Zoning Commission Approves Updated Language For Digital Sign Ban

Despite some negative feedback to a proposed updated regulation, the town’s ban on digital signs is nothing new, town planner Neil Pade recently told zoning commissioners.

Rather the updated regulation was simply an attempt to keep up with ever-changing technology, he said.

“This regulation is no longer adequate to address current technology,” Pade said before the commission adopted the new wording.

The current regulation, Section 63.3.3 states, “Except for barber poles and the area of a sign devoted to displaying the time and/or temperature, no signs shall be of the flashing, rotating or animated type. Time and temperature readings may not flash at intervals of less than five seconds.”

The new text will read as follows:

“The following signs are not permitted under any circumstance:

a. flashing, rotating and animated signs;

b. signs capable of changing image using electronic control;

c. signs with display screens using LED, LCD, plasma, or functionally

equivalent technology; and,

d. signs capable of slide show or series of stills, or full motion, or a combination thereof.”

Pade also told commissioners at the July 20 meeting in the community center that the proposed wording was referred to the town attorney as well as many regional agencies, with favorable reviews. The planning commission also gave a positive referral and found it consistent with the town's Plan of Conservation and Development.

However, Pade also pointed out that approval of the new wording, which goes in effect Aug. 9, does not preclude commissioners from considering allowing some digital signs in the future.

If the commission does decide to revisit the issue at some point, there would be many considerations such as safety, brightness and location, he added.

Commissioner David Bondanza said there may be future issues, such as a continued push for digital signs by many gas stations.

Chairman Jay Weintraub agreed it was an issue that could be revisited but felt the commission was on solid ground moving forward with the new language.

“I’m very comfortable,” he said.

Commissioner Kathy Hooker said the commission was regulating the signs and not the message.

“I think the rural nature of our town kind of plays here too,” she said. “I don’t think we’re denying the public a valuable service.”

There was a public hearing on the issue and while Pade said the wording had generated some push back, no one spoke to the issue at the zoning meeting.

Voting for the changes were all present commissioners, including Weintraub, Phil Pane, Bondanza; Sandra Trionfini and Hooker.

In approving the changes the Zoning Commission "found" the following:

1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the POCD as determined by the Planning Commission;

2. The prohibition of such signs are in the public interest, and promotes a substantial governmental interest in that they:

a. would negatively affect the aesthetics, character, and rural tradition of the community;

b. such signage promotes excessive lighting and brightness which leads to light trespass, sky glow, and light pollution, which is inconsistent with the rural character of the town as well as the consistent practice of the commission to eliminate such negative effects from the community;

c. the cumulative effect of digital signs would erode the public view and rural/ residential character of the community;

d. such signage would become a dominant visual element and overwhelm the fundamental character of the town;

e. such signage would be a distraction of the scenic quality of the town and would clash with historic or established architectural elements of the community;

f. such signage has excessive brightness, vibrant color, changing images, motion and changing message which are a distraction, causes inadvertent and instinctual glances, and produces complex messages that can take several seconds to comprehend;

g. such signage is a distraction to motorist as a traffic and pedestrian safety concern;

h. such signage would have a negative affect on property values;

3. the proposed amendments are good for the community as a whole as they allow the existing regulations, originally intended to prohibit such signage, to maintain their effectiveness in consideration of modern technology;

4. the proposed amendment is consistent with the protections allowed by CGS § 8-2 relative to public health and safety; and,

5. the proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan.