##VIDEO ID:-RxIoMNEhi4## e e e e e e e e e zing adustment help purs into the open public c231 laws of New Jersey dated 1975 notice of this meeting was advertised in the local Source Andor the star ledge of the newspapers of record a notice has been posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building adjacent to the municipal clerk's office roll call Mr Wy here miss Martins here Mr bentan is absent Mr Johnson here uh Mr mcneel is absent uh Miss Scott is absent Miss Rick is here and M Mr Graves present and Mr chair here there being a Corum present this meeting is now declared open at this time are there any Communications are there no Communications Mr chairman hearing none our only case this evening will be calendar number 3443 trade YK signs LLC located at 2255 Springfield Avenue block 4914 lot 10.03 for Burlington signage uh counselor would you like to begin yes good evening Mr chairman board members professionals and staff my name is Peter Lata of the law firm of sbl May and Lata of Freehold New Jersey on behalf of the applicant we're requesting from you both variants relief for a Burlington uh store sign to replace the Best Buy sign that was previously on the facade uh of this building uh and which is up on the screen uh presently I have two brief Witnesses I'd like to present I have Nicholas Churchman who is an installer uh with uh trademark signs who would briefly describe uh the proposed replacement sign and we have James Higgins our professional planner who would testify as to the positive and negative criteria underlying our vulk relief request thank you um if I may then um I would call uh Nicholas Churchman to be sworn in uh good evening uh this is Rob panel of the board attorney can I ask a witness to raise your right hand and swear or affirm that the testimony provided this evening is the truth and the whole truth I S TR you the whole state uh just spell your name for the record in your business affiliation Nicholas Churchman n i c h o l a s c h u r c h m an I am an installer for trademark signs thank you Nicholas are you familiar with the uh sign that's uh been submitted to the board in the application package yes and you're also familiar with the prior uh Best Buy sign that was on the building yes and is that an accurate depiction of the previous Best Buy sign yes and uh the sign that's being proposed um would you say it's of equal or somewhat lesser prominence visually than the somewhat less um but yet in your opinion would it be large enough to allow the U motoring public to identify the building from a distance yeah and be in keeping with the scale of other signage generally uh on site yes thank you Nicholas uh Mr chairman I would my witness available for questions are there any board members that would like to question the testimony that Mr Churchman has given hearing none are there any members of the public that would like the question to testimony Mr Churchman has provided hearing none next witness thank you I'll call James Higgins our professional planner good evening good evening Mr Higgins can I ask you to swear or affirm that the testimony you provide is evening is the truth and the whole truth I will and for the record State and spell your name with your affiliation James W Higgins hi GG NS I am a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey I have my office at 14 Tilton Drive Ocean New Jersey I've been licensed for 45 years my license is current and in fact I was accepted as an exert expert in Planning by one of the boards in Union Township about 30 years ago I've been doing this for 45 years I don't remember the application but I do know that I was in Union Township in an older Municipal Building at that time would you like to give us your cral sure I'm I've been licensed for 45 years I've testified before boards throughout the the state over 200 boards I've testified as an expert in planning before at least five Superior Courts in the state the bo will accept Mr hi thank you thank you um briefly J could you tell the board what you reviewed uh in preparation for your testimony tonight and What observations you did sure I reviewed the application I reviewed the ordinance I looked at the site I looked at surrounding sites and I also reviewed the reports by the board's professionals including the board's engineer and planner and also looked at the zoning offices 's denial of the application for the construction of the sign thank you and based on those observations could you describe uh the extent of the variance relief that we're seeking yes well the ordinance permits and there's a discrepancy between your zoning officer and the board's engineer planner a a height of either 4 feet according to the zoning officer or 5 feet according to the board's planner um but the proposed sign is a little over 9 ft the front sign is a little over 9 ft in height and it's 162 Square ft in area the ordinance permits a maximum square footage of 77 Square fet uh the there's a second sign in the rear of the building that sign is 4 feet 1/2 in high so if the 4ot is the standard it requires a variance for that additional half inch in the height but it's 25 square feet in area so that it does meet the ordinance requirement for for area um when I looked at the area I looked at the Best Buy pictures and actually Best Buy had three signs according to your ordinance in front of the building there's the one Best Buy with the logo next to it that's on the blue background but then when you read your ordinance anything that's intended to draw attention to the building and to the to the the site is considered to be a sign and there are two vertical elements you can see one on the picture that's on the display that's a blue column with yellow on the top and there's a second one on the other side of the the Best Buy store so those technically are signs according to your ordinance they've been eliminated the blue background has been eliminated and the applicant is proposing a sign that's consistent in appearance with the other signs in the in the shopping center and eliminating the blue background and having a much more attractive facade to the building so when I look at this first of all I think there are benefits in terms of Public Safety in terms of the fact that the sign is now large enough to be viewed the a a permitted sign is very small it looks out of character with the other signage in the on the building and it is a little bit more difficult to see for a motorist that's coming into that site and it's a it's a fairly difficult entrance to the site you come in and there's several turns you have to make so having the larger sign of make it more visible I think is definitely safer situation in addition aesthetically I think it does advance the purpose of the municipal land use law with regard to providing for a desirable visual environment in terms of the scale of the sign in terms of the improvements to the building overall and the appearance of the building so when I look at all of that I think that there are definitely positive reasons for the granting of the variant and I don't see any substantial negative impact again the proposed sign I think is much more in character with the signage that's in the on the building for the other uses on the building and a conforming sign actually would look much smaller and we look out of character so I don't think there's any substantial detriment that's being Grant being uh caused by the granting of the variants so when I look I think that so I think the benefits substantially outweigh the detriments thank you Jim my witness is available for questions uh just for the record Mr chairman and and Council board members I did Mark a one the application as it was submitted to I marked A2 the photo package that was a part of that I guess we're looking at some of that here of area signs and and existing conditions and I marked A3 the signage proposal as it were for uh Burlington just confirm if you could Mr uh Higgins the the signage proposal that you reviewed and its part of that I just made part of the record that is is it your understanding that that's a typical Burlington Coat like brand type of uh existing sign yes it is we've done my office has done other Burlington uh sign variance applications one in fact was in Union on Route 22 yes I think that was before this board as well in 2020 my my daughter Allison who's also a licensed planner actually did the testimony on that so it is a prototype it's a prototype it is thank you and and in the event there's a variance necessary for the sign at the rear of the building I think if if 4et is a standard and it's 4T 1/2 in I think that is a Dom Minimus situation nobody could tell that that sign exceeded 4 feet even if you stood right next to it and just for the benefit of the site plan aspect of the application you don't have any adjustments to the structure itself no impact to the parking layout anything else this is limited to the signage that you've testified that's correct thank you are there any board members that will like the questions the testimony Mr Higgins has given hearing none are there any members of the public that would like to question the testimony Mr hickin has provided I did just for the record Mr chairman it's not a a direct communication because it wasn't circulated to the board I did talk with Council CU he got a copy of an email that came to Mr manguso as the construction code official uh from the property owner at the 22 uh r Arcadia place so she had raised some concerns about traffic safety uh I don't think it's appropriate to not have the attorney be able to cross-examine that witness as but she was concerned about traffic safety uh I think as the lawyer for the board I would suggest that the testimony we heard tonight really focuses on the benefits to Traffic Safety due to the size and change of the signage so I think that would be enough to deliberate but I did want to make it make you aware of it since it did come to Mr Mr manguso and counsel um so I raise it but uh since they're unless they're here in public tonight they could ask questions and and have the attorney be able to cross-examine them thank you Mr pansula again I'll ask are there any board members that would like to question Mr ain's testimony are there any members of the public that like question his testimony do you want to question his testimony because comments will be uh heard later my name is FL Patterson I live at 168 warlo race do you have a schematic or computer running of what it's going to look like when it's done see that we actually have both on computer copy which is the same file give you this paper copy try on the screen you you put it on the screen sir I'll TR thank you that's a sir that's it thank you yeah that that's the one I marked the A3 I believe for the record so that is part of the uh materials before the board sir that's an image of what's proposed okay thank you are there any members of the public that would like to comment on this application hearing none counselor would you like to sum up just briefly thank you um based on the testimony that's been provided for Traffic Safety and aesthetic concerns uh we would request your consideration of that evidence and request that you authorize a positive resolution and we thank you for your time thank you all right at this time I believe we can conference this Mr wildy would you like to begin yes Mr chairman basy I see where there's any detriment uh with this project I think the positives outweigh all the negatives and I'm going to vote Yes Mr Graves um I see no negative impact on community uh is similar in size to one by the previous tendance so I would be supporting the application Miss Morts thank you Mr chairman um the size of the sign uh definitely syncs with the other signs that are in the complex as well so I'm going to have to yes Mr Johnson yes Mr chairman since this is a prototype and a larger sign is actually safer for uh visibility for mous and um I see no detriment to this sign I will be voting yes and Miss rickets I too agree with my colleagues that this sign is does not provide or give any type of detriment so I also will be voting yes as for myself I feel the variance uh and the signed request that will not have a negative impact on the property or neighboring Property Owners so I too will vote Yes for this application at this time may I have a motion in a second to Grant the application yeah Mr chairman I move the board Grant this variance applicable to this application that council is directed to prepare resolution consistent with the board's decision second the motion roll call Mr Wy yes M Martins yes Mr Johnson yes Graves yes M rickets yes and Mr Champion yes thank you very much everybody he'll give you a date the resolution will be on the December 18th the regular meeting night of the board we we'll actually be meeting in that side room because I think we don't have access to the full board but we'll do resolutions that night so December 18th I'll send you a copy before appreciate that very much thank you happy holiday thank you same to you can I have a motion in a second to jar Mr chairman there being no further business coming before the board this evening I move the we and journ second all in favor I I opposed