uh discuss values uh but I do think it's going to negatively impact and in the event that you do you're going to have an opportunity at the public portion once our Witnesses are done to offer sworn statements right now it's just questions for Christine okay and she she's still testify that she can't uh answer any questions related to the value of so again she's not a licensed real estate uh professional she's not a licensed uh appraiser she does not have experience on the uh value of property she's a licensed professional planner licensed by the state of New Jersey as to planning okay I am a licensed real estate broker and I do think it's gonna and when it's your chair okay I I'll wait till the public comments to to go further and if he's going to testify other than a late person as a licensed uh professional obviously I'm going to want him to put his qualifications on record and have the and obviously we would do that but we're going to allow people to ask questions during the public portion any additional questions from the public for this witness okay we'll close that uh next I'd like to call Dan uh cery to talk about the revised plan and hopefully having occurred the questions being asked he can answer some of those questions in his affirmative testimony and we'll just rewear him and again just just uh and Dan just state your name and spell your last name please Daniel doer d u g rty Dynamic engineering okay and uh business address 1904 Main Street Lake and just if there's anyone here who wasn't here for earlier meetings you're testifying in Your Capacity as a professional engineer okay do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth the best you knowledge to help you gu yes I do thank you and Kevin just you understand I wasn't objecting to any question being asked I was merely saying that testimony was being offered agreed in his capacity as a real estate agent I was just asking the board chair to direct him that there's a later time fair enough that's all got it thanks so Dan uh your office and you were the engineer who prepared a 28 and 29 and 30 that were submitted into the board that's correct could you please discuss the changes to the plan as well as the narrow View technology as a result of these changes uh yes so the um the idea was to move the S previously state to move the sign closer to where the existing billboard or really the same location as the existing billboard um so we where the sign was previously located 29 feet from Bridge Avenue RightWay to the West we moved the sign easterly to equate the existing Bridge Avenue setback of 46 feet so we're now setback the same location and and since our sign is somewhat smaller it's actually a little bit even further but we we're matching where the sign face addresses Bridge right we're matching the the Western setback from Bridge Avenue the western side of the sign and that might make you ask the question what about the Eastern side of the sign so now the Eastern side of the sign is 4 8 ft from the Eastern neighbor and the existing sign is 472 ft um that's because the existing sign is a little bit wider so we're actually moving it further away from that's correct from all of our neighbors we're no closer to the um the neighbor to East than the existing sign and we're matching the setback from Bridge Avenue the um structural let me let me just a second when you say we're no closer we're actually a foot further Jennifer um the other microphone Sor thank you no no no for you no I know I was gonna bring it around so I didn't strangle anybody I'm sure the court reporter appreciates that and now I have it just in case and I'm sorry what I was asking is you had said it's the same to the neighbor to the east but it is actually further away albe it only six in 6 in no go okay and with regard to the structure you have testified previously that we're going I think it's five or six of the stanions that hold up the current one that's correct how many is it five or six it's uh six okay and we're going down to one monopole so the portion of the sign that is closest to Mr R's two properties that um Mr Herman was concerned about uh is actually going to be as it relates to the property to the east at on the ground level it's going to be significantly farther away yes so in existing conditions you've got multiple stanions five or six stanions at six stanions and they the closest one being only 0.1 feet from that southern property line can I interrupt real quick you have a um you have two photographs one showing what's currently there and then one showing that you're that you're proposing so I think your testimony would be a little clearer to everybody if we could kind of see a visualize to that can you put them on the uh yeah well we have we have an updated one but again it's it's actually on the plan is is we're just talking about on the ground we're not talking about what anybody's seeing it we're just talking about the the actual dimensions okay but do you do have two photographs one as it exists currently and one as you're proposing you can put up on the I can't find the easel but I do have do you have it for the eel okay yeah we do so then a33 we didn't get to the that part yet but I'm happy to do it now Mr KAG and this is called a billboard view exhibit is there a date on it yeah 11 2124 all right uh prepared by Dynamic engineering Consultants thank you I have one to hand and certainly we can look at this but before we start talking about that I just want to speak as to the numbers because again this only shows where the billboard faces this does not indicate where the supports are in relation to the property lines which is where it's measured from than you more yes I don't know that's it anybody else wants damn all right Dan so again that shows the sign face at this point we're talking about the stanion so we're moving the structure as IT addresses the ground further from old the property lines that's correct and you had indicated that the uh existing sign is closer to the property to the east the sign face and that is a function of the fact that the length of the sign is being reduced from what to what from sorry from 36t 7 in to 36t approximately 3 in so we're reducing it in width we're uh moving it over and then square footage between the existing sign and the both sign the existing sign total um is 480 square feet I'm sorry existing sign total is 480 square feet we're proposing 380 so we're reducing it by 100 square feet and then the only change is with regard to the increase in light so well the face itself is getting smaller the stanion holding it uh results in the sign being how tall 27t and the existing one is 22 so it's a total of an increase of five feet that's correct and are those the only changes that we made on this plan uh yes any questions for Dan oh Dan I'm sorry as far as with it being so proximate to the South property line how will uh it be constructed and how will it be serviced so the portion of the sign that is is approximate to the South property line is the sonit tube the the the vertical tube structure that holds the sign and then going across from that is another tube that supports the sign face so the sign face is actually projected further on to our property those structural elements are only are the ones that are closest to the property line there won't be any um um trespass or any need to be on the neighbor's property to maintain okay but as far as construction as well it can be nor construction okay and when you talk about the sign face the proposed sign face is uh it's about about six and a half feet from the property one okay and that's in in it's different from it's it's a a further distance away from the property on it from the existing one the existing one the existing sign face itself is about 3T moving the face further away from the existing property line as well as structure all Jennifer say it again the existing sign face is three feet from the property line Southern Property Line Southern property line and the proposed sign face is 6.5 feet from the southern I'm sorry six feet six feet got it thanks uh yes I I believe the last presentation the sign was moved closer to um Bridge Avenues so coming over the bridge you could see it better we moved it back moved it back it's the same location that it exists today this exact same location as he just testified the setback from our sign face to Bridge Avenue is identical to what it is today recognizing that the board and particularly Mr Herman took exception to relocating it indicating that that would create the need for a brand new sign it's not just an upgrade uh we uh resigned ourselves to leave it in the less visible location and leave it exactly where it is that was in response to the board's uh comments oh why do the new base sorry what's the circumference of the in your base the W 36 diameter 36 in di is that is that the th tube the horizontal th tube yes that's the vertical one the horizontal saw that too um that's not designed yet that'll be part of the final structural design yeah that's not that's not oh I'm sorry we have it on US 20 20 in 20 in and there's no catwalk on that that but there is a catwalk Associated that's actually mounted to it mounted to the horizontal but it's in between the horizontal two and the correct correct and how close to the property line is the horizontal F I don't have that kind of Dimension from the structural drawings yet it's more than I would say it's approximately about one foot half foot I'm sorry that Jennifer that was uh from the horizontal tube to S property line thank you any other questions for this witness the board any question any now I guess in the last meeting we had a view that talked about the narrow band technology now that the sign is being moved over how does that affect that was an exhibit that was moved in as 8:30 we'll have put it on the board and go over it well this is the this is the previous a30 we didn't update this version then I'm confused you moved in a new a30 today so it's the same narrow view technology that was previously moved in okay hold on that's fine to move it in twice as opposed to having to renumber but it's not a new one okay was that April 4th 4th yes right so I have it in Ed's review memo so all right so we'll have it twice okay so this is the same exhibit as before with the move of the of the sign the distance that we we moved it we moved it from 29 feet to 46 feet um for that set back um so that change would be 17 feet would be reflected in the narrow view technology you see this much global scale um so there's a change of 17 feet from west to east of the narrow technology it doesn't really change the scope or the scale the sign and it certainly though limits a lot more the view of the sign than what's there today meaning the sign is visible for the 180 degrees of the face of the sign today based on the fact that it's lit 247 and in this scenario we'll talk more about the limitations that we've agreed to but in this scenario less people will be able to see this sign face or the message on the sign face then can see the existing sign correct that's correct so the sign here is at the bottom of this exhibit you can see it's very small again we're at a very big scale and when that's illuminated with the um current up Lighting on the sign you can see that from 18 180 degrees around the sign um narrow view technology these areas in the hatch areas on the front going towards front facing side of the sign we'll see no lighting from the sign at all only area in this vshape the narrow View Corridor is where the lighting from the LEDs will be viewable and also Dan um we had had testimony from the prior hearings additionally to being able to see the front of the sign there is light spillage as a result of the spotlights so it actually glows from the sign it can be seen from behind it that's correct and this narrow view technology and the louvers that uh you gave extensive testimony to would cut all of that off so no one standing outside of that cone meaning behind that uh any the adjacent properties would be able to even see the light coming from the sign that's correct so from an engineering perspective assuming that seeing light is a bad thing is this a improvement over the existing yes so so none none of the light given off by that sign at night would interfere with the traffic lights at all no the the alignment of the sign doesn't interfere with the traffic sign with the traffic lights and that's actually a subject of what do would approve to issue hour if it's in that cone though how could it not well the the the actual heads of the lights don't align with the sign so Mr Mass the the cone is where people are standing can see it right so being able to see it doesn't mean it's an interference if you remember at the first hearing you had to go through a strenuous test with the to show just that that would have no impact we wouldn't have gotten our permit right uh if there was any interference so no it just because it is in the visual uh view of someone within that cone does not mean it in any way interferes Mr dock you one question about this yeah I was gonna say it doesn't mean it interferes with traffic light right but we also talked about the new apartments that are going to be built right across Direct in the line side of the billboard right so that still exists is that right the same way that they will be able to see the lit up sign that's there today yes they would be able to see but the difference being if you remember we agreed to turn it off overnight so anyone living there would have a bright Spotlight shine right across from them 24 hours a day we're proposing to turn it off at 11: and not turn it back on until 7 or 8 I have to look at my notes so it will still be visible but as you remember the the the amount of time it will be visible is drastically reduced more visible also because you're raising it five feet again I think it would depend on where you live in those buildings I don't know that it would be more visible I think it would depend on your Vantage Point so you've moved the billboard a few feet to the east have you changed the orientation of the plane at all so The Sweet Spot or the direct spot of the billboard is like directly across the street it's it's facing basically the same as you could see the center line of that con of vision it goes up the Eastern side of of um 35 just just east of the 35 so I guess my curiosity just comes up why isn't it centered on the road we're trying we're trying to keep this as the whole reason we're here for my testimony is to give testimony about relocating the sign to the location of the existing sign if we had jockeyed the sign to those different angles we wouldn't be supporting that we would wouldn't be in the same location like we we preferred it to be lined up with the street however there was uh according to the board members and its professionals legal implications based on the relocation made it a new sign as opposed to a um updated or modernized side so we would prefer it lined up but in this location the impact is no different for the people across the street is that correct that's correct thank you Mr docky one question um so this plan is from last last year correct has not been updated correct from from April correct correct so does that represent the horizontal location doesn't represent the new horizontal location back to the original sign so so if anything the entire view cone would be shifted to the east uh 20 feet or whatever you shifted the sign back I think that may have been part of the question so the the hatching to the left I think would be more interesting to any residents on Rector place and to some degree Bridge Avenue so that cone would actually be slid to the east so they would actually see less they would see less is is point I was trying to make um and then furtherance of the other conversation that potentially could mean bodman place would see a little more and the new VNA replacement building might might see a little bit well yeah so again this isn't considering casting shadows and and and objects that are in the foreground of a certain viewer but with the development of the VNA site nobody on bot place is going to have any VI with the sign because the new development of the the UN site block that good point any other any other questions for the board I just have one and I'm not sure if this um but you just put this picture up so I'm gonna say I'm gonna say you um I'm just looking at when you took this you took this picture during the day and then you just superimposed what your proposed just so in casee you you didn't remember we went out and did actual crane tests right so we held it up so it it's not superimposed as much as it is act to actual Scale based on the size because of the okay so the only thing that's colored in is is signed face but it's actually shown in the exact location to the exact scale and well that how be I mean it pops a lot more than the other one is that how it is going to be is I guess what I'm asking it does pop right that's really just a that's what I you look at the left side is existing conditions see kind of um the weight pick up truck those two cars the Weck Truck Part next to parked across the street you can see the arm of the bucket truck there extending up into the air it kind of looks like it's and that panel that's on that bucket truck it's like a like a construction kind of pattern of red and yellow stripes okay so that the that's the cream test no but the the question she's asking is is that the white on the proposed is whiter well it just pops more the other sign's a little more to the original prev and then we set off from that that offset so that it's in the same location as the existing sign we took the graphics on the existing sign as copy right and and reproduce it onto like digitally onto it so whether it pops or doesn't pop it depends on the time of day or or night and where ambient light is shining to or from but that's but again this is not a representation of the sign this is a I think is what you were asking if it just popped out this is because we can't with a color printer create the exact luminance of what a digital sign would be at every moment of every day the other sign is a photo this one is a dig representation doesn't it's going to be brighter than the building or anything else okay and again I I we pointed out a few different digital signs in town not in town sorry in the Easter MTH County area I think we've all been up and down 35 okay any other questions any questions from the public for this all right J Herman still in growth stealing it I'm willingly giving it to you uh Mr Dy uh do I'm sorry do doer sorry no problem um you testified moments ago that the face of the sign will be further from the southern border but that's not really what's relevant to the property owners what I'm interested in I tried to get from the prior witness is of your your new propos sign and the structure and the catwalk any part of it that is closest to the Southern Property Line would be how far from the Southern Property the closest portion is the vertical tune that supports the whole sign and that's 05 ft from the property 6 in yes whereas the existing support how many inches is that that's U inches inches sorry okay so not only and that's that's at five or six locations of stanions come down we have one one St and one location is 6 in 5.5t excuse me I'm still answering the question compared to the four to the five or six expansions that are only .1 ft okay but the bottom line is the portion of the structure closest to the solid and property L is about 6 in correct okay and I'm guessing you don't want to express an opinion as to what that does to the value of the property to the very far from someone to okay to assist property values thank you any other questions from the public on so sorry to interrupt it's not related to this um I'm on the side of the parking lot and I'm trying to leave and there's a blue Hyundai that's blocking me in you could have interrupted a long time ago something it's fine just whoever that is if we could move it real quick it blue Honda blue Hyundai w w I think might to the parking lot a guy from basy dispatch told me was somebody did you talk to the parking lot guy from basy that's in the right by the driveway entrance yeah he wasn't there when I pulled up thank you okay any additional questions for this witness okay close close portion with that thank you that's all I have by way Witnesses so I reserve the right obviously to uh provide my closing statement at the conclusion of the public comment portion okay and I I got a question for you and I'm I'm still I'm still confused where you said I found under under uh planning under Red Banks Planning and Development regulations Chapter 490 under 49-14 under signs it states that bill Wards as defined in subsection 49-6 of this chapter shall not be permitted within the burrow may I no let me finish then you can say whatever you want Billboards existing prior to abop adoption of this section shall be permitted and may be repaired and maintained as required but may not be enlarged or move from their Foundation or support buting no replacement of a billboard shall be permitted upon removal or demolition of an existing billboard and you're saying that's just a design regulation sure so your ordinance is broken down into different articles you have article 10 is zoning article 10 lists all of the permitted uses article 8 let me just make sure I got that right that you're referencing and again this is all going to be part of my legal argument I would have explain it but I'm happy to to go through it now um article eight which is uh article 10 under the the whole thing is a zoning order ordinance let's go there it's all the planning and development regulations what weally call a zoning ordinance but from a legal perspective under the municipal land use law there are different sections that control different things and depending on which one you're not meeting changes whether or not you need a duse variant a c bulk variant or a design waiver under subsection 51 of the municipal anus law so article 10 is entitled Zone and that lists all of the uses that are permitted and not permitted so any variance from article 10 is to a permitted use would be a use variance under subsection D and then you have uh article eight and article eight is entitled design standards and Improvement specifications that are the performance standards in the site plan ordinance that regulate the design and design standards that have to be followed so for example if lighting falls under that and you can't meet the lighting then it's a design waiver it's not a variance uh if so legally the way your ordinance is constructed any in my opinion and it it looks like maybe a judge will decide but in any event in my legal opinion and I think that Kevin would agree with me if they wanted to regulate Billboards as a use as opposed to the design structure meaning the the size of it then they would have had to have put it in article 10 under permitted uses or prohibited uses you can't regulate use under design standards so for example in design standards it says that you know signs have to be lit a certain way well if if your lighting doesn't comply with that you don't need a bulk variant you need a waiver under subsection 51 all of that being said and as I explained I believe at the last meeting we're not denying that this is a non-permitted use but not for the reasons identified by your by your uh engineer but because instead of it being an accessory use because signs as an accessory use are permitted and this is just a design the fact its size is what establishes it as a billboard accessory signs are permitted because this is a principal use meaning this is not accessory to any other use on the property it's in and of itself it's advertising off premise that's what's not permitted is a sign as a perit as a principal use but in my opinion if the intention of the uh burrow is to make Billboards a non-permitted use whether accessory or principle then that provision must be moved into subsection into article 10 it cannot be left in article 8 so again we're not arguing that it's a non-permitted use we are arguing and I thought I did in great detail in my legal brief that I subm was the legal brief yes yes I I thought I went through that in great detail as to we agree with Ed that it's a non-permitted use we don't believe that the section he's referring to can regulate use that's a design standard and and and non-compliance with design standard is a waiver so that blanket prohibition unfortunately is inartfully included in the ordinance the way it would need to be in order to make it regulating use that's all I'm saying we I'm we're going to address that in a little bit okay comments from the board any comments on this application from the board yeah I have it just a couple um you know some of the case La that you cited in your just a question Mr chair so I'm gonna give a summary of all of the case law yeah and the applicant's position at the conclusion of the public portion so if I may ask it might be more appropriate to have the public make their comments close the public portion and then allow me to make my legal argument before you question it I haven't made my legal argument I wrote One but didn't have a chance to share it with you in person and I think that that might be the more appropriate process right okay any comment from the public at this time all right we're just going to swear you in just state your name and address please uh Vic R 183 Riverside AB Red Bank New Jersey you swear that the information and testimony you're about to revive to the extent you provide will be the truth knowledge you got yes I do thank you L um I printed out okay I printed out a portion of a site site plan that I had an old one that and I made copies um I made 12 copies the hashed area is the property that I own the gas station and the billboard just so everyone could be aware what which properties I own and how they're affected so if anyone would like to see these I have copy so let's let me just officially um why don't you if you could give a copy to miss gmco and and I would just offer that without having who prepared this for what the scale is and that there's lines all over it I'm troubled with the board rely on it I don't think it's appropriate however we can concede that as shown on the uh tax map and as shown on the tax map it appears that Mr R owns uh Lots three and 2.01 Cara do you also own the SL between the alley that's an even that when you say that's an easement an easement is over private property do you own the private property under which it sits it's its own lot and block so I'm asking if you own that oh there it is I got it one second and I have the document in front One Cop so there's something labeled as an alley in between 251 and if I could ask you to just come look at it over here because I actually tax map it might be easier 2501 is your restaurant lot three is your parking lot and there is an Alleyway in between yes you own that Alleyway I do not okay it's an easement that everyone has the right to depending on how I understand and part of the reason why I objected to this being submit L not so I'm still asking about your exhibit okay on your exhibit you have an area shaded over it and it indicated that was your property and that's what you own so you don't own that Alleyway okay my my pen went there but the whole Alleyway is there my intention was not to Mark over the Alle and again I would ask the board rely on the tax map and the lot numbers as opposed to this sketch without any signature or any way to validate that it's even accurate I don't let me just do this what you were just saying you own lot 2.01 correct yes and then you also own what lot three in blot three lot three and Miss kmco pointed out you do not own the alleyway no I do not okay so let's just go back to this document for a second just uh you're referring to it as a site plan and it was prepared by whom was it prepared by you this site plan this this document this document I copied off an old site plan on my copier at at my office so okay and uh so you copied off an old site plan and do you know by whom the old site plan was prepared and if you don't that's that's I could give that to the board and to anyone who wanted it I don't at this moment and when did you prepare this document when did I I did this for this meeting okay so so we'll call it uh date it November 21st 2024 so I'm gonna mark this as o I don't know if you're directly I'm just gonna show you o one and uh Miss crico has certainly raised some objections um which may may be valid let's just mark this and let's before we rely on it let's just see what you wanted to say and ask about it and um and then we'll come back to miss Primo's objection okay uh I don't know if all the board knows who I am but just a little brief history um I've owned this property or parts of it since 1988 so 36 years um started with my dad and through the years we've acquired other properties which were lot three and parts of that 2501 which are the restaurant um I think that the board can see that the properties that are most impacted by this application are mine because uh the other other than burrow and state roads my property surrounds every prop all the properties that are the gas station property and where the billboard lies um clearly uh this property um has been a thorn personally in my side um for the past 30 years um and I think quite frankly a thorn in the burrow side um for the past 30 years as the main entrance to Red Bank and it's been in disrepair for most of the time that I've uh owned the property the last 36 years um and you know the fact of the matter is that this is not really only about the billboard it's about what happens to this property going forward and how we might be able to fix that or address that I think clearly this billboard application is all about dollars and cents it's all about money the billboard company um or advertising rate based um on the other billboard I have copies of their leases and proposed payments to the gas station owner which I can introduce that says that and proves that um and I also have another document which I'd like to introduce which is the cleanup on the property and the potential cost of that cleanup um since this is about I I was under contract to buy this property two times um and both times was unable to get a deal done because of environmental because of the billboard the last time um so I wanted to purchase the property just to clean it up because when you come in you come around the corner it's horrendous and you know with all due respect Mrs primco doesn't care about I have to object as someone raised in Mammoth County for him to characterize what I care or don't care about hold on speak and not be interrupted why don't you speak and we'll hear mco's objections um and if this billboard is improved the value of that billboard increases right or else they wouldn't be putting such an effort to get this approved uh currently there's a static sign it's x amount of dollars a month if you have 20 signs 50 signs whatever the number is rotating on that billboard the the value of that billboard increases currently the reason that you can't or no one will buy that property to redevelop it is because it's not developable you cannot block the billboard currently um so you're pretty much stuck with the building that's there and the value they're asking is it's impossible for it to be an investment for anybody um and I looked at it as look I'm the only guy around that might be able to do something so let me go under contract try to buy it I'm going to overpay but I'll fix it I'll clean it up because I want it to be clean and need for my customers thousands of which come per week to our restaurant um if this billboard is allowed it would be impossible for someone to redevelop it and this is the reason why currently they have a lease to 241 that lease provides the billboard company with x amount of Revenue per year if I want to come and develop that property I could but only a small building basically the building that is there because I can't intrude or block the current billboard or any billboard that's there so you're stuck with a 3,000 square foot building to as as a development currently you know in some situations Builders go in and they buy out the Billboard's rights so if there's 40 20 years left on the lease and it's x amount of dollars they buy out the billboard so that they they can develop the property and they you know that's part of their price of Redevelopment if this is approv Pro that Redevelopment cost because of that value of that billboard will make that property stay in the exact condition it is today it's it's contaminated it needs over $200,000 worth of um remediation uh I have an appraisal here on the remediation I've had subpoenas to allow experts in my basement everywhere on my property to do work to see how bad it was through the years and I think quite honestly it's time to you know put a put our foot in the sand as as Mr Mass said this is semantics this is a new billboard this is not an upgrade this is a new billboard she's put they want to put a new billboard with New Foundations in the same place it's a non-conforming I think it should be denied for many many reasons and I think that if we want Red Bank to be a better place and people to come into Red Bank and see the beauty that this town offers that's that's an awful first look and if we want to continue to look at that it'll be to 2041 when this lease ends and somebody else could come in there and decide to do something different I don't know if I'll still be here I hope so but I don't know I have some questions on Cross examination hold on one second just um you made reference to something you're were going to introduce are you introducing something I'll give them these are copies of the lease that Al has the billboard company the 2041 I'm going to mark this and if you could give a copy to me I have a copy of it obviously I'm going to mark it hold on I'm going to mark this as O2 and you're saying to your knowledge this is a copy of a lease from bridge gas and out front yes and what's the date on it uh June 2021 okay thank you and then this is an estimate that I got to remediate the property I'd like to see a copy of get a copy so this we're gonna identify as o three and this is an estimate prepared by the slack environmental slack that was the least expensive oface so and um what's the date of this uh it's also two in 2020 there's a document here it says 2023 yeah right February 1st 2023 so we're going to mark that o 3 all right thank you and then Mr chairman if the board have any questions of Mr R or we turn it over to Mr you know I have a question for Mr R Mr can you hear me yes I can so I understand what you're saying but if it doesn't get approved the bill board's still going to say I mean it's not coming down whether they improve it or they don't so really what is the what is the difference to you because the bill board is locked in until 2041 in either case because as a rede if you're a developer and you come into that property and you want to develop that property if you wanted to buy out that billboard lease till 2041 it's a static sign it's worth X $3,000 a month I'm using a number I don't know the exact numbers times how many months are left if it changes to a a digital billboard it's it's worth much more the ad advertising revenue is much more they're going to give Bridge a gas more money if this changes to to a digital board thus if some developer wanted to come there in there and you wanted to fix that property up to buy that lease out so that you could build in front of that billboard it's going to cost you x times more already the property price is inflated because of the environmental that has to be cleaned up and etc etc so that's the reason why the you know that's the reason why the property hasn't sold you know the property's in bankruptcy because nobody wants to buy it because there's all these issues billboard the environmental and it makes it impossible to develop so you know I've been there and watching it for 36 years but in the last 10 I mean it's it's horrible that that's the entrance to our town and that's what it's going to look like in my opinion for the next 30 Years 20 years I have a few questions and and I'm not being cute when I say this and it's not intended I know that when someone's here and we're dealing with the people who come off as flip and it's not intended I'm creating a record so forgive me for the question the way it's going to be asked but you had indicated that um the billboard is all about the dollars and cents that's what I said okay your restaurant is that a non for-profit no it is not I'm sorry could you speak in no it is not so you off a restaurant for profit for the dollars and cents absolutely okay and you indicated that um the current billboard uh no one can develop it because the current billboard you can't block it but that's an existing condition provided it's there until 1940 for 41 years 2041 correct 2041 right okay and could you do a taller building if the Billboard's raised 5 feet I mean I mean you would have to get an engineer there I'm not an engineer but you can see the existing building is the corner of it is still blocking that bill but the question the question was if we raise the height of the billboard it actually makes the property more developing this is a one-story building no it doesn't I'm not talking about the building sir you came in and you're arguing that you that we're depriving the developability of the property so as a developer you could build a taller building if there's a taller billboard because the building wouldn't block it if it's taller is that yes that that is not yes a one-story building is x amount of feet you can't put a 1.2 story building but you can make a taller building you could make a taller building by some amount but it's gonna have five feet because we're increasing it and originally our plan was to make it upwards of 40 ft so had we not revised it it would have vastly improved the amount that something could be built in front of it at a 40 foot billboard if the Bottom's 40 feet could you build a bigger building there with with all du respect it's my property I've been there for almost 35 36 years you you get you get paid by a media company to get signs approved I'm here to protect the value of my property and the goodness of Red Bank I've been here for a long time more than many people in this room and I appreciate this town right and but again it's my opport it's not your opportunity to give speeches it's my opportunity to ask you questions based on the testimony that you give okay so again if we had a 40 foot tie billboard we could build a bigger building two stories possibly and you had um talked about the uh Redevelopment cost the value uh how many times you were under contract once for how many years have you've been trying to pursue this I've been under contract twice okay so you really want to own this property I've always I I want to own it just because look at it okay so are you going to develop it if you own it I don't know what I would do with it but I I would I would at least clean it up so it look you're offering testimony that the property won't be able to be developed but you're also saying you really want to buy it so my question is do you want to buy it for the purposes of developing it or to leave it vacant obviously not to leave it vacant okay so you indicated that um if they Grant this approval the value of the billboard will increase which will increase the value of the property for anyone who wants to develop it I didn't say that I said it would increase the cost of anybody that based on the value of the billboard right because the value if they wanted to block if they wanted to redevelop and block the billboard and they wanted to come in somebody wanted to build five or eight stories right they it would cost them more to to buy the billboard out their contractor lease out so that they could build something there is your objection in order to ensure that the cost to develop the property is not in freed to the point that makes it untenable for you no and untenable for anybody look at the property but again you said you lived in Mammoth County your whole life and you you love this County like look at the property I'm talking about legal and you're making an objection and you're saying there's going to be a negative impact on you so far the only negative impact that you've offered testimony to is how expensive it's going to be for you to buy out the lease not just me anybody nobody has come through to buy it to to buy this the property's been sale for seven years and it indicated that the property is um encumbered by um by contamination that needs to be remediated have you spoken to all the people who've come to develop this do you know if the reason that they didn't develop it was because of the billboard because of the contamination or some other reason or you only know your reasons I'm I'm suggesting that a property like that that has the most traffic out of any property coming into Redbank and I'm not a traffic planner but I know when we bought beer basil teas years ago the Copper Kettle McDon we were in a fight with a McDonald's that wanted to go there because it was the the the best traffic pattern in Red Bank and I know that that property if it didn't have so many issues would have been purchased by somebody because it's the it's the gateway to Red Bank again are you a real estate Dev are you a real are you I own the properties I'm trying to protect my interest and that's what I'm trying to do so but your interests are twofold because your spokesperson Mr Herman was very Mr Herman is not my spokesperson he's someone that also cares about righted back but he was very concerned about the setbacks of the sign to your property that's a obviously a concern Mr chair I'm asking questions if you could ask the W he's a witness now he doesn't get to just you you can ask her questions and you can ask make another comment when she's completed fine so uh the value of an older sign I'm sorry the impact of an older sign with multiple stanions closer to your property you believe that that has a less impact than a sign that is brand new that doesn't shed light and that is further away from your properties I'm not an expert on this I know that the stanions there and the sign there is right against my property line 0.1 inches 0.5 inches a foot I mean very close to the property line and either are an enum an encumbrance and I don't know how you would build that sign your your expert said that's okay that's so both are an incumbrance you don't have any testimony or any evidence that the new sign would be more of an impact either visually or otherwise only by only what your your experts have testif you you would put into the record that you tried to purchase the property twice why did those contracts fall through uh the last contract fell through because the in the contract was that they were gonna have the billboard move to some other part of the the town or somewhere else and if they could do that I would buy the property the first time the first time the owner of this the first time the owner of the prop property at the 10th hour decided that he wasn't that's when it was still operating as a gas station so then it indicated did you make an effort to buy out the billboard lease have I no okay so how would I make an effort if I didn't own the property no when you were under contract for the property um and you said that the you know didn't want to buy it because the billboard was there and it indicated that developers would have the option to buy out the lease Poss while it was right potentially so did you make an offer to buy out the existing lease we did meet with uh Ed McKenna my attorney and the billboard um some of the bill I think the gentleman is here today um and real estate agent Jimmy the owner of the gas station was there and we met at Ed McKenna's office and we did have discussions about the billboard and moving the billboard or no but did you make an offer to buy it I I did not make an offer to buy out the lease they in the contract they said that the billboard would be moved from the property and they could not do that within within a reasonable period of time questions I you done yes uh thank you sorry I got contentious a lot to me thank you for coming up any other comments from the public oh we got one coming up name and address please yes uh name is Bob Zuckerman uh I reside at 600 hex Street in Asbury Park s that the information and testimony you're about to provide to the extent you provide any will be the truth knowledge to help you gu yes I thank you okay please SP your last last name for the yeah sure it's zuu c k e r m n thank you yeah uh thank you uh Mr chair and and board for allowing me to uh to my public comment I'm speaking as the executive director of The Red Bank River Center um just for all uh those of you who might be newer members or what have you may not know what the River Center is we are a 501c3 nonprofit organization that manages the special improvement district for downtown Red Bank and I believe that you would agree any entity would have to be represented by Council the executive director cannot testify as the executive director he'd have to be presented through Council so if Mr zukerman wants to speak as a lay person and not on behalf of certainly he can be a member of it and he can be the executive director but he can't speak on behalf of an entity New Jersey Law requires it any witnesses that appear need to do so through an attorney and Mr zerman we we have we marked into the record uh the River Center uh communication so maybe you could just testify individually sure I can testify as as individual that would be good sure I'm happy to um so um I I do W to just uh finish what I was saying about the River Center though because I I in my in my individual capacity I serve as executive director of The River Center um we we do uh manage especially the River Center manages a special improvement district for downtown Red Bank and has since 1991 I believe when it was founded and um one of the principle functions um that we have is uh to beautify downtown Red Bank um as much as as much as possible uh We've act the River Center has spent U millions of dollarss and uh and I I appreciate I'm a big fan of River Center but there is a legal objection and we do have the memo so um we're very aware of the importance and the beneficial things that River okay so okay that's fine the River Center is that of the township yeah of the burrow so it is it is an agency of the burrow yes okay so then the board can certainly rely on that memo but I think any testimony would have to come through the river Center's attorney so I'd ask to not keep referencing what the River Center is and what it does speak I'm fine fine and he'll Express individual concerns that's that's fine I will do that um I will say that I am the immediate past president of downtown New Jersey uh downtown New Jersey is a nonprofit trade Association that represents the interests of downtowns throughout the state um and so I have a lot of experience I've run four different uh Improvement districts including this one um three others uh two others in New Jersey so I have a lot of experience in this area and um I will say that you know I believe um that you know Billboards Billboards uh in general are o blight um they are not appropriate in my opinion in a historic down Historic downtown like red Banks is um I I know that you know there are groups that have been trying to get rid of these Billboards for years um we have an ordinance Red Bank has an ordinance against any new Billboards um that we we've heard testimony about that as well um you know I believe that they're appropriate on the New Jersey Turnpike uh they're appropriate on major highways although for example the Garden State Parkway bans them um they're not appropriate in my opinion um at the uh at the uh the the the welcoming uh the the the beginning of a historic downtown the the as soon as you cross over the bridge from Middletown you're in downtown Red Bank and that is the entrance and I don't believe that they're appropriate there um Billboards in my opinion do not serve our community Well they um and the reason for that is that the overwhelming majority of ads that you'll see if this billboard gets approved are National or Regional they are not local so what you're going to see is you're going to see petmart you're not going to see fins and Feathers you're gonna see Macy's maybe but you're not going to see garmani and you're gonna see the olive Gard you're not going to see neapoli for example um that's just I I've I've seen many of these electronic Billboards I pass them on my way to work those are the types of ads that you see um another point is that we don't see these uh types of boards in other historic downtowns uh that we consider uh the premier downtowns in New Jersey such as Westfield or summon or Princeton Monclair you're not going to see these in the heart of your downtown um in New Jersey uh I I do believe that it that if this gets approved it would set a terrible precedent um because I think you then see applications for others um I believe there was testimony that uh there were other sites that already received approvals from the state um and additionally I I really believe that this is a very dangerous location despite what the do may have said um or or allowed via permit I believe that this location is dangerous um you have cars coming off the bridge going in different directions um and it just seems common sense to me that this type of billboard with changing changing messages on a regular basis that's lit up will be a distraction uh so as a driver I think it's it's a bad idea so um for those reasons and uh you have my letter it's supp part of the record from the from the River Center um I I would strongly oppose uh this application thank great thank you Mr Z thank you're welcome a question sure um did you say that there are the state is approved uh static billboard confus said they'd allow static Billboards other static Billboards in Red Bank converted to electronic I'm sorry can you repeat that said something about the state has approved other Bill electronic are those in Red Bank yeah that's what I that's my understanding from earlier earlier testimony over a year ago uh my recollection yeah thank you thank you Mr I have a few questions Mr um you indicated that in your opinion Billboards equal blight no I never said Ed the word blight I don't want to have to read back the record but you did use the term okay maybe I did and we're talking about up grading one existing billboard and six in Red Bank would be removed as a result right so if you're looking to reduce blight from a quantity standpoint would you agree that seven Billboards that are existing today will turn into one so that's actually reducing the blight that you're concerned about well actually I wouldn't agree with that because this one in my opinion is so heinous that it overrules the having six other building and you said that uh Billboards are appropriate on major highways I know that Red Bank calls this Riverside but it's actually a state highway Route 35 that's governed by the do correct I believe that's correct yeah so it is a major State Highway and you had indicated that in your expertise having driven up and down the roadways you know exactly who would or wouldn't uh wouldn't advertise here so right does that mean you've spent 20 24 hours sitting watching the change every eight seconds and you know who the not 24 hours but a few hours okay and were you here for the testimony with regard to the percentage of local businesses yes and in fact I'm glad you brought that up uh Miss grimco because of the 32 businesses that you presented as um uh advertising on your Billboards um I counted 11 of the 32 are businesses in Redbank uh six within our special Improv District um as far as local independent businesses we didn't offer any testimonies to local independent I am but I'm saying that's what I'm concerned about right so I'm concerned about local independent businesses having the right having the opportunity to be to to advertise on these I counted three perfect and do you think that perhaps the the the cost would be prohibitive for these local businesses based on the static billboard and the testimony by John Anto I think the costs will probably be prohibitive on either the static Billboards or the electronic Billboards again it was there was testimony from the person operating the Billboards as to the differenti and cost for the 8 seconds and there was testimony that indicated it opens up the opportunity for smaller businesses to get a slice of the pie as opposed to having the entire pie and I'm telling you that in my opinion I have viewed these Billboards including the one right across from Wegman's on route 35 that I take when I when I travel home and I don't see a lot of local independent businesses advertising that yeah is that an out front billboard I believe it is that's the only questions I have for Mr zerman thank thank you thanks all right Jay Herman previously sworn still under Earth so before I testify um I want to take just a minute to explain uh my role in Red Bank uh some of you know me well and others don't know me at all um I've been investing in commercial properties in Red Bank for 35 years um I own several build on Broad Street I've been a resident of Red Bank for 30 years and for that entire time I have been focused on making Red Bank the best it can be uh making it as beautiful as it can be and um I've been on the visual Improvement Committee of River Center I was one of the founders of River Center I've been on the executive committee on the board uh for as long as it's existed since 1990 and um it's fair to say that I have my passport checked when I leave town um I love Red Bank and I love the Improvement in Red Bank that's gone on since uh since I'm here not suggesting that I'm responsible for all of it there are many people who are but um uh I I love Red Bank I think that um I'm going to give you 10 good reasons any one of which is sufficient in my opinion to deny this application uh it starts with The credibility of the applicant um at the very first meeting in January a year ago um the applicant testified uh Mr John antel who was the general manager at the time maybe still is uh testified about a bunch of things and uh Mr Vincent light who I'm happy is still on the board asked the best question that night and that was have you asked the state for permission to do any other conversions from static uh um Billboards to electronic at which time the applicant uh Mr antel admitted that there were three others U that they sought to convert I don't know if that's changed since then but it's pretty clear to me that if outfront gets this application approved that they will try to get every static billboard in Red Bank approved uh Mr R was right the value Soares when you go from static to electronic and it means that any that are converted will never disappear uh by way of background when I got to town there were about 30 Billboards in town um the first buildings that I developed I converted the old learner shop property and the old McDonald's restaurant yes with the golden arches on uh Broad Street 35 years ago and the very first thing I did was voluntarily remove three big Billboards on the roof uh I felt it was inconsistent with what I wanted to develop and inconsistent with what Red Bank wanted to be um during those 35 years we've gone from about 30 Billboards to about 20 um all or most of them are own by out from um in addition um uh Miss kmco um uh agreed after the first hearing to provide me with a description of where those other uh billboard conversions were approved and to date I'm still waiting for that I've never gotten it um when uh the the application was first um uh open in January of last year uh the applicant said that the rear setback would be six feet and now of course we learn it'll be six inches um so that wasn't right but the biggest deception um posed by the applicant is what the state of New Jersey actually approved and did not approve um uh outfront filled out an application to the dot paid $70 and asked the do to approve uh the conversion of this static billboard to an electronic one um Mr antel said that in doing so uh the state agreed that it was safe at this location and it was not a distraction to road traffic Gregory harbach is the man who signed their approval and uh I called Gregory arbac and talk to him mon later have to object to any testimony he going to offer a conversation that he had with someone at the do he has that person here as a witness I'm happy to hear the testimony but absolutely inappropriate and he said this is not a court of law this is a quazi Judicial body you have great flexibility uh to um entertain uh statements like this but Mr harbach said they had nothing to do let me approving let me just sayate formal Rules of Evidence don't don't apply but they do within reason uh so um we'll note Miss crico's uh objection for the record but we can't go too into detail but just be very brief so you're gonna just to clarify my objections you're going to allow to offer testimony without it being verified I'm going to let them hear what he has to say and then but your objections noted for the record grico with all due respect all of your Witnesses offered things that were inair all du respect please continue your testimony you're Miss so um what I learned from that conversation is that the state does not get involved with the safety of the electronic Billboards whatsoever and what Mr harbach said is for $170 application fee we can't send a team out and study the intersection we we don't we don't get involved with how many roads there are how much traffic there is and I think that was very deceptive uh right from the outset and said a bad uh policy I think many of you maybe were assuming that the state approves the traffic safety and they don't get involved in um what the state does is they determine the size and dimensions and the spacing from other signs distance of the billboard from the street and of course they require the town's approval before it's effective they have nothing to do with traffic safety um uh the Billboards are not permitted uses um Miss grimco uh offered an argument earlier tonight about 8 and section 10 and where it's uh prohibited and where it's not the bottom line is that it is very clear that the Burrows ordinances do not permit Billboards um of any kind and um variances are needed for a d variance for the electronics for the proximity to uh adjoining properties for the sign um in Red Bank uh even small internally lit signs on some bills are prohibited this huge sign couldn't exist on any billboard in Red Bank why would the burrow permit it to be uh on a lot for the benefit of businesses based out of the burrow with a size that dwarfs all of our permitted signs imagine if ganis came to you and said we want assign the size of this billboard on the front of our store or um Starbucks or any of the merchants in the downtown you'd laugh them out of the room you'd say this is ludicrous uh so to authorize it for advertisements um for largely outof Town customers of theirs um which Mr zukeran spoke to a b um is is inappropriate in my opinion uh third um Miss kmco has mentioned at numerous meetings that the billboard is being modernized um and it's being amended and with all due respect to miss grimco she's a good attorney and I don't blame her for advocating that but in my opinion that's absurd um the um the proposal to remove the existing billboard and replace it with a structure that is dramatically different in every way including the structural support the size the addition of electronics the messages for multiple advertisers changing every eight seconds or so um for all of those reasons uh this is not a modernization this is a removal of an existing billboard and a replacement with a new one um I'd like to site from New Jersey Administrative Code uh in section 16 41 c-101 it says an existing nonconforming sign May remain at its permitted location provided that it meets the following conditions among those conditions that it must meet is the support structure the sign faces the lighting the location of the sign are exactly the same as they were on the effective date of the adoption revision or Amendment of the ordinance statute or regul that rendered the sign nonconforming this this sign I'm reading from the New Jersey administrative I understand that but as you know as an attorney the New Jersey Administrative Code has broken down into a bunch of different sections what is this section regulating what's the heading it's under it's section I don't know um because it's it obviously is being New Jersey ad I'll I'll answer your question New Jersey Administrative Code section 16 colon 41c -10.1 General provisions and right but Kevin do you understand what my question is I don't know what general Provisions I don't know if it applies to stop signs I don't know if it we'll ask do do you know and if you don't know we'll state that you'll know in a second when read the rest of it um so all of those things that are conditions to approving uh this are are not um are not satisfied in section subsection D it says the Improvement of a non-conforming sign including but not limited to the following is prohibited one a change in the physical location of the sign two the increase of the height of the sign support structure three the change of the type of materials of the sign support structure such as but not limited to a change from wood to steel or a change from Lumber to Wood pilings a change from steel I beams monopo four the removal and re-erection of the sign support structure five the change in the number alignment configuration elevation or size of the signs six conversion of a static sign to an off- premise multiple message sign so that answers Miss crico's question this is about uh all kinds of signs including but not limited to static and electronic build actually though um uh you just make a point yes after I'm finished you know let me just I ask the attorney not if we just uh may just let her make a point of order yes I believe what he's reading from are the state regulations as to Billboards not as applicable to land use or Municipal land use I think what he's failing to reach you is the provision that allows permits to be grandfather and which allows these conversions which is why the permit was issued basically so again I would just offer that this is being read in a vacuum without any context as to what it's regulating and why and whether so if I'm not mistaken these are the uh State codes regulating Billboards correct and obtaining billboard permits so we we'll sub note that and um he'll continue and yeah and and and for the record I disagree with bus grimco uh Miss grco just said and number seven the just speak even a little closer into the mic please Sor right the addition of lighting to a sign whose approved application does not include lighting so there are seven good reasons that the state says this shouldn't happen um beyond that the Red Bank in the Red Bank Planning and Development regulations uh in section 490-1049 and I think the Mr Mass referred to this before um billboards as defined in 49-6 of this chapter shall not be permitted within the burrow Billboards existing prior to adoption of this section uh may not be enlarged removed from their Foundation support uh footings the um the intersection um the in uh the New Jersey do did a safety study for the period of 2018 through 20120 uh of the most dangerous intersections in Red Bank uh this particular intersection finish third on the list um Mr Kennedy I'm sorry I have to object again he's put facts into evidence without any substantiation so if there's a study and he's required to provide me a copy of this study and we need to verify who performed the study that's ridiculous basis of it was I'm I'm testifying that the New Jersey DOT did the study and if you can find evidence that I'm wrong that's fine but they did Mr K I couldn't possibly find evidence one way or another since he's just offering it as a net opinion without any reference to any document well councelor heck do you didn't put on a traffic safety uh in engineering right you came in and there was testimony that you got a permit and then we didn't hear any other testimony about whether or not that intersection was safe or not correct but you did hear testimony from my witness who indicated that we went through Point by Point what the same statute that U Mr Herman was reading from requires before permit is issued and that the permit issuance is the facto acceptance that these are address yes so so your position is the fact that you got a permit therefore means that that intersection is safe to put up a billboard that changes every G seconds yes because we meet the requirements by the do and as a result of Meeting those requirements uh they have the um they have the jurisdiction over this issue and it supersedes the municipal level so yes and what which expert was that that I didn't say was an expert I said there was testimony and by Mr onto that was from Outback media excuse me offering that we got the permit I read from the actual statute he's the general manager he's not an expert I didn't offer him as an expert well just continue this is public comment I think Mr he's making some public comments so go ahead and it's my opinion and I don't know how we can object to my opinion but um that's fine um in my opinion if this electronic billboard is it will serve to distract motorists and make the intersection even more dangerous according to the dot this was 5 years ago 1,000 cars per hour pass through this intersection at peak hours um it's probably more by now with all the development going on around us um the um Red Bank master plan uh the, cars an hour passing through a peak hours um and uh the master plan says this is an unslightly entryway into Red Bank that does a poor job of introducing visitors to the burrow according to the new Master Plan um the master plan also says the particular geometry of these intersections are a factor so um next um the setbacks from adjacent properties um I was interested in what the expert uh testimony was as to how close the sign is to Mr uh R's property um they tried to lead you to believe that they're putting it several feet further away from him but that's only the front of the sign board it's not the structure the structure is indeed 6 in from his property um there's a requirement in burrow to have a 10- foot setback from any structure in this area and to approve one at six Ines is ridiculous um the um uh in my opinion uh and I've been involved in buying and selling real estate for 50 years uh the adjacent property not only Mr R's but the home just pass that uh will certainly be reduced in value dramatically and as Mr R said it's one thing to get rid of a static billboard it's going to cost someone X to do it's going to cost multiples of x to get rid of an electronic billboard so if this billboard got approved it would be there forever um the Mr all mentioned the ground pollution of the lot at at the present time it's polluted with oil and gas found beneath the surface the construction of the new electronic billboard might risk spreading that ground pollution um because I don't think that outfront is planning on cleaning up the pollution before they build the structure um the uh existing billboard lease Mr R gave all of you copies of it um I also have a copy of it and I'd like to read some small excerpts um but Mr R made a mistake he said that the lease uh is good for another 21 years it has multiple five year options after that so it's good Forever This lease um if you allow it to happen uh the lease premises consists of an area and I'm reading from the lease now uh the l or hereby Le you know just for the record if you could is there could you identify the section I can yes just say that if you don't in in number one on the first page the first line says or here by leases and grants exclusively to lesie exclusive use of the lease premises here it after defined consisting of a portion of the property with free access over and above across the same that free access is important Miss gemco talked before about building a taller building and or taller building someone build the a building under it you can't you can't for several reasons and I'll read the rest of it in item two it says the lease premises will consist of the area where the supporting structure of the sign structure is a fixed to the property the surrounding area and the airspace above the same particularly described in exhibit a attached here to and made a part hereof so the lease premises is more than just the billboard is number three the first line says less or gr celesi and or its agents the right to vehicular and pedestrian Ingress and ESS to and from the sign structure over and across the property it goes on to say the placement of incidental and ancillary equipment thereon relocating the sign structure to lawful s satisfactory to Le e unless or property um then in on the next page number 10 it says if that lesie is unable to secure or maintain any required permit or license from any appropriate governmental Authority um I'll skip a little um it says that lease premises becomes in uh oh if the Lessie sign structure of lease premises becomes entirely or partially obstructed or destroyed the le e front can terminate the lease so that says to me that if a motorist or pedestrian can't see the sign no matter where they are then the deal's off and they can terminate lease I submit you can't build a one family story if in Miss crico's case I forget the number she put but if it was mounted 100 feet off the ground you can't put a building under because you'll um prevent pedestrians from seeing the sign as they walk by the property um lastly number 13 that question do you have a number of things we need to take a little break if that's okay for you so be so I would ask just to finish with the lease I have one more passage and then I'll finish the rest you're break in number 13 on page two uh the last half of it says it is the understanding of the parties that's out front and the owner of the property that visibility of the sign structure to the traveling public is the essence of this lease less or shall not cause nor permit Les e sign structure to be obstructed from visibility to the traveling po l or grants lesie the rights to trim cut or remove brush trees shrubs or any vegetation or remove any obstructions of any kind on the property think about that that means you can't build a building the the owner of the property can't build a he can't put trees or shrubs he virtually can't clean up the property he of course expressed no intent to clean up the property nor has out front so if this gets approved that electronic sign is going to be there for the rest of all of our Lives um and um the lease also I won't read you the numbers I think you have it from what Mr R gave you but the lease goes up exponentially if the U approval for the electronic billboard uh is obtained over the lease they're paying now for the static billboard so that's all I have on the lease I do have a little bit more what if you want to take a break yeah we just take a break and get your thoughts together five minutes thank you very much just for the record uh no board members no comments on the application just that's given our quasi judicial major I can't what you Mr Herman roll call oh roll call and Tor here Raymond MK here Hogan hereo here Shar Lee here Vincent light here Paul Kel here Cruz here Eugene here CH here okay Mr Herman continue so I was actually almost done so that's the good news um it is my opinion if you haven't gather that that electronic Billboards are unsightly and will impair the appearance of Redbank at the most used entrance to our town I think that would be extremely regrettable um the there was testimony by the applicant some hearings ago uh about a public benefit um if there is a public benefit it's the Minimus it's not something that would justify you breaking your rules accordingly it is my opinion that the variances requested by the applicant cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zoning plan and zoning ordinance um and I strongly urge you to uh turn this applicant down um I I do think that if this is approved um we will have 20 of them in short order because uh if you allow it at this dangerous intersection where a new message every eight seconds or so is going to cause more accidents not less um it's going to be unsightly I think Red Bank will be the laughing stock of the area for having permitted this so I um love redb bank I love investing in Red Bank I want to continue doing that and I hope um all of you will do the right thing thanks for listening thank you I have a few questions if I oh sure and forgive me for looking at my phone and I shared it with EV via text just so it was clear um I didn't get the text I did it was sent so got it I want to clarify that the section that Mr Herman was reading from while he failed to provide me with a copy so I didn't have the opportunity cross examin him at the time is of New Jersey Administrative Code under sub chapter 10 nonconforming signs and I just want to put on the record that this sign is fully conforming which is why the do to the do zoning is separate but the state issued the license because this is inapplicable so while I understand that some of the language mirrors Municipal anus law Mr Herman felt it would be a good argument uh are you aware or did you just choose not to tell us that this is under non-conforming signs uh I think it includes uh Billboards it includes other kinds of signs it does and again I'll read it but I would ask you where in the ordinance you don't get to ask in this sure sure I do sure I do say this is permitted we're going to come back and let her ask her question and then when she's done you can continue just have an order to coms to the board but again a witness doesn't have the right to ask the attorney cross-examining any questions I can agree with that Mr you did you want to continue with I do so again we do concede that this does regulate uh outdoor advertising which are Billboards and what we're indicating is is that it's in a section as to non-conforming signs if this sign were non-conforming under the state regulations not the municipal regulations we would not have gotten the permit to do what we did so I think it was a misrepresentation by Mr Herman to indicate that this applied without sharing with you what section it was under and what it's applicable to uh additionally uh Mr Herman you'd indicated that uh my clients uh can can I speak to what you just said no but momentarily I'm sorry momentarily you're gonna be committed an opportunity to to make another comment all right you had indicated um that my client was deceptive and said that the sign was 6 feet and not six in do you recall that the question was with regard to where the sign face was as was uh test I did question I did not recall so again the same question that was asked of the um witness tonight there was a distinction between the six inches for the sign hole and the six feet for the back of the sign face so I'd asked the board that they can certainly review the transcripts but that was a misrepresentation and did you get notice were you given notice of of this application uh I don't think so did you review it did I review yeah did you did you review the application did you review the plans uh yeah I did two years ago when you made the application on those plans and I'll stipulate the site the rear set back to the South is listed expressly on your plan on the plan submitted every single time we came as 05 so there was never a representation that this was being six feet away from the property um you indicated that the town wouldn't approve garmani a sign of this size my question is does garmani currently have a sign bigger than this size existing no any of the other local businesses that you indicated that they wouldn't Grant do any of them have a pre-existing non-conforming size sign of that size I'm unaware of that and um lastly you had indicated that based on a conversation with an individual who you know I I can't speak to or not speak to but there's uh an entire section in the uh code and I'm going to read it into the record because regardless of what a a representative may have said to Mr Herman there are state regulations which govern when these permits are issued so the fact that the permit was issued indicates that we meet these regulations and what they say is uh I'm sorry and can you just give me that site J sure it's and I think I gave it to at one of the other hearings as well 16 41 c-41 General 16 col 41- C no 16 colon 41c d4.1 got it General restrictions to Billboards and I'll tell you it's under the section regulating Billboards the same section of the stat of the code that Mr Herman quoted for non-conform a signs which contain include or illuminated by any flashing intermittent scrolling or moving light or light shall be prohibited except those giving time date end or temperature and again I'm not offering the testimony but that would be the kind of thing that you see in front of the school where it Scrolls in front of you uh C is with regard to public policy I mean b uh C is talking about in the not being allowed in the right of way D and this is part part of the proofs required to get the permit no sign shall interfere with the ability of the operator of a motor vehicle to have a clear and unobstructed view of streets or highways ahead of approaching merging or intersecting traffic or official signs signals or traffic control devices and E says that no sign shall interfere with or contain advertisements that resemble any traffic signal or device uh G no sign shall be of any type size or character placed at a location that will endanger injure Public Safety or health or pose physical threat to properties in the vicinity thereof so again I understand what what the hear say that that Mr Herman is attempting to put in but the regulations speak for themselves as to what you need to do in order to qualify for would you like to tell us what section of red bank's ordinance permits these signs uh actually they don't permit these signs which is why we're which is why we came here so again we recognize that Billboards as a permitted principal use are not permitted but what you're quoting is the state regulations and the safety is the jurisdiction of the state do so again you're mixing apples and oranges zoning and traffic safety are two different things so again my my last question well two two last questions that I have for you it indicated that this sign will be here forever and indicated that well Mr R indicated that there were 20 years on the least there were some uh fiveyear extensions are those five years extensions uh to Infinity uh it was actually pretty vague in in your lease you offered testimony that it was going to be here forever does the lease say that it will be renewed infinitely the same way that leases and Ocean Grove are done I didn't see that but it could be could be interpreted that way the the lease is a little bit vague and speaking of the lease and Lease interpretation um your interpretation of the lease is that the billboard company is trying to protect the view of the stanions from the public for the public that theion that talks if I may that the provision that speaks about the ability to see the sign uh is referencing the stanion not the actual message which is what is she indicated is I think Mr R indicated was the dollar and and sense so the intent of the is to make sure that the entirety of the poll can be seen by the general public everywhere is that your interpretation uh I don't have an interpretation of that it makes it clear it makes it clear that you can't block any part of the sign so again you did offer your interpretation that based on this lease in the language that you read that meant that nothing can be constructed in front of the sign structure so is it your interpretation that a building could not be constructed and block the sign post or is it your more reasonable interpretation that it can't block the sign face um I didn't make an interpretation like that however I don't know how you put a building in front of it no matter the height pedestrian doesn't have a blocked view so I I think you fa I think you can't build anything in front of it you can't even put shrubs in front of it and respectfully that's to to quote you with all due respect that's not what the Le says um I disagree I I know a lot about L I disagree okay are you are you done Herman or I am finished yes thank you for listening thank you for coming forward do we have any other comments from the public on up hello good evening uh if you could just state your name and address and we'll swear you in my name is Thomas Wilson my address is 7 conon overlaying Middletown with which is the first house over the bridge when you leave redb all right thank you do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide to the extension providing will be the truth to the best of your knowledge to help you God yes sir that's thank you first thing I like to point out and help the uh board understand something is um when it comes to the U shall we say the volume of the cars that go by there you everyone's heard this thousand cars an hour that's probably true but I was privy to uh all the planning when they put the new Cooper bridge in and their estimations back then was in 1999 mind you for at least 10,000 cars a day 10,000 trips and their projection into the future which stopped around I can't remember the exact date somewhere around 2020 2022 which is come and gone it was double now as an aside I've been where I'm at for the last 46 years and I dare say for the most part I go over the bridge all the time at least once a day so to say that I've gone over this bridge at least 14,000 times 14,000 and I checked my numbers because I thought that was like way out of line but it's not I have a real good idea of what's going on over there when we talk about traffic as an aside one of the things that really got my questioning up is you know they're sitting here telling you folks they're going to take seven signs down and put one in you know they're not altruistic people they're here to make a profit too nothing wrong with making a profit but your first question should be why are they willing to take down seven signs for one sign and the answer is obvious they can grab more people's attention and they're going to grab people's attention every eight seconds one two 3 four five six seven eight the thing changes okay now I'm sure all of you have gone over the bridge before and come into Middletown uh from Middletown into bank and you have to make that leftand turn I want you to do it again before you take a vote and be in that be in that uh because it goes there's the it's three it's three lanes there where you can make the rake go down Rector Place go straight go down uh Bridge Avenue or make the left and do Riverside Drive which is Highway 35 if you're in that middle reain where you can go straight or make the left if you go to make take the left you're taking your life in your hands that's a 45 degree leftand turn now when you're making that 45 degree leftand turn do you know what's in front of you a whole mess of poles you got a traffic light pole you have a pedestrian pole you have a telephone pole then if when you make the left you go another 100 ft or so you got another pole that has to be mere inches or the highway now if they're s they're there to grab your attention you know let's be honest about it they're there to grab as much attention as they can get that's why they're giving up seven signs for one now if they're grabbing someone's attention and you're trying to make a 45 degree angle I don't want to be there I hate to tell you how many times I got my butt run off the road there I hate to tell you how many traffic accidents I've seen there it's it's mindboggling and Mr Herman was talking to you about you know what he saw or what he about what they got from the state okay for uh traffic study I happen to agree with him I've been an attorney for 46 years I kind of interpret it the way he did there's no traffic study here and that's another thing that should raise a question in your mind they brought all these bells and whistles here one Bell one whistle they didn't bring in was a traffic study Guy saying hey this is great this is fine if I'm not mistaken never mind what the state did in the last few years I think red bank's uh master plan they acknowledge the fact that this particular intersection is horrible it's literally act you know it's accidents waiting to happen you know I'm going to quote the great philosopher Groucho Marx and Groucho said who you supposed to believe this or Your Lying Eyes that's what I'm saying to you folks go over the bridge again but get in that Middle Lane to make the left you got to watch yourself if you don't watch yourself you're going to have a traffic accident you put this sign in and I'm telling you right now you put the sign in bluntly put you're going to have blood on your hands I've seen too many accidents there with the single sign there and which by the way the single sign is fine there's really nothing wrong with it it's there but for profit yes that's what they want to do if you want to put the general public at risk for profit there's something wrong somewhere because there is no way on God's green earth that that's going to be safe there you know it I know it all this is here is trying to get around it so before you do anything think about if you're going over that bridge your fam's going over it coming back into town you're a Sitting Duck you're a Target there's just no way around it any questions I do just and I know the answer to it but well then don't ask it well of course I have to ask it because I'm because I'm building a record build a record okay are you a traffic engineer no but I have two eyes and I traveled it okay 14,000 times your test asking if you're a traffic engine no but I have common sense and do you have any evidence to indicate that a digital sign is less safe than a static sign other than your common sense well common sense says when you change a sign seven times in a minute you're there to get the people's attention again who we supposed to believe what you're telling us your own Lying Eyes again I'm just asking you if you have any evidence contrary to the fact that the do Fields eight seconds makes it safe you have evidence that indicates that complying with the DOT regulations would be less safe than the static side other than your common sense or your two eyes well my for my my experience of like I said literally 14,000 times over my lifetime going over that bridge I'm not suggesting that the bridge doesn't have traffic issues I'm limit I'm not and I'm not dis well if it has traffic issues why don't you address it no why don't you address you started it I I appreciate what you're saying and what you're saying is very important but we do sort of have to act in a quasi judicial capacity and if there is any appeal whether the application is approved and what someone wants to sue if it's denied someone wants to sue a judge he or she is going to want to make sure that we at least complied with the right process so I would respectfully and I appreciate your passion and I think everyone in the room does but why don't you let um Miss kmco ask you some questions and you can answer them and then if you have more statements to make we'll do that I appreciate that thank you okay so again it was just very simply I I'm not arguing or or making any opinion as to the safety of the existing roadway I'm just asking if you have any evidence that a digital sign is less safe to the traveling public than a static billb from my experiences yes thank you about it thank you have a nice day we appreciate your coming forward anybody else in the public have a comment okay we'll close the public portion miss kmco you want to go through your I would thank you get the right one though I don't want to with me Mr chair there were a lot of papers that were thrown around and I expected more people to have comments I thought I had a little bit more time apologies no problem so as you know the African is seeking to modernize a legally pre-existing non-conforming static billboard sign the existing message face is 480 square feet the overall structure is 22 feet high as was testified by the applicant and various experts there is no way to convert a static sign to a digital sign without replacing the structure in its entirety through this application we seek to modernize the existing sign by replacing it with a less obtrusive structure which is in the same location on the property the sign face will be reduced by 100 square feet or 20.8% the number of columns supporting the sign will be I'm sorry just say again it was going to be reduced by 100 square feet or 20.8% thank you and we're going to have transcripts for this Kevin thank you um notably and the number of columns six supporting the sign will be eliminated down to one single column throughout the hearings leading up to tonight in addition to reducing the sign structure the sign face and the face over what it was proposed we've offered several other conditions voluntarily which will reduce the impact of the sign and make the proposed sign a far better zoning alternative than the existing sign we've offered to implement narrow view technology which will limit the sign view area or the angle from which the sign can be seen so it's going to be able to be visible from Less locations we're removing legally existing outfront Billboards from two locations in Red Bank which means we're eliminating six billboard faces so we're reducing the non-conforming signs by six they can never be replaced on un likee the current sign which is visible 247 we agreed to limit the use from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. this means the digital message will be turned off in overnight hours there'll be no light at all where the current billboard sign is lit overnight most importantly as you know we've presented evidence that the bureau currently uses the proposed property to put their own signs up um and we're guaranteeing the burrow use of the sign for non-emergency Municipal message messages uh 125% of the operating time equals 2 hours of the 16-hour day will be devoted to free use by the buau for Community messaging in addition to that and as we had indicated before it's unlimited for emergency messaging from various agencies there's been a lot of discussion about what type of relief is needed us owning officer and the initial determination indicated that the sign modernization qualified under the modernization doctrine and we just needed C variance relief relative to the setback again the the current setback for the six poles is 0.1 feet one single pole a half a foot away where and according to her conclusion 10 feet is required for signs the board Engineers concluded that a billboard is a non-permitted structure structure and a non-permitted use and that a D1 variance is required based on the language that uh I'm going to get into that prohibits billboard signs so as I indicated during the cqu with Mr Mass I do agree that it's a non-permitted use but for different reasons and I'm going to go through it again because rather than a conversation I want to do it a little more organized article 10 of your development regulations is entitled zoning and it regulates what uses are and are not permitted in the VAR zones Billboards are only mentioned in article 8 of your ordinance which is entitled design standards and Improvement specifications specifically section 490-1049 defined in the zoning ordinance are not permitted it doesn't say what uses are or not permitted in the various zones it doesn't say what uses are or not permitted anywhere in the burrow what it says is a sign that qualifies as a billboard sign is not a permitted sign under their design standards so we look at your ordinance and it defines a billboard as a structure advertising an establishment an activity a product a service an entertainment which is an area equal to or greater than 200 square F feet by definition any freestanding sign in the burrow whether on on any commercial property would be a billboard if it was 200 If the message was 200 square feet regardless of the content of what the sign message says so by your own ordinance which is I expressed at the beginning of the hearing is very different than that of most post ordinances and the definition of a billboard within the state regulations the only distinction between a billboard and any other sign is how big the sign face is if I have a sign that's 199 square feet it's not a bill it's only when it hits 200 ft that it's a billboard since our existing and proposed signs exceed 200 square feet we can see that by definition they are a billboard in your ordinance and therefore they don't comply with the design standards applicable to signs that doesn't mean that uh but that that means that it is not a permitted sign structure based on the design standards for signs if the burrow intends and I believe that they may have intended but the way the ordinance is written the uh in the ordin if they intended for it to prohibit the use in any of the zones then that prohibition would have to have been in the zoning section of the ordinance on under the permitted and prohibited uses not within designed standards regulating summs article 8 cannot and does not regulate use and in any non-conformity with regard to that provision would require a design waiver pursuant to 40 colon 55 d-51 not a use variance so next you have to analyze okay then what uses are permitted within the BR Zone br1 Zone where this property where this is located and we need to analyze what what is the use of a sign as compared to its structure which is how it's defined by its structure and whether or not that use is a permitted use as opposed to a design standard as defined by the state and as heard by the testimony today the distinct the purpose of a sign any sign at all is to convey or important information to the public it's visual advertising so the use of any sign or the intent of any sign is to convey a message most signs in the bur are advertising or displaying information related to the principal user structure on that property that's why for every commercial property in the burrow you see a sign advertising as to the use or the building there such as garmani or uh any of the other uses Mr R's restaurant they all have identification signs advertising here's what's here come and take a look at it there for most of the signs are incidental or accessory to the principle use which is defined as incidental to that of a main use are building on the same lot in article 10 which regulates use are permitted accessory uses in the br1 district so if this signs message related to a use on the property it would be a permitted use however our sign is not and has not ever been accessory or incidental to the main use on the property so by definition both under the municipal and ucar ordinance it is a principal use since signs are not a permitted principal use in this District we agree with the engineer and the planner that the existing and proposed signs are not a permitted use not because it's a billboard by definition under your ordinance but rather because we're proposing it as a principle use as opposed to an accessory use therefore we concede and we agree and proferred throughout this entire hearing that our existing sign is a legally pre-existing non-conforming principle use since its message is not accessory to the principal use or structure on the property this is distinct from being a non-conforming structure which is defined solely by its size so first and foremost as was offered uncontroverted testimony the only way to convert a static sign to upgrade it to a um digital sign is to uh is to change out the structure Al together the case law is clear there's no abandonment of the use which is typically the test because you want to improve or upgrade or bring in Greater technology for a non-conforming use modernizing this sign from static to digital does not divest the applicant of its well settled rights to continue a legally pre-existing non-conforming use in order to lose those vested rights there has to be a demonstration of an intent to abandon the use either by action or inaction neither one occurred here the applicant has maintained this non-conforming use for more than 60 years we have uh consistently obtained new permits uh consistently extended the permits for the use and made the application to upgrade it from static to digital and we filed this application to the burough seeking to upgrade it by every objective and a subjected test the applicant has demonstrated a strong intent to maintain its rights to the non-permitted sign as a principal use you've also heard from our planner that New Jersey courts have and we put in our brief with which the board could review the casa have clearly authorized that such modernization of a non-permitted use and a non-permitted structure is permitted even if it includes replacement without the need for a d variance the right to maintain this principal sign use are intact even if the structure which hosts the use needs to be replace based on this it is the applicant's unequivocal position1 variance is not required as we are merely upgrading it which requires replacement the next uh item that you'd look at then will is a D2 variants required are we expanding a non-conforming use and I think the evidence is clear we're not expanding the non-conforming use at all again you have to distinguish between the use which is a message which is advertising for something offsite as opposed to the structure that's housing it in every level we are reducing the intensity we're reducing the sign message the size of it by 20% or 100 square feet rather than being visible 24 hours a day we're reducing it by eight hours a day there's no question that by making the use not visible for eight hours of the day when reducing the intensity we're agreeing to implement narrow view technology to reduce the viewing area the message less people will be able to view this sign from various locations throughout the burrow and more sign I me the message and then lastly while it's not uh a reduction on this particular property we're proposing to eliminate six other non-conforming similar uses off site within the burrow as it relates to the use it will be smaller less visible seen eight hours less a day on our property this represents a reduction in the intensity the use and couldn't be considered an expansion of the use uh under njsa 40 55d 70 D2 now we have to look at the structure itself which is the stanions that are holding this sign message we can see and we have from the beginning we are increasing the height we're going from 22 feet tall to 27 feet tall importantly this is a principal use as was indicated in Mr Herman's letter and the height permitted for principal use is 40 feet so we are conforming as it relates to the height allowed for principal use in town but your ordinance also says that non-conforming structures can't be enlarged or increased that's subsection 25 we conc it's non-conforming uh as it relates to its setback so we do need a a bulk variance for the setback as was concluded by your um by your planner was we are essentially increasing the size of the structure that's not allowed for non-conforming structure so we need the variance to keep it in the same location ultimately this board is going to determine what relief is required so as you know to cover all of our bases theend where you fall on the various interpretations and I think that that simply put uh Kevin I I think the the various interpretations are as simple as is site plan needed C variances needed is it a D1 or is it a D2 those are really the fundamental questions no matter where you fall on those we offered expert testimony that was uncontroverted by any other expert uh extra planning testimony in support of all three of the variants should you decide that all of them or any of them are required in each instance we demonstrated the positive criteria the site is clearly particularly suited for the use it's been there for more than 60 years we further multiple Pur purposes of the municipal lus LA and provide a significant public benefit free emergency and burrow advertising on a lot that the burrow already uses for advertising our proposal is consistent with your master plan by reducing the non-conforming in six non-performing Billboards elsewhere in the burrow which is a public benefit burrow wide and by reducing the sign face and the proposed sign and the limiting the hours in which it could be viewed is reducing the non-conforming use which therefore is additionally consistent most importantly there was a lot of talk about detriment and from the neighbors who own the property nearest who are related to the sepac there was no Det offered based on the location of the sign or even the height of the sign the only detriment that was offered was that it would be more expensive for developer to somay buy this property to buy out the lease which would uh affect its ability to be developed however I noticed that um I I don't know that there has been an offer on the property to buy out the lease either with the billboard or without so in like of the fact that we are reducing the sign face reducing the viewing area reducing the hours per day that it's going to be visible moving it further away from the property line albeit negligibly but certainly further away moving it further away from the West property line I haven't heard a detriment that has been substantiated other than personal opinions and certainly as you know the grants of any variant always carries a detriment with it but the question is is the detriment so substantial and is that substantial detriment supported by testimony to the extent that it outweighs any of the positives based on all of the extensive expert presented we're seeking the interpretation that only a c variance is required and uh that we're exempt from cite planine approval however in the alternative if you deem that a D1 or D2 variance is required we SU seek approval based on the testimony pre presented and following the r in theel Vision on the Lamar case which I submitted to the board which outright and blatantly held that a board cannot deny the replacement of a static sign with a billboard sign concluding that because it's I'm sorry with a digital sign based on the conclusion that a digital has more negative impacts in that particular case that's exactly what that board did and the Appel division reversed it saying that there's no evidence that there's any more negative impact to a digital sign than there would be from the uh static sign so I I understand that you might not like digital signs and I understand that you may not think it's going to be attractive or it's going to be less attractive but when you took your oath of office you swore uphold the laws of the state of New Jersey which includes following the municipal anus law and following the case law interpreting and every case that has been presented to you and there hasn't been a case that says otherwise has indicated that a the M replacement of a digital sign with a I'm sorry the M replacement of a static sign with a digital sign is not a basis enough to claim that there's a negative effect that would uh provide a denial and that's without all of the public benefits that we're offering you so based on all of that and to finish up with our time frame is permitted I would implore you to uh interpret that it's a c variance and if you determine it's either of the D variances that uh you vote in favor Mr her we obviously some of your expertise I would like your opinion on is it D1 D2 or just to see variance required for us well no pressure there can I just reserve the right to question Mr again I thought that the if he's goingon to offer sworn testimony again and I'm not saying I'm going to I just want to reserve the right to be able question reserve a right to answer you know let's see thank you so Mr chairman uh I've been here probably 12 years now and I have to say this is the probably the single most challenging application that I fa as your engineer um the preponderance of the evidence is that there's a lot of lack of clarity both between the ordinance uh Miss kmco has cited um pretty strongly that she says case law supports all of the things that she just affirmed uh I don't find it as convincing in the case law as she declared um I know historically this board upon recommendations of your attorney and myself and your planner often times chose a pathway that we felt was conservative that we could live with um I still can't get to the fact that a d variance is not required in this particular instance I've had a lot of conversations did a lot of reading on it so in my opinion I stand behind the letter that I wrote and the commentary that I made I believe that a D1 would be a prudent approach in this particular application for the reason cited in my letter I think a site plan is required in this instance but I will say that the in this case the site plan is more or less what they've already submitted it really wouldn't be anything much more than that um given the limited improvements it's really what are you putting up where is it going and what is the implication in terms of the setbacks to the property lines the you know there was common Terry if you recall we started the sign was much closer to Bridge Avenue I thought you said Siri say here some info on commentary soar use AI to provide professional t no K so the way this has migrated I mean there's there's been I certainly couldn't get to modernization uh with the sign being completely relocated as as was presented in the first application the applicant heard that uh concern and decided to move the sign back to the current location largely while raising it there's a couple comments in the site plan exemption that talk about specifically I'm trying to remember exactly I don't remember what it say um exterior alterations which are not otherwise restricted in the opinion of the administ administrative officer do not materially change the means of access which we said we don't believe it does uh do not substantially change the architectural design or appearance of a structure uh in that case I didn't believe that this this standard was met um because I think it does change the appearance and Architectural design even if it's higher it's different composition so I think that talks to the exemption or the site plan requirement um and ultimately I would agree that if we looked at this as a D1 then the other C variances would be some Under the Umbrella of that D1 so that's sort of that's the professional side of this the board has really got to be challenged with you know compiling the context of all the other elements that you've heard over you know the better part of almost two years now um so that hasn't helped a long period of time that has gone by it makes we're all we're all trying to recall exactly everything that we heard and apply that to to the case here so I think the summary was was well done I think the the question of the D1 in my opinion I would feel most comfortable saying that the D1 would be the most appropriate standard to adhere to in this case and uh the the testimony that was heard I guess board would have to balance on whether those criteria were not standards of the GRS thank you now any comments just say I only if I'm not going to get it done in 10 in 10 minutes but uh as as primco has indicated there is an importance of of building a record whether the application going to be approved approve the conditions are denied I do have a bunch of things to add I don't know if you want me to start I don't know if you want me to finish I don't know if you want to do it later I I start go one of your resolutions we count on your expertise and our us to make decisions and I do have some some questions for Miss crico based upon some of the law that she just cited but just we start off just with the premise that as everyone indicated this is a very intense and very nuanced application and nuanced is a fancy word for saying complicated and it's complicated in Nuance for a lot of reasons number one there's lots of rules and regulations we had Municipal regulation cited state regulations cited um we had case law cited and there's a lot of uh lots of burough ordinance provisions and some of it are more applicable than others and some of the um relevant burrow regulations are part of the zoning ordinance as Miss primco testified and some of them are not and it gets a little confusing um there's different sections of the ordinance and it also gets uh complicated because uh it's um and it's it's not necessarily distinguished between billboard and sign per se but rather as Jennifer was indicating the size if it's 200 square foot or greater also um obviously we have some pre-existing and potential grandfathering rights at hand and uh Miss kmco rightly referenced some uh things about doctrine of merger and we also had issues legal issues about abandonment which comes up a lot and we also had uh um a lot of you know believe it or not when you're talking about signs and regulations and um the possibility of regulating signs that actually touches on constitutional and free speech and I'm sorry I can't see my friends down on the left hand side there um and also it's um I say this respectfully but Ed would it be safe to say as Miss crico indicated that in some respects our Municipal ordinance could use some improvement I would say affirmatively yes so um Alini maybe you could just put that when we have our annual review you maybe put put that on our list to maybe discuss this and also what has been further complicating as what um Miss crico extensively referenced and what Ed referenced this is has been a a significantly modified and evolving application over the the year that we we've been here so that's you know complicates again I I think Miss crico believes that it's been moving towards a more acceptable more compliance but it has been um moving and I also think that there's a lot of serious intense questions about what relief is it a D1 variance is it a D2 or D2 expansion of nonconforming use or is it a bulk C variant is site plan approval required and what are the legal standards to apply because as you know if it's a D1 variance it's certain standards if a D2 uh variance it's different standards Etc and um it also even impacts the jurisdiction because if depending on uh again lot lots of scenarios here but uh Jennifer if it came out that the determination was you needed site plan approval and a bulk C that would presumably put you before the planning board corre so there's a lot of uh issues at hand and it's also uh um further Complicated by the fact that uh the applicant attorney noticed for about I think seven initial interpretations um given to the fact that it is a confusing and nuanced situation um so anyway it just um a lot of factual and legal issues coming into play and um again I think what it's important is what we had before us at the first meeting is very different from what we had before us at the second meeting which I think is also very different from what we have before us now so um anyway uh so um I just think that it's uh you know complicated and and obviously we're going to go through that um and through these so the good news is or the bad news is it's complicated nuanced uh the good news is this is not the first time we've had to deal with complicated and nuanced applications um you all on this board are made for it and we're going to decipher the cases and uh as a standard not everyone is going to necessarily agree with the decision that you make but I hope everyone will be mindful of and appreciative of the measured and conscientious and dedicated and thorough fashion with which you're going to review it now I wanted to go through some some case law and some questions you still want me to go sure okay um in fact I'd like to finish this tonight if possible so I don't know hopefully you don't have like a half an hour 45 minutes I'll be I'll be real quick so just um as as Jennifer uh was quoting some cases just uh there's a couple of sections I wanted to read from the uh a lot of people quoted the the Cox book The New Jersey zoning and land use book and just a couple of real quick uh Provisions section uh I am reading from and this is the um this what of all have different versions of it but I'm reading from 2022 version this is 33- 1.1 and it just talks about change or intensification of use change of ownership although the owner of a lawfully created pre-existing non-conforming use is allowed to continue it and do necessary maintenance he or she may not enlarge it or modify the use without a variance except where the change is negligible or insubstantial and the determination of whether a change of in use is substantially similar as a mixed question of fact and law and Court decisions are numerous and it says because lawfully created pre-existing non-conforming uses are inconsistent with the objectives of uniform zoning and because the overall policy is that be made that may be made to conform as quickly as possible Whenever there is doubt as to whether enlargement or change is substantial or insubstantial the courts have consistently declared that it is to be resolved against the enlargement or the change and I just want to read some other section this is again section 33- 1.1 talks about modernization modernization of a plant or equipment is generally permissible as long as it entails no enlargement and it talks about some other uh cases and then it says um and this will be a quick read but section 33- 1.2 it has a whole section on it's called change of uses where uses and structures are connected signs where the use and the structure are connected change of use issues present uh a different face particular issues arise in the case of signs such as Billboards mares and wall signs that consist to both a structure and uh a use in the case of signs it is important to distinguish between the medium and the message the medium is the physical structure of the sign whereas the message is that which appears on the sign in the case of a lawfully created pre-existing non-conforming painted wooden sign the message can be changed so long as the medium the physical sign is undisturbed once the sign is taken down however its non-conforming status is lost thus if there is a change in the business the message on the sign may be repainted to reflect the change so long as the physical structure of the sign remains unchanged and it goes on to some other things maybe we in the interest of Justice or interest of speed um we're not going to deal with that right now but let's just say um Jennifer uh just real real quickly I know in your legal scenar summation you had said hey the burough uses this property as signs and I think you were suggesting that maybe that's a particular suitability just out of curiosity do you know was was that approval granted by the owners of the property or by the uh your your clients's Billboards I don't well a couple things so first I don't know that it was approved one way or another I don't know how they there we just have photos of okay we know that they find that this location is appropriate for message for public messaging that they want to get out to a number of people what we're offering is a better me medum with which to do that okay but not and and just is your position that it's that makes it better for a billboard or just a conveying a message what I'm saying is that this particular location is particularly suitable for conveying a message that you want to get out to large numbers of people okay and in terms of um your and and I'm sorry I just want to tell you that the owner did approve the burrow to place those signs on okay so in um what I'm going to call informally round one the first public hearing um and you talked about um modernization and you you did talk about having more people view the bridge and Etc and you're going to move it I think at that point 40 feet so just um I guess it's really not relevant now but but my question at the time was going to be is that modernization or is that that basically relocation but you've consented to that I did but I can answer that I believe it is modernization the conversion but I do think it's an expansion of the non-conforming use by making it lar by making the message larger which is okay which is the use and so now structure same question for round three again informally what we've reviewed tonight now uh obviously a lot of things have have been reduced um but there is still increasing the height from 20 2 ft to 27 ft now um if if you're increasing the height by 5T is it safe to call that modernization alone or is that modernization and something else comination that is as I had indicated that's expansion of a non-conforming structure which is a c variance under that subsection of your ordinance that's expansion of the medium structure you read it right from Cops there's two things there's the structure which is the medium and then there's the message which is the use so as it relates to the use which is the size of the message we are significantly reducing it in size as well as the amount of time it will be able to be viewed there's no question that we need a variance for expanding and non-conforming structure but that's a c variance but now in your brief and I'm quoting page 13 of your very well-written brief wait if you're if you're quoting me at least let me look at it so I don't say anything inconsistent sure which page I'm sorry uh 13 okay um it might be the third paragraph down it says as set forth above the revised application and stipulations demonstrate that by every metric upon which the quote use is measured the billboard use is dramatically decreasing not increasing um yes and so again I'm want to focus on words but you're saying every metric and what about you know that height I mean are you again that's a metric on the size of the structure that is not a metric on the use Cox said it the use is the message message is not getting bigger the intensity of that message is not increasing it's getting smaller we agree that the medium or the structure is getting bigger difference for for example if I may ask the question if I have a business and I have a sign that's 100 square feet and it's on the front of my business and I then put an addition on my building and now the the the the medium the the structure that's holding it gets bigger that doesn't increase the intensity of that same sign the size of the message is not changing where it sits on the building doesn't change intensity of the use it may make it more visible as it relates to from a different vantage point but it doesn't change the intensity and again you're you're discussing the distinction between a c variance for expansion of a structure and D variance for expansion of so again well I'm right I I I I respectfully think that the height difference does does make a difference but we'll come back that but again that's the applicant's position is that that it doesn't Okay and now you've indicated in your in your brief and I sorry Kevin and just and even if that does then that would be an expansion of a non-conforming use okay which again we gave all the proofs right again regardless of what the determination is we believe we've offered the proofs for the most stringent which is one okay and in terms of um and I don't know what page this was but you referred to it in your brief um I think actually may have been Point uh page eight and you said it's a mere five feet and I guess that would be the the what if it was six feet or seven feet or 8 feet or 9 ft I mean what it's not and I I can't answer what we're saying is based on on the photos and based on the size of the sign and based on the reduction in the overall area applicant again you know that a brief as we know is in in advocacy paper and in all of our experts opinion it is a mere five feet but I mean I guess question was who determines that that that mirror but we'll we well I think ultimately it's up to the board to determine if it's even if we decide it's a substantial increase that still doesn't change to D2 it doesn't change the law behind when a D2 variant should be granted and the need to be able to show substantial detriments and again I spending a lot of time over the Nuance but at the end of the day you didn't want to the question anyway okay and then just earlier in the in some of your uh legal uh submissions I think you were referring to the the Billboards on or the I'm sorry the signs on the roof that had been removed um but you agree that they abandon those if they're abandon okay now the other thing that I wanted to ask about um and I'm just sort of putting this together I know you've offered and and um uh very importantly that you've offered about um you've said about um surrendering two Billboards in the Red Bank location and you gave them specific locations sign and um and and you're offering that and I guess what is the method or vehicle for for doing that how do how do you do that well if the board approves this we would be given a certain time frame with which we had to remove them okay and then remove them and we giving up the permit once I mean when you talk about an intent to abandon me standing up here and saying if you grant this we will remove them is a clear statement of Abandonment agreed and I guess my further question was and I don't know if this is a good question or not a good question but do you have the right does your client have the right to do that or do you need the property owner's right to do that I mean does the property owner have to consent to that no because we have the permit for the billboard and and so you would not need the property owner's consent to eliminate the sign face absolutely okay and I mean are there any contract I mean does what if the own do you need the you don't need the owner's consent at all was there any leases to remove to the extent that there's a lease and we would be we would be removing this sign but would be obligated under the lease to continue to pay the lease okay presumably unless there was a provision for the removal but again that's not something for the board's concern that's well I I think it would be just we wanted to make sure that it was something upon which there was a legal impediment that prevented it then we could never perfect our approval and we could never make the conversion so we're stipulating that there was no legal impediment to the removal of these students and so your position is you do not need the owner's consent to do that remove the signs no correct and and to permanently remove them that they could not put another the owners could not put another billboard up on there again if they did they would have to come for a D1 variance because it was abandoned the contrary to this use which we're doing everything we can to maintain it we are overtly saying if the board approves this we are abandoning that use no one else can come and claim preexisting not conforming use when the current holder of those rights is abandoned and we had a thing about the site plan Ed Ed talked on this about uh not you know you would need a site plan if you um well I talked about that so we don't need any interest time we don't need I I don't imagine based on what I'm hearing that there's any chance that the board determines that only a c variance is required so I I again I it it it's an issue that's preserved for a potential appeal but realistically having all of us live through these hours and hours of hearings I don't anticipate that jurisdiction is going to be an issue so I guess Mr um chairman in conclusion obviously uh Ed talked about and and and Miss crico agreed it's a principal use it's a principal structure now our ordinances are nuanced agreed um and I do think that it's a non-permitted use um and I think that um uh the totality of the circumstances and Jennifer I think in the Lamar case that you quoted um I think that they did you said they unequally said you know there's no in that particular case that board determined that a D1 variance is required I don't believe the Lamar case I don't believe that that was challenged necessarily I think it was I think held at a D1 said a D1 was necessary and then just for the record of the case Len went on to say that the court didn't think that the board gave the right decision but they said the board's decision was arbitrary but they did say it de necessary so may I make a suggestion Kevin yeah at the end of the day if the board I think the first step would be what type of variance is required and then a vote on that variance and if it's a d variance there is no reason to interpret the site plan issue necessarily um and if they determine a d D1 variance is required then I don't know that there's a reason to vote on any of those other elements so I think that rather than belabor it I think the easiest way to bring this to a resolution is for the first vote to be is a D1 variance required and if the answer is yes then what the vote is on that and then depending and I I think I said this at the beginning that it would be in stages and depending on the outcome of that vote will then determine if additional votes are required so I said I I think for what it's worth I think it's a very complex question and I do think in the totality of the circumstances for all the reasons that we we we talked about is I do think a D1 use variance is necessary uh and I I could see sometimes where the other the expansion is required and I could also see some of the variances so I would just you know think that when the board ultimately votes to approve the application or approve the application with conditions or deny the application that um presumably the board is going to say different standards but we would have the same result whether we applied C D1 D2 whatever I I'm assuming that the board is going to say that and my last second last thing and I promise is going to be in 15 seconds or left or less for all the members of the the public cor here I wanted to thank you for your participation and I wanted you to just recognize that um chairman Ray mass and the board members are awesome and sha and Ed are awesome and the dedication and conscientious and way that they're reviewing this is the way they review every single application so the men and women up here are great ambassadors of the town and I I just hope that you recognize that regardless of the outcome so now Mr chairman the hard part we now uh come to you and the board for a discussion on the actual votes okay so so as as Jennifer was indicating you know we can have board comment and then ultimately uh Jennifer I think you were suggesting is a D1 necessary um and and but we Mr chairman we can hear comments from the board and then proceed well from my standpoint I think a lot of advice from people people who know a lot more about I seem to know Mr Herman and Mr Kennedy so I would V on this being a D1 and would make a um determination if that's what the rest of the board goes along with or has a different opinion we can talk about so do anybody else have a comment I just had a a basic comment I'm not sure how it affects all of these complicated things things but the I just can't possibly see a stag billboard and electronic billboard being the same thing I think they're very different thing it's not a change it's not an expansion it's a new thing if you stand in front of one of those billboards with a few hundred feet and stand in front of a static it's not the same thing difference between a black and white television and an IMX green so and I would say this is the copy of the tonight's agenda and this is the medium and the message and this is tonight's agenda and that's the analogy to the two devices you're talking about they're not the same thing other comments well a comment in general about the application overall yes uh so I'm not convinced um that getting the permit from the do to enhance the billboard is proof that it's safe to do so uh whether or not the case flaw focuses on safety and I don't know um I'm sure there is case law uh I would think that um gives the board broad discretion to reject we haven't heard any testimony from a traffic from an engineer from a traffic expert uh we were told you got a permit and therefore that means it's safe well we all live here we know um we've heard testimony from the public that said it's not right I mean someone had it's compelling he's been over that 14,000 he lives one of the witnesses who testified lives essentially in the sight line of the new billboard so I'm not convinced on that so I think it's something to explore but quite frankly you could have introduced the application that you gave to the state do to get the permit and we could have seen what you said about the traffic but you didn't do that you could have brought in an expert a professional to say hey there's going to be no difference between the static billboard and the one that changes every eight seconds but you didn't do that so I'm not convinced quite frankly on that issue second issue um we're dancing around our ordinance of zoning whether it's a sign is no it's this section it's that section one thing is perfectly clear the B does not want Billboards um and I think there's case law to suggest that the zoning board has authority pursuant to the master plan that we can make these decisions for our town okay whether or not it's paragraph a sub one or whatever section you're pointing us to um I think the board has broad discretion especially since our master plan addresses this uh Corridor to make the decisions uh on what we think is appropriate to go there and I think that it the billboard has intensified um I know we talked about it's not it's actually reducing the intensification but I mean it's moving the movement draws attention uh like if we're staring at the water the movement draws your eyes to it so I think it's an intensification I think the development of the property quite frankly is big problem I think it hinders the development I also think the contamination at the property and like we're rewarding the owner of the property who's maintained the nuisance at this uh corner for decades and now we're going to reward him we're going to allow him to make all this extra dollars as a result of an upgrade at this intersection and I think the New Jersey DP and the state itself uh their policy with respect to uh cleaning um contaminated parcels and then redeveloping them that's the goal of the New Jersey D here we it seems to be a detriment a negative for us because it's that much harder to develop this lot now if this gets approved um so that's not all of my concerns but that's the majority of them um so that's where I'm at with it I would like to say just adding too because my thing was the traffic study also there was no traffic study we know also that that's the gateway to Red Bank we did take an oath for the law but we also are here representing this town and you know this to me I haven't seen where it's an asset um an asset would be maybe to take it down let the let it be developed and keep up the other six that you want to take down I mean I just I don't see where this like this is going to be an asset to this town and the people of Red Bank and that's where I feel for it yeah to just to agree with that point you said it's an asset to the town to take the six away and it's also an asset to build the new modern one um just doesn't add up really I Echo what Paul said um on his many points and I can only assume that you didn't bring a traffic expert because it wouldn't be beneficial to your case but that's my anyone else um I'm I'm the same way I mean we've heard uh residents from Red Bank business owners from Red Bank um some of their concerns on what impact it may have on our historic town uh we've heard that there's a lot of traffic concerns there I have them myself I've been probably around that corner several thousand times myself over the last uh 50 some years um and it is a nightmare and I can't imagine a sign changing um every seven seconds isn't going to distract some people traffic has gotten a lot more intense around here people seem to get more distracted by just about everything so um I'm another one I don't I personally I am not in favor of this and uh I think at some point uh I'd make a motion to deny it um Kevin you have some well I think the the first um vote would be does the board uh think that a a D1 youth variant is necessary Ed would that really be the the first okay um so did the board there is there a motion to say that a D1 use variance is necessary under the totality of the circumstances um I make a motion based on information from Mr Herman and Mr Kennedy that uh D1 is required for this application is there a second to that a second so this is just a motion to determine that this application requires use D1 variance relief and so um should only call seven people an Tori yes Raymond Mass yes Eileen Hogan yes Ben Ur yes Sharon Lee Yes Vincent light yes and Paul KAG okay and then Mr chairman and the next would it be if a site plan approval is required Ed would we vote on that I don't think you would necessarily have to I think by by virtue of the D1 that would okay so now uh Jennifer would just be a vote um to whether Grant or deny the the D1 youth variance and Mr chairman there's a whole bunch of conditions um if there's a motion to approve it you want me to read read those conditions I will do that if there's going to be a motion uh to deny it I will not read those conditions already made a motion to oh okay so all right that was so we should probably just have another motion uh one way or the other just because we had the motion on the D1 I I make a motion to deny the application I will second it all right so now this is one of those weird situations where uh yes is yes to deny okay second right correct to deny and Tori yes R and mass yes and for the reasons that stated enough of that the town has made it clear they are not in favor of Bill boards we have residents and business owners who have made it perfectly clear that it could affect the town um and from a safety aspect um we've heard people say that and I agree with them completely that it could be a distraction that could cause har to uh the residents of right so yes een Hogan yes vanu yes Sharon Lee Yes to the V yes Paul K yes all right thank you we actually send a letter asking that all in favor yeah