Borough of Point Pleasant Beach September 29, 2022 BOA minutes
The September 29, 2022 Special Meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the “Open public meetings act.”
Present were Board members: Vice chair Reynolds, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Pasola, Mr. McGee, Mr. Davis, Mr. Neill, Ms. McFadden and Chairman Struncius
Absent: Mr. Kelly and Secretary Schneider
Recused: Mr. Driber
2022-14 – OutFront Media, LLC – 502 Sea Avenue – Block 12; Lot 25 – Applicant wishes to replace existing billboard’s with 2 – 35 foot high LED billboards.
The Applicant submitted the following in support of the Application:
Site Plan, entitled Preliminary and Final Site Plan for Outfront Media, LLC, Proposed LED Billboard, Block 12, Lot 25, by Tiago F. Duarte, P.E. of Dynamic Engineering, consisting of 3 sheets, dated 9/1/21 (last revised 9/16/22).
Sight Visibility Study prepared by Dynamic Traffic and dated 6/1/22 (last revised 9/14/22).
Comparison Document 35’tall, 10’6”H x 36’ W billboard vs 25’tall, 10’H x 30’W billboard
NJDEP Freshwater Wetlands Permit dated 5/6/22
Wetlands Disturbance Plan dated 4/22/21
Site Photos of existing billboards from street view
Exhibit A1 – Application Package
Exhibit A2 – Site Plan
Exhibit A3 – Photograph (2 pages)
Exhibit A4 – Advertising Permits
Exhibit A5 – Photographs, Existing Site
Exhibit A6 – Sample LED panel
Exhibit A7 – Emergency Messaging samples
Exhibit A8 – Protocols A & B
Exhibit A9 – Light Exhibit Plan
Exhibit A10 – DEP Permit Application
Exhibit A11 – Wetlands Disturbance Plan
Exhibit A12 – Site Visibility Study
Exhibit A13 – Site Visibility Study
Exhibit A14 – Site Visibility Study
Exhibit A15 – Aerial drone View
Exhibit A16 – Aerial drone View
Exhibit A17 – Aerial drone View
Exhibit A18 – Aerial drone View
Exhibit A19 – Existing Sign Base Photo
Exhibit A20 – Final Site Plan (9/16/22)
Exhibit A21- Crane Test Photographs
Exhibit A22 – Crane Test Photographs
Jeffrey M. Hall, Esquire, reviewed how the applicant modified the proposal. In preparation for the continuation of the hearing, applicant modified the proposal to reduce the proposed size of the digital billboard signs to 10’ by 30’ (initial proposal requested 10.5’ by 36’). Applicant also modified the proposal to reduce the maximum height at the top of the digital billboards from 35’ to 25’.
Tiago F. Duarte, P.E., sworn, reviewed the changes and stated the following: In preparation for the continuation of the hearing, applicant modified the proposal to reduce the proposed size of the digital billboard signs to 10’ by 30’ (initial proposal requested 10.5’ by 36’). The existing static billboards on site are 10.5’ by 23’. Applicant also modified the proposal to reduce the maximum height at the top of the digital billboards from 35’ to 25’. The existing static billboards on site have a maximum height of 18’. As shown on the revised site plan, the configuration remains the same and the setbacks from Route 35 and West Cincinnati Avenue remain the same. The rear setback is increased by 6’, a function of the reduced width of the signs proposed. The steel monopole construction remains the same as originally proposed. The design of said pole is not yet done, but it is anticipated that the steel monopole will be approximately 24”-36” in diameter. He marked as Exhibit A20, the revised site plan depicting the current proposal (10’ by 30’ signs at 25’ maximum height). He noted that the mature deciduous trees to the rear of the site are approximately 50-60’ in height. He acknowledged that in the winter months, those trees would not provide a visual buffer to the adjoining residential development. He estimated the Childers Realty building to be approximately 30’ in height. Other buildings in the immediate area range between 23’ and 30’ in height as estimated. He estimated the height of the existing second floor residential windows in the Childers Realty building at approximately 15’-20’ above grade. The proposed height of the digital billboard is approximately 15’-25’ above grade. He believes that the digital billboards proposed will be less impactful to the residents in the Childers Realty building than the currently existing static billboard signs with up lighting.
Justin Taylor, P.E., P.T.O.E., sworn, stated that he is a professional engineer licensed in the State of New Jersey. He is also a certified professional traffic operations engineer, certification by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. In preparation for his testimony, he made himself fully familiar with the proposed application and surrounding properties/ roadways. Making reference to Exhibit A22, he described the different views of the proposed digital billboards (revised size and height). Making reference to Exhibit A21, he described the comparison of the original proposed signs (size and height) with the revised proposal.
The proposed billboards are directed to two state highways (Routes 35 and 88). Both are deemed principal arterial highways by NJDOT and carry between 12,000-16,000 vehicles per day on average.
He described the difference between a driver’s “small fixation” and a “dwell”. A 2006 study by NHTSA concluded that a driver viewing something such as a billboard for less than 2 seconds created no significant danger or safety concern for the driver; 2 seconds or more would be a significant safety impact to the driver.
He testified regarding an FHWA study conducted in 2012 specific to billboards which found that the average fixation of a driver to a digital billboard is .379 seconds. The study found that the average dwells for a digital billboard increased to just over 1 second.
He testified that the study concluded there is not an increased crash rate or decreased public safety by the use of digital billboards.
He stated that he believes the signs are located in an appropriate location to give good viewing for the motoring public, with adequate read time to safely receive the message.
He also believes that at the 25’ height proposed, the signs would not have a negative impact for drivers’ ability to see the nearby railroad crossing signals.
He confirmed the studies referenced averaged data from both open highway locations and more dense/complex development locations that are similar to the subject location. Neither study segregates the data based on that variable.
He acknowledged that opposition group studies have reached different conclusions than the studies upon which he relied.
He also believes that the proposed digital signs at a higher height are an improvement from the existing static signs at the lower height due to better visibility.
John Antal, general manager, stated that the Applicant’s closest digital billboard to the subject property is located in Neptune on Route 35, just north of Route 33. That sign is 10.5’ by 36’. Applicant also has a digital sign proximate to the Shark River Bridge on Route 35 in Avon. That sign is 14’ by 48’.
John McDonough, P.P., sworn, stated that he is a licensed professional planner in the State of New Jersey and is fully familiar with the proposed application, subject property and surrounding properties and roadways. This application is for a conversion of an existing static billboards (4) site to a digital billboards (2) site. He testified that modernization and upgrade to a site is a benefit from a planning perspective. Making reference to Exhibits A15-19, he described the existing site with static billboards and compared to the proposed application. He noted that the site is located in the HC zone which zone is predominantly commercial. He confirmed that there is residential development immediately to the rear of the site, but their view would be to the back side of the digital billboards. There is existing vegetation at the rear of the site that will remain. The proposal reduces the number of signs from 4 static signs to 2 digital signs. The proposal reduces total SF of billboard signage by 366 SF (from 966 SF to 600 SF). He that the steel monopole is a reduced visual impact as compared to the existing wooden base structure and that the digital LED billboards proposed are an improved modernization of the site that has contained static billboards for more than 50 years. He noted the limited size of the site and wetlands limitations provide a limited capacity for other development. He agreed the proposal to demolish the existing static billboards in their entirety to construct a new steel monopole with two digital billboards requires D(1) use variance relief (not a D(2) expansion). He believes that the proposal meets the criteria for D(1) variance relief and that the site is particularly suited to the use due to its history of existing static billboards, its commercial zoning in the HC zone, and its location along a state highway.
He further based his opinion on the following facts of the extent of existing vegetation on site.
The grant by NJDOT of a permit for the billboard use.
The limited capacity to otherwise develop the site with permitted HC uses.
As to special reasons, he stated that the proposal advances purposes of zoning as set forth in NJSA 40:55D-2 (a), (g), (i) and (m).
As to the negative criteria, he stated that the proposal could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good based on the following opinions:
The sign is not creating any traffic or demand on community services; it is visually innocuous and will not negatively impact surrounding property owners and it is directed at the motoring public and not aimed or targeted at existing residences. It also reduces overall SF of the signage on site and integrates better with the surrounding area than the existing static signs.
Relying on the traffic testimony provided, the proposal will not create any negative impact on driver safety.
As to the negative criteria, he stated that the proposal could be granted without substantial detriment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance based on the following:
- The site has accommodated static billboard use for decades.
- It does not undermine the integrity of the HC zone.
- The modernization and upgrade of the site advances the Master Plan goals of restoring and supporting businesses post- Superstorm Sandy.
The undersized lot size and front setback violation to Route 35 (25’ required and 7’ proposed) are existing conditions that remain the same with the proposed development while providing a greater setback to the rear of the site than that which currently exists while maintaining the existing mature vegetation on site.
Audience comments
Lance White, 305 Old Bridge Street, Mantoloking, NJ:
He is the Mayor of the Borough of Mantoloking and is opposed to the application.
As a layperson, it defies logic that an illuminated LED digital billboard sign that changes display every 8 seconds, doesn’t draw a driver’s attention longer than a static sign.
This location is a gateway to the barrier island communities (including the Borough of Mantoloking) and as such, impacts the quality of life of all of the residents of those communities who pass this site to and from their homes.
His opinion was that the proposed digital billboards are unsightly and a substantial aesthetic detriment as compared to the existing static signs.
Bill Curtis, 1500 Bay Avenue, Bay Head, NJ:
He is the Mayor of the Borough of Bay Head and is opposed to the application.
The proposal is not in keeping with the aesthetic beauty of the barrier island towns. All of those residents will be impacted in a negative way driving past the proposed digital billboards.
He further believes the proposal will have a negative impact on public safety due to the distractions to the driving public, particularly at this location in close proximity to a railroad crossing.
Lee Childers, Sea Avenue, Point Pleasant Beach, NJ:
He owns the adjoining property which is a mixed-use building. He operates his real estate business on the first floor and rents the second-floor residential apartment.
He is opposed to the application and feels the subject site is not appropriate for such large digital billboard signs.
From his first-floor offices, the proposed digital billboard signs would be clearly visible and a negative aesthetic impact on his daily use of the property (for himself, his employees and clients that come to the office).
The second-floor apartment is rented to a family with two young children and one on the way. They would be significantly impacted by the proposed sign which would effectively be adjacent to their view from the second-floor windows.
In doing a little research, he found that Los Angeles, California has banned digital billboards in the city.
His research found many other seashore communities along the east coast that similarly have banned digital billboards, including Hilton Head, Outer Banks, Cape May, and the State of Hawaii. He noted his research indicated that West Orange, NJ banned the use of digital billboards along Route 280.
His personal opinion was that the proposed digital billboards are significant distractions to the motoring public and aesthetic eyesores. That opinion is supported by the location of the site on a curve in the highway, near the railroad crossing, in a densely developed area.
He further pointed to his research of case law where courts upheld bans of digital billboards in Austin, Texas as well as along the NJ Turnpike.
Barbara Fernicola, 1202 Charleston Street, Point Pleasant Beach, NJ, sworn, stated that she is the President of the Preserve of Point Pleasant Beach (the 5-unit condominium complex directly to the rear of the subject property). On behalf of the Association, she opposed the proposed application due to the significant negative impacts to the owners. She noted all of the units have their master bedrooms, patios and decks directly facing the proposed digital billboard signs which will significantly and detrimentally impact their quality of life both as to aesthetics and view. While Route 35 is a state highway, this section within the Borough is a two-lane road. Due to the curve in the road and its intersection with Route 88, she believes that it is a dangerous area and adding greater distraction will only make it worse.
Deliberations
Mr. Davis – All right. It’s late and I’m going to ask for a little indulgence as I tell a quick story, because it happened just yesterday and this goes to Mayor Pasola’s point. I was pulling into a parking lot that was used for access to a particular restaurant and a woman pulling out in her SUV stopped midway blocking the entire intersection to pick up her phone and to do something on her phone. Completely oblivious to the fact that there were people both trying to enter and exit the parking lot. This is a phenomenon of our modern times and I think it is something that we didn’t see in 2006 when a certain study was given testimony to what was occurring and probably only in its infancy in 2013, like the other study that was being recommended, referred to. So, with that I’m going to hit on my three concerns about this application. Number one, our last Master Plan review was probably the most intent focused, rather than just rubber stamping that we’ve seen in a long, long time in this town and one of those things that came about was the prohibition of these types of signs and the intent behind that is not just because we don’t like signs, but we’re trying to create and maintain an atmosphere of the shore. It speaks to a certain level of the character and the charms of the town that is trying to be maintained and it was decided that these types of signs, not just digital, that large signs are incompatible with that intent. Two, zoning, with respect to the D1 3 positive suitability criteria, I just don’t see it. A 70-year history of the existing use allows that existing use to certainly be maintained. It doesn’t mean it can be removed and replaced with something entirely different. I think with respect to the DOT issuing a permit, they don’t have the same concerns that we do as a Board. With respect to the negative criteria, I don’t believe this sign is benign and that gets me to my third point, which is safety. The changing light associated with changing ads; any height is potentially a distraction at a railroad crossing. As someone who lives on the edge of downtown where we have tons and tons of different types of ambient light, I can say in the last five years where two digital signs come into play, they do have an impact. They have an impact in my backyard that is visible and when those lights change, it’s noticeable. The traffic testimony was very compelling with respect to dwelling times and the like, but, again, those were averages of an aggregate, not absolutes. So, it’s my opinion that any type of light changing sign, regardless of what height it is at, with respect to where the signs are for the crossing for the railroad are going to be a distraction whether it’s 35, 25 or 10 feet. That changing light is going to be an impact on being able to see the crossing lights for the railroad. And, so, because of all of these reasons I stated, this is probably the most notes I’ve taken on a case in a long time, I just cannot look favorably on this application.
DIXON: Okay. I would say the vast majority of the people have no interest and do not like billboards at all. But, the Outlook people came, they presented a case, professionals did an excellent job explaining why they feel these fits here, why they feel it will not affect the surrounding residents and I think they did an excellent job. I thought they did a very good job. Now, the problem I have is the town, like Mr. Davis just said, just went through the Master Plan recently. Right in that plan they don’t want billboards. They don’t want that type of lighted billboard and they did that for a reason. Do I agree with it, disagree with it, I don’t know. I understand why they did it. The people that got up and spoke against this, I understand their point. They want to keep everything quiet and quaint. At the last meeting I was here, I discussed that the existing billboards that are there, they kind of really don’t even notice that they’re there. You 1kind of drive by them and maybe take a quick glance or don’t even look at it at all. An illuminated one with changing advertising becomes more of an attraction, I guess, compared to what the billboard’s there now. Now, would it be aesthetically probably better looking than having all those wooden slats and crooked signs? Probably, but now we come back to the illumination part of it and while I understand the need for modernization, as of now I don’t see how we can go 2against what the town’s ordinances say, because it’s quite a few against this and we have some neighbors 2in the area who are directly affected by this and they’re not happy either with the situation and as of right now I’d like to see what everyone else has to say about it.
VICE CHAIRMAN REYNOLDS: I’ll take a little bit of a different approach. Point Pleasant Beach has spent a lot of time, a lot of money, a lot of thought into maintaining what we have, the look, the feel of the town. As far as these billboards go, the ones that are there now, if they went away, I wouldn’t miss them, but that being said, that’s the type of billboard that’s, I’ll use the word, Americano, if you will, it’s part of what we see. I just think that the electric, the illuminated one, it would be, just be too much for the area. I take objection to the gateway to the barrier islands, because Point Pleasant Beach down here is the gateway to the barrier islands. But, you know, that being said we have, we spent a lot of time, mayor and council, board, chamber, what is it, Board of Commerce, spent a lot of time trying to maintain the downtown look, the downtown feel. I don’t think these fit in. I do not in any way see any inherent benefit to anybody to upgrade these to digital. There was talk about, you know, wanted ads, missing people. There was no talk about whether we’ve approached the town and seen if they even want to do that. There would be a cost to the town, I would imagine, that somebody would have to be charged with making those decisions to contact and have a sign changed and as to content on the sign. In that respect itself, I see it as another, maybe a minor cost, maybe another title on Karen’s door, it would be another cost, nonetheless. So, like I said, I take a little different approach, but I’m not really looking favorable on this at all.
PASOLA: I see this as a large expansion of a nonconforming use. I think the proposed use will cause substantial detriment to the public good and it would definitely have bad effects on the adjacent properties. I don’t think the general welfare of the people in this town would be served and I think it just definitely goes against the town Master Plan and so on. I think it would change, if we approved this, which I’m going to vote no, it would change the character of that area for sure and possibly change the character for the whole town. So, from what I’ve heard, from what I see, I don’t think we want this. I don’t think the people in Point Beach want anything like this in our town. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MCGEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, we come here. We meet once a month on a good month, more often than not more than that, and we look at cases, like side yard setbacks. We see those all the time. We need a higher fence, because we put a pool in and continuity and things like that. Every once in a while, every once in a while, I kind of remember the responsibility that we have to shoulder to our friends and our neighbors who bought in a particular zone and expect to, and our visitors, and they expect to be able to maintain their safety and the quality of life that they enjoy having bought in that particular zone and they deserve that. I’m not convinced that we’d be doing that here if we approved this billboard. For all the reasons that were stated before me and for more, I’m inclined to vote not in favor of this application.
NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, I think it’s in direct contrast of the Master Plan. And I think that by doing this you would upset the way that this town is and the way that this area is, so furthering to the neighboring towns, and I empathize with the property owners adjacent to it where it would detract from their property and their time on their property. So, I am not looking in favor.
MCFADDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Everyone has hit on a lot of the points I want to hit on. I’ll try to be brief, because it’s almost quarter after ten. This doesn’t fit in with the character of the town. And I think it’s a really bad precedent as one of our adjacent mayors I think mentioned. I really liked the way Mr. Davis approached this and I think it’s a major safety issue and I don’t see where the studies that were presented, even though I know a lot of work was put into this, I don’t see where they necessarily pertain to our complex, difficult traffic pattern in that area. 22 So, if I were voting tonight, I would vote no.
CHAIRMAN STRUNCIUS: Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I start with the fact that, you know, the town just did the reexamination. We’re very recent on that and, you know, billboards were not added in as a permitted use. They’re a non-permitted use and so certainly not wanting a billboard, I can’t see that the town was in favor of the expanding any billboards and turning them into something that is completely different. I think some of the questions that we are asked, you know, about the aggregate data versus data in this type of environment, I certainly understand the digital sign when I am going down a turnpike or a major highway and they’re 40 feet in the air and they’re gigantic and you are seeing them from a half a mile away and it’s completely different than when it gets dropped into a small town atmosphere in a, what is a somewhat congested area already with various business and residential and now you’re putting in this dynamic sign that has changing images. There’s just no way to me that it couldn’t be some level of a distraction as you’re going by and the thing changes. Then you bring in the relationship of a railroad crossing in that area 2and the competitive nature of lights and, you know, warning signs. I certainly don’t understand the argument that was made about a billboard being a proponent of free speech. It’s certainly advertising for a particular business, which may be miles away from here or it could be any other town and have nothing to do with the localized relationship to businesses in this area. So, I don’t necessarily see the direct benefit to the town. So, I don’t understand that necessary free speech argument side of it. I had another point I wanted to make and I lost it. So, you know, in general, I do see it as a distraction, again, with the changeability of the sign. Oh, what I wanted to say is I do understand the argument for alerts and things like 16 that. But I will say, our town has other systems in place. I get multiple phone calls a week on my cell phone, so I don’t need to be anywhere near a board that’s telling me something about what might 2be going on in the town, because, believe me, the town calls me 19 times a week to tell me things that are going on in the town and it rings right on my phone, which I do have near me. So, I understand that there’s a level of that that the town can overtake it, but those really are few and far between. I do understand the comment of, you know, you don’t miss it until you don’t have it, but how often does that happen? Not too often. And, again, there’s other means of alerting residents through some of the alarm systems we have in town, some of the way things come across your television, and certainly the way they come across your phone. There’s an abundance of communication from the town in that way. So, I think that was the other point I wanted to make and I stated many of the other reasons that I just don’t think this is the right fit for this location. It didn’t prove out that it needed this type of expansion. If you wanted to come in and make those bases nicer and make it look better and continue with the use, I can see some inherent right to that, but to expand upon it, I don’t think it’s warranted, needed, or adds anything to the character of the town.
Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Vice chair Reynolds to deny application 2022-14 – OutFront Media, LLC – 502 Sea Avenue – Block 12; Lot 25
In favor: Davis, Reynolds, Pasola, Dixon, McGee, Neill and Struncius
Opposed: None
Applications denied
Meeting adjourned at 10:35pm
Attest: Karen L. Mills, LUA
Clerk of the Board
