Edison zoning board denies remanded 110‑foot digital billboard after public objections

The Edison Zoning Board of Adjustment voted unanimously on June 23 to deny a remanded application by American Outdoor Advertising for a 110‑foot, two‑sided digital billboard at 737 New Durham Road.

The hearing followed an Appellate Division remand that treated the applicant’s demonstration of the so‑called 'positive criteria' as conceded and confined the board’s review to the 'negative criteria'—whether the proposal would cause a substantial detriment to the public good or substantially impair the township’s zoning plan and ordinances. Jeff Lehrer, attorney for American Outdoor Advertising, told the board that earlier courts had found the location appropriate; “The Appellate Division has said, ‘You can put a billboard here,’” he said.

Residents who live within 200 feet of the site urged denial. Ronald Tarr (52 Reader/Reeder Road) told the board the requested variances were extreme and would be a lasting blight: “This 110‑ft two‑sided electronic nightmare will be a blight on our community for decades to come,” he said. Lois Tarr (52 Ryder Road) and other neighbors made similar appeals about aesthetics and quality of life.

Tim Stoning, a principal at American Outdoor Advertising, described the structure as a unipole roughly 4–4.5 feet in diameter with a total advertised height of 110 feet, consisting of roughly a 95‑foot pole and a 14–15‑foot head. The applicant said the height was necessary to achieve visibility above the elevated I‑287 corridor and described mitigation measures including light‑reducing 'baffles' on the side facing local streets.

Board members cited several factors in their motion to deny. The motion identified the applicant’s light‑blocking system as an unproven prototype at the scale proposed and said that technology addresses only the display and not the visual and structural impact of a tall, steel monopole with two 672‑sq‑ft digital faces. The motion also noted the structure’s massing and constant presence as a detriment to nearby residents’ quality of life and questioned whether the applicant had demonstrated compliance with Edison’s objective glare and commercial property standards. The board recorded that one face of the sign would sit about 266 feet from residential lots and noted the display could operate continuously.

After deliberation the board adopted a resolution to deny the application. The motion to deny was made and seconded by board members and passed on a unanimous roll call.

The hearing record also included discussion about whether the township had completed a formal 10‑year master‑plan re‑examination before the original 2020–2021 hearings; that procedural issue was part of the earlier court proceedings and the Appellate Division’s remand. Lawyers and board professionals debated draft and adopted planning documents during the hearing.

No final settlement or compromise was reached at the meeting. The board closed the public comment period before deliberations; the applicant had offered to discuss a compromise outside the hearing to avoid repeated court proceedings, but the board did not take up a settlement during the public meeting. The board then moved to adjourn.