MILFORD — The Planning and Zoning Board needs more information on billboards.
For now, the public hearing on a proposed regulation change to allow digital billboards at six locations along Interstate 95 in the city has been extended to the PZB’s June 16 meeting, providing the board time to collect the additional information.
Attorney Kevin Curseaden submitted and resubmitted an application on behalf of his client, Dominic DeMartino, who owns an industrial building at 45 Banner Drive, which has a billboard facing the northbound lanes of I-95. At the board’s meeting Dec. 17, 2019, the vote was 5-4 in favor of adopting revised zoning regulations to allow digital billboards along I-95 — but the measure failed because six or more votes are needed to pass a regulation change.
At the June 2 public hearing, which took place online via the Zoom application and lasted for 21/2 hours, residents spoke against the proposal, citing safety and aesthetic concerns, while Milford business people spoke in favor, saying it would help local businesses. The public comments were similar to those during the Nov. 19 and Dec. 3, 2019 hearings, and many of the same people spoke on each side of the issue.
In his presentation June 2, Curseaden highlighted elements of the 2019 presentations, which he presented to the board in the form of a 292-page packet. The document included text of the proposed regulation, minutes from the previous meetings, traffic studies about digital billboards, state statutes as they relate to zoning and Milford zoning regulations related to signs and light, and advertisements displayed about COVID-19.
Curseaden said he brought the proposal back to the board because it needs six votes out of 10 to pass, and when the vote took place on Dec. 17, only nine board members were present. He said there has also been a change, with three new board members. He said the package addresses questions and concerns related to lighting and traffic safety, commenting that the previous hearings made the application team aware of the major concerns of board members.
“Now that we have all the information together, we have a much more comprehensive package to come in with the new board,” said Curseaden. He said the proposal has letters of support from Fire Chief Douglas Edo and the Milford Chamber of Commerce.
Curseaden said digital billboards benefit small business owners who can rent space on them less expensively, more flexibly, and for a shorter period of time than a print billboard. He said in a draft memorandum of agreement with billboard owners, the city would have some advertising space “to allow the city, nonprofits, and emergency services to advertise.”
A federal traffic study indicates digital billboards are safe, Curseaden said. The language of the proposed Milford regulation is based on the study and industry standards, including an 8- to 10-second flip time for the adds and a lighting level of 0.3 foot-candles, he said.
With regard to public concerns that allowing the digital billboards along I-95 opens the door to having them in downtown and other areas, Curseaden said, “If anything is allowed in the future, it would be a different application that would have to be vetted by the board. We realize we are not going to satisfy everybody with this.”
City Planner David B. Sulkis said that in Milford no lighting source can be greater than 0.5 foot candles, but in the proposed regulation, which lists light levels at different distances from a digital billboard, “up to 200 foot, they are not meeting that standard.”
In response, Cheng Qian from Oakville, Ontario, head of engineering for Media Resources Inc., a digital display manufacturing corporation, said that 0.5 foot candles is very low level of light and if the light levels of commercial businesses were measured closer, the numbers would be higher. Qian said at any residential property, the light level would have to be less than 0.3 foot candles and they have been careful to abide by that number.
In response, Sulkis said the city’s measurement is at the property line, saying the light could be much brighter further into the site.
Qian said there would be no adverse affect to commercial properties, commenting that the light is a way of provided security lighting. He said, “We recognize we are not in compliance at property line.” He said with upgraded lighting to existing billboards, there could be much higher light levels.
Sulkis said light levels cannot be higher than 0.1 foot candles at residential property lines.
Qian said he did measurements at each individual billboard site to measure the effect on residential properties “to insure the foot candle is below your limit.” He said the only site that was close was the one near Gloria Commons condominiums, on West Avenue adjacent to I-95.
Curseaden said the chart in the proposed regulation detailing light levels at certain distances from the sign are a way to measure the light.
“We were happy we met the existing light levels for the residential areas. We are slightly above the commercial levels, but it did not have a significant impact,” said Curseaden.
Questions on Change
Board member Robert Satti discussed with Curseaden the application and why the original presentation took place after the fall election, saying that the attorney knew at the Nov. 2019 public hearing that some board members would not be returning.
Curseaden responded by saying, “We had spent a significant amount of time bringing the application through the public hearing process,” commenting its return by saying, “We are bringing it back because we have a more comprehensive package.”
Satti questioned whether the proposed regulation change would open the door to billboards in the downtown area in the CDD zone or in the industrial zone near Woodmont Road.
“It appears anybody can put up a billboard that is electronic,” said Satti.
In response, Curseaden said the language was carefully written to limit billboards within 200 feet of the I-95 corridor that face a certain angle toward I-95. He said that Sulkis suggested definitional language, which led to the wording of the current proposal.
In response to a question from board member Brett Broesder about requesting a special exception for each submission, instead of a regulation change, Curseaden said, it would not work because each application would be in violation of the lighting in that zone.
“You would be asking the board to make a special exception for something that didn’t meet the regulations,” said Curseaden, noting the P&Z cannot vary its own regulations, only Zoning Board of Appeals can do that and only when there is a legal hardship, which would not be the case for changing a billboard.
Board member Jim Kader asked what would stop a large company from buying up all the time or all the best times on the digital billboards.
In response David Gannon, president of Outfront Media, a billboard company, said that would be a concern in a big city where rentals are typically 80 percent national businesses and 20 percent local businesses. He said in Connecticut the mix has been 20 percent national and 80 percent local in the 30 years he has been in the business.
Kader responded by saying, “I hear you, but I’m not sure I buy it.”
Board member Joseph Castignoli commented that the country of Sweden first allowed electronic billboards, allowed, then banned them, asking, “I wonder why they did it. What was the reason?”
Qian, Gannon and Curseaden all said they were not aware of the laws in Sweden.
In response to board member Carl Moore’s question about whether the proposal addresses any of the concerns from the public, Curseaden said, “There will be people against digital billboards regardless of how we presented. We respectfully disagree with the concerns about safety. People can take position they don’t like the aesthetics.”
Board member John Mortimer questioned whether there had been any studies since the 2012 study and said he was also concerned about the effect of changing technology.
Qian said the 2012 digital billboards study “was done at considerable expense and was deemed relatively conclusive. There has not been a significant effort to redo that study.”
With regard to changing technology, Curseaden said if federal or state laws changed the standard, existing billboards would have to be removed or modified.
Public Opposed; Businesses in Favor
At the public hearing, 10 residents and officials spoke against the regulation change, while three business people spoke in favor of allowing digital billboards. In addition, the board had letters from residents against the proposal and business people in favor that were on file, but not shared at the public hearing.
Alderman Ellen Beatty, D-5, of Elm Street read a letter against the proposal that she said was co-signed by others, including former P&Z members Jeanne Cervin, John Grant, Scott Marlow, and Kim Rose, who is also a state representative for Milford, Alderman Frank Smith, D-3, former alderman Bryan Anderson, and others.
In the letter, Beatty said the regulation would make it easier for digital billboards to be approved because board review would no longer be required. She said the 2012 federal study was peer reviewed by international experts and “found to be flawed.” She said a number of states, including Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Alaska have banned digital billboards, as have many Connecticut towns, and Sweden reversed its approval after a study.
“This group believes that billboards are meant to distract,” said Beatty.
Dominic Cotton of Corona Drive said he agreed with Beatty’s letter, saying Milford is a small city, not a large one like Bridgeport, and said, “We have to decide what we want to be. He said in Stratford and Stamford, there are only one or two digital billboards, not six or seven. Cotton said changes should be done within the board’s 10-year plan.
Donna Dutko of Buckingham Avenue said, “The board should not give up their oversight to something as critical as digital billboards. It happened with the marijuana dispensaries.” Dutko said this way the board can control digital billboards, saying she is concerned about light trespass in residential areas.
Ronald Monforte, president of Gloria Commons, said a billboard was put up five years ago on its property. Monforte said, “The developer said, ‘If the light shines into your windows, close your blinds.’” Monforte said the billboard is angled in such a way that it will shine on units. He said they asked the state to install a barrier, but was told there was no money for that. Residents are concerned that a tractor trailer driver distracted by a billboard could come into one of their units.
Former P&Z member Scott Marlow of West Main Street, who voted against the regulation change in Dec. 2019, said, he was opposed for safety reasons. “I can’t understand how a digital billboard advertisement is not meant to distract you. When that changes is when it catches your attention,” he said. Marlow said he was also concerned about how lighting levels are measured, commenting that static billboards are a constant light, but digital billboards change color.
“I do think these will create light pollution at night,” said Marlow.
Nancy Iddings of Housatonic Drive said she is opposed due to concerns about lighting, bird migration, safety, and “trying to maintain trees for a community our children and grandchildren want to live in.”
Speaking in favor, Peter Cozzolino of Gulfview Court, owner of NAPA Auto Parts and a member of the Milford Economic Development Commission, said, “I see no difference between a well-lit billboard and changing to these six billboards. Changes in technology are scary.”
Cozzolino said advertising on traditional billboards is very expensive and said there is also waste because the display is thrown away each month. He said digital billboards are good for small businesses to get their message out.
“I think the real distraction is the light from smart phones,” said Cozzolino.
Pam Staneski of Point Lookout, executive director of the Milford Chamber of Commerce, said the owner of Bin 100 Restaurant in Milford has been advertising on a digital billboard along I-95 south in West Haven. The advertisement about outdoor dining “has driven activity to her restaurant. She would not have been able to pivot, had she not had the opportunity to put a digital billboard up there.”
John Barrett of Hawley Avenue is a partner in Barrett Outdoor Communications, which owns billboards, and also serves on the Board of Directors for the Outdoor Advertising Association of America. Barrett said he is one of the people who put together the standards for digital billboards. Barrett said it is hard to understand lighting and brightness.
Barrett said luminescence is how bright something appears, while what people experience is illuminescence or “how much light is striking us.” He said a lighthouse is a measurement of illuminescence because it seems dim from far away, but is blinding close up. He said illuminescence or light trespass is measured at the property line. He said footcandles are measured relative to the ambient light. He said a flashlight is barely visible during the daytime, but at night, a flashlight is much more visible than ambient light. He said a digital billboard adjusts its light level in relation to ambient light.
In his closing remarks, Curseaden said he lives in Milford and would not present the proposed regulation if he thought it was unsafe. He said he views this as part of the evolution of signs , from wooden to metal to vinyl, and now digital.
“I think this is an optics issue, not a safety issue,” said Curseaden.
Qian said there is a two-second limit for safety with regard to distractions, which is why there is an eight -second flip time for digital billboards. From an environmental standpoint, Qian said the power reduction in digital displays is half of that from 10 years ago. He also said it is better than having a vinyl billboard display installed by a truck using fossil fuels.
Regulations
The proposal would create new sections to the zoning regulations under Section 5.2 Exterior Lighting Regulations, and Section 5.3 Sign Regulations that detail the specifications for electronic digital billboard signs, describe permitted locations, and include limits on how much light they can project. The regulations would be limited to the conversion of existing “commercial advertising signs,” and would not allow an increase in non-conformity related to “height, distance, size and location requirements.” Any sign would require a zoning permit.
The display would have to face the I-95 corridor “at an angle of 90 degrees or less at the point nearest the sign structure” and be “located no more than a distance of 200 feet from the I-95 Corridor.”
In the 2019 proposal, the regulation would have applied to these zoning districts: the Limited Industrial (LI), Corridor Design Development Districts (CDD) 1, 3 and 5, and also the Interchange Commercial District (ICD) and the Industrial District (ID). The new proposal limits the change to the LI, CDD-1 and the ID zoning districts.
The change would affect the following six billboards: There is a double sized billboard in front of the building at 58-60 Research Drive, and a single-sided billboard behind the building, as viewed from the northbound on-ramp from Woodmont Road. Along the highway, a double-sized billboard is adjacent to the building at 84 Research Drive, and a double-sided billboard is next to a building at 116 Research Drive. These Research Drive properties in the ID zone are all owned by D’Amato Investments. LLC.
There is a double-sided billboard in the state of state Department of Transportation right of way between the Metro North Railroad tracks and the southbound lanes of I-95, near 270 Rowe Ave., located in the LI zone. Finally, on the property of Gloria Commons Condominiums, 590 West Ave. in the CDD-1 zone is a billboard adjacent to the I-95 North lanes, but is visible only from the southbound lanes.
"Electronic" - Google News
June 08, 2020 at 05:00PM
https://ift.tt/30jqAed
Milford debates electronic billboards; residents worry about safety - CT Insider
"Electronic" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3dmroCo
https://ift.tt/3bbj3jq
No comments:
Post a Comment