Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Billboard Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on proposed digital billboards at Route 35 continued after board requests environmental and lighting studies
Summary
Applicants seeking use variances to install two multi‑message digital billboards at 722 and 800 Ashley Avenue presented initial engineering testimony and DOT permits; the board asked for an Environmental Impact Statement and lighting analysis and carried the hearing to June 9 (possible July date) to allow submission and review of updated reports.
The Brielle Planning/Zoning Board opened a combined Zoning Board of Adjustment hearing on May 12 on proposals to install two multi‑message digital billboards near the Route 35 bridge at 722 and 800 Ashley Avenue. The applicants presented initial engineering testimony and said they have DOT permits; the board asked for additional technical documentation and carried the hearing to a future meeting.
Attorney Brian Chewcaskie, representing the applicants, said the proposals had DOT permits that have been extended and that the applicants intended to supplement the record with a traffic/lighting analysis and an Environmental Impact Statement. "Brielle prohibits billboards, this is unconstitutional and there is case law to that effect," Chewcaskie told the board, adding the applicants would supply evidence and updated reports at a subsequent hearing.
Engineer William R. Vogt Jr. testified about the sign designs. For 722 Ashley Avenue he described a 14‑by‑48 foot double‑sided, V‑style digital sign mounted on a monopole; he gave an overall elevation of about 110.25 feet from the base and an 87‑foot measurement from the roadway. For 800 Ashley Avenue he described a similar 14‑by‑48 sign with a top elevation of about 118 feet from base and roughly 88 feet measured from the roadway; both signs would be positioned near Route 35 to maximize visibility to drivers.
Board Engineer Cary F. Hilla and Board Planner Jen Beahm urged the applicants to provide a formal Environmental Impact Statement and a lighting‑impact report consistent with the C‑2 zone review standards. Beahm said there was insufficient lighting detail in the submission for the board to evaluate potential off‑site glare and impacts. Vogt and counsel said they would provide updated DOT permits, the lighting information and a revised traffic analysis as requested; the board carried the matter to the June 9 meeting "without further notice" and said that if more time is required the hearing could be continued to a July meeting.
Objector William Cleary of 720 Ashley Avenue asked the board to schedule the matter for July rather than the end of May, saying the timeline for producing and responding to expert reports was compressed; the board agreed the July option could be used if the parties needed more time. The hearing record remains open and the board did not vote on the use variances at the May 12 meeting.
