Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Billboard topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Digital billboard proposal on Route 9/35 continued after board presses for smaller sign and mitigation
Summary
FAJP LLC asked to replace a deteriorated static billboard on Route 9/35 with a two‑sided digital pylon. The applicant holds a conditional NJ DOT roadside permit but the board and residents raised concerns about height, proximity to homes and the number of nearby billboards. The applicant agreed to reduce the sign face and height and to turn illumination off at 10 p.m.; the board continued the application to July 22 for a revised submission.
A proposal to replace an aging static billboard on Route 9/35 in the Melrose section with a two‑sided digital pylon provoked extended testimony and public comment on June 24 and was continued so the applicant can revise the design.
Attorney Lawrence Saxs presented the application on behalf of FAJP LLC for consolidated lots 22 and 23 in the B3 highway zoning district. Engineer Mark Lieieber described a pylon sign set back 10 feet from the state right‑of‑way, with a 10.5‑foot by 36‑foot digital panel and a structure whose top was initially shown at 45 feet on the submission. Traffic engineer Carl Panky reviewed statewide standards and told the board the sign technology adjusts brightness by ambient light, changes copy no faster than an eight‑second minimum, and—he said—does not create a motorist distraction when properly installed; the applicant also provided a conditional roadside permit from the New Jersey Department of Transportation.
Planner Colleen McGherk testified the property already contains a nonconforming billboard and that the proposed digital replacement could be squared with the borough master plan and mitigated by conditions. Several neighbors who spoke at the hearing supported replacing the dilapidated, graffiti‑covered structure with a new sign; others and multiple board members expressed concern about the structure's height, proximity to residences and the cumulative number of billboards on the corridor.
In response, the applicant volunteered several mitigation steps on the record: to turn the digital display off at 10:00 p.m.; to provide an evergreen buffer along the adjacent residential lot; and to consider reducing the sign face and lower the top elevation. After board members said they were uncomfortable deciding the night of heavy submissions and with only six members present, the applicant agreed to return on July 22 with revised drawings that reduce the sign face proportionally to the lot size (applicant proposed reducing panel area from 378 ft² to about 270 ft²) and to reduce overall height (applicant proposed lowering top of structure from 45 ft to about 35 ft) to help address visual and proximity concerns.
Because the application requires a conditional‑use (D3) determination and several ordinance conditions are not met on the current plans, the board continued the hearing to the July 22 meeting and asked the applicant to provide revised plans and clearer documentation of mitigation measures.
