Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board holds billboard application; asks applicant to reduce size, height and return July 22
Summary
A proposed two‑sided digital billboard on Route 9/35 drew mixed reactions June 24; the applicant has NJDOT conditional approval but must secure multiple local variances. The board asked the applicant to reduce the sign face and height and continued the application to July 22 for revised plans.
An application to replace a decades‑old static billboard on the Route 9/35 corridor with a two‑sided digital pylon drew lengthy testimony, public comment and questions June 24 and was continued so the applicant can revise the proposal.
Lawrence Saxs spoke for property owner F AJP LLC and introduced engineer Mark Lieieber, traffic expert Carl Panky and planner Colleen McGherk. Lieieber described a proposed digital, V‑shaped pylon with 10.5‑by‑36‑foot display panels, a top elevation near 45 feet and the bottom of the display roughly 31.5 feet above grade. The applicant said it had a conditional roadside permit from the New Jersey Department of Transportation but needs local conditional‑use and bulk relief in Sayreville's B3 zone.
Planner Colleen McGherk identified multiple ordinance conditions the application does not meet, including spacing from other billboards, minimum setback from rights‑of‑way and residentially zoned lots, and required buffers. The applicant offered mitigation: landscaping along the adjacent residential property line, a voluntary commitment to turn the sign off at 10 p.m., and the ability to dim the digital panels. Traffic witness Carl Panky testified the sign would not create sight‑distance hazards and noted digital displays are regulated (minimum 8‑second dwell time between changes and automatic brightness adjustment).
Several residents said the existing billboard is deteriorated and supported replacement; others and multiple board members expressed concern about adding another large illuminated structure near homes and about the proposed height. Board members asked whether the sign face could be reduced and whether the overall height could be lowered to lessen the visual impact on adjacent houses. The applicant offered on the record to explore reducing panel area (from 378 sq ft to about 270 sq ft) and lowering the top of structure to roughly 35 feet, and to return with revised plans.
Given the outstanding bulk and conditional‑use issues and neighborhood concerns, the board did not vote and carried the application to the July 22 meeting so the applicant can submit revised drawings and address concerns regarding height, facing area and buffering.
