Electronic Digital Billboards Signs Sparks Debate In Milford

MILFORD, CT — A local attorney Kevin Curseaden is seeking a regulation change that would allow for electronic digital billboards signs in Milford, and numerous residents opposed the proposal at a recent Planning and Zoning Board meeting, according to lengthy meeting minutes.

No final vote on the request has yet been made.

Curseaden said the application had been under discussion for about a year and a half and included conversations with staff. He said the proposed revision would require changes to language of the regulations as well as definition changes, and by statute such proposals must be filed with the City Clerk; this had been done. He identified regulations that would be affected by the proposed changes. He displayed a list of 7 locations of current billboards in the City that abut I-95, noting that only one was in a zone included residential use.

He showed aerial views of the parcels where the billboards were located, and how the billboard appear from major roadways. He provided a list of digital billboards in neighboring towns. He said the application included a light engineering report. He said a portion of the billboard display cycle could be used for public service messages. He said the billboards would meet the light trespass restriction for residential property. He said preexisting nonconforming billboards would be allowed to continue. He compared the evolution of digital billboard displays with previous evolution from using painted billboards to vinyl.

Cheng Qian, MASC, Chief Product Architect, Media Resources, Inc, Ontario, Canada, provided an expert presentation on light pollution, providing definitions and units of measurement for glare and light trespass. He discussed ways of discouraging and containing light trespass. He reviewed different types of illuminated sign, saying digital billboards are fundamentally different from
other types of illuminated billboards in that backlit LED billboards have no directional light or hot spots. He said dimming technology for nighttime display is similar to limits used for smartphones and that no glare would be produced. He said the billboards would comply with residential limits for light trespass.

Mr. Sulkis asked if, given the proposed industry-standard cycle of message changes every 10 seconds, the changes in displayed illumination, based on the changing message, would be distracting. He added a concern about attention-getting flashing in messages. Mr. Qian said such
changes would be of limited magnitude.

Here are the residents that opposed the sign change:

Deanna Jacobs, said she became aware of the issue from the newspaper and was concerned that there was not sufficient awareness for the general public. She said she found were inconsistencies in the online regulation numbering and found the many zone acronyms confusing.

She asked what size the billboards would be and if sound would be associated with them. She read aloud the preamble to the regulations highlighting the section on promotion of the health, safety, and general welfare of citizens, consistent with Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). She asked who would benefit from allowing digital billboards.

Chairman Quish said the benefit of billboards is both to the seller and potential buyers. He asked Mr. Sulkis to comment on the questions.

Mr. Sulkis said nothing in the proposed regulations involved content-related sound. He said Mr. Qian could probably comment on whether the LEDs emit any functional noise. He said the proposal is to take existing billboards and convert them to the electronic format of a standardized size limit of 14’ x 48’.

Jeanne Cervin, said she was a long-term former Planning and Zoning board member and thought a similar application had been denied in years past. She expressed concern that CDD mixed use zones contain residential areas that could be affected by light trespass and also expressed concern about potential taxation issues. She said she thought the City might have as many as 60 existing billboards and feared such conversions could be applied to all of them. She listed states that prohibit digital billboards and noted that other nearby cities have also prohibited them. She said they can be hacking targets and asked about security provisions--whether control panels exist on site, how messages are monitored, and whether the City might want oversight.
She said there were too many unknowns in the proposed regulation as written for approval and action should be forestalled until the next update to the POCD.

Bryan Anderson said this proposal for digital billboards was coming before the board for a third time and was concerned about unintended consequences. He said converting to digital billboards would expand the carbon footprint of the billboards and recalled discussions aimed at making streetlight levels more environmentally friendly. He expressed concern for current billboard workers’ livelihoods, about privacy, and the potential for a billboard to interact with smartphones. He was concerned about various board heights and driving visibility.

Jane Platt said she shared previous speakers’ concerns and that she viewed opposed the proposal as a quality of life issue. She said a recent trip to Vermont was calming due to absence of such billboards.

Dominick Cotton said he works with people who have brain injuries and he was concerned about human safety and distractibility, with drivers potentially taking attention off the road, particularly since Milford has more exits (7) than other communities.

Richard Platt echoed the “who benefits?” question. He said society has enough information overload and agreed that such billboards are distracting with potential safety impacts.

Mary Oake said the billboards are ugly marketing devices. She noted that the demographics are shifting toward an aging population that will have more difficulty ignoring distraction. She also worried about overuse of natural resources energy.

Ann Berman said the current New Haven Avenue billboards are an eyesore and others are scattered throughout the city. She expressed concern for how flashing lights could trigger epilepsy and recalled historic use of subliminal messages in advertising—how such messages might be used. She noted an instance of a digital billboard being hacked by pornography. She said they may emit enough light pollution to affect both humans and animals. She wanted to know how much electricity would be used.

Donna Dutko, handed out a section of the state statute regarding uniform zoning regulations. She argued that the city would have to allow such billboards throughout all zones included in the list of 7 billboards abutting I-95. She was concerned about the issue of free speech. She said drivers sometimes will hold focus on the billboard for recurrence of an ad that’s
of interest, increasing danger. She asked how the light restrictions would be enforced and what the cost would be. She was concerned that the commercial light restriction could not be restricted within mixed use zones. She asked if a Gulf Street billboard would also be converted.

Chairman Quish asked if the Gulf Street billboard would be affected by the change; Mr. Sulkis said the proposed regulation restricts them to lots adjacent to I95. Ms. Dutko pressed the point about being allowed anywhere in an approved zone.

Nancy Iddings agreed that the signs are distracting. She said Milford should be quaint, not like Las Vegas.

Dora Kubek said I95 is one of the busiest, most dangerous highways in the country. She compared digital billboards to the distraction of texting. She said she saw no benefit to the City and was concerned by possibility of hacking.

Sandy Griefzu said the billboard would diminish the beauty of the city. She said information is readily available without billboards and asked if there were studies about safety impacts. Mr. Sulkis noted emails received in opposition from:

Sarah Bromley who said such billboards are distracting, unattractive, and harm the City’s current charm.

Alana Fagan said ordinary billboards are distracting and unattractive enough. There was an email in opposition from speaker Nancy Iddings as well.

Chairman Quish invited anyone speaking in favor to address the board; seeing none, he invited Attorney Curseaden to rebut.

Attorney Curseaden read a synopsis by a third party of a Federal Highway Administration study on billboards into the record: The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration has released a landmark study declaring that digital billboards do
not pose a safety risk to passing motorists. For those within the industry, the results of this study come as no surprise.

Numerous traffic studies and analyses performed in the last coup le of decades have come to a similar conclusion . The report, actually divided into two studies, is officially titled "Driver Visual Behavior In The Presence of Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs." For the purposes of the studies, the FHA refers to digital billboards as Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs.

The studies sought to address three specific questions:
1. Do CEVMS attract drivers' attention away from the forward roadway and other driving-relevant stimuli?
2. Do glances to CEVMS occur that would suggest a decrease in safety?
3. Do drivers look at CEVMS more than at standard billboards?

To conduct the study, the FHA tracked participant's eye movements with an eye-tracking camera device mounted in the vehicle. This device was able to track the driver's eyeball movement and determine if the driver was looking ahead at the roadway or off to the side of the roadway at a static billboard or CEVMS.

Drivers in Richmond, Va., and Reading, Pa., participated in the study, and the research concluded that drivers do indeed look at digital billboards longer than they do at static billboards. Glance duration toward digital billboards averaged 0.379 seconds, while glances at static billboards were at 0.335 seconds at both test sites. Both of these measurements fall far below the two-second benchmark, which would constitute a hazard, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

In conclusion, the study states, "The results did not provide evidence indicating that CEVMS, as deployed and tested in the two selected cities, were associated with unacceptably long glances away from the road. When dwell times longerthan the currently accepted threshold of 2,000 ms [milliseconds] occurred, the road ahead was still in the driver's field of view. This was the case for both CEVMS and standard billboards."

This peer-reviewed study should help put to rest concerns that digital billboards, and other outdoor digital signs, pose a hazard to passing motorists. The study will also help pave the way for communities to bring this powerful outdoor advertising medium to their communities, benefiting not just local operators and advertisers but the entire local economy as well.

Attorney Curseaden continued saying local business could benefit from using the billboards. He said the statutory uniformity of regulation requirement doesn’t mean all zones can do the same activities throughout the zone, rather it means that the regulations must be applied uniformly as legislated by the board, therefore the board has the power to enact this regulation.

He said he perceived concern about a slippery slope for spreading the billboards into the heart of the community, but he said the regulation was limited to the 7 locations proposed. He said enforcement would be through the ZEO with the use of light measurement devices.

He said there are also Department of Transportation regulations that must be met that regulate the devices. He said all notification requirements were met, and said information about the regulation is on file to be examined in the zoning offices. He stressed that care was taken to limit the regulation change to the 7 proposed sites.

Mr. Qian answered the question on sound, saying ventilation fans were used but the rest of the billboard is solid state. Regarding privacy concerns, he noted that data analytics software can track phones and movement anywhere without billboards. He said the internal diagnostics of signs are tracked by a network monitoring system that will shut down a sign if it malfunctions. He described power consumption as being similar to a commercial HVAC installation. He said LEDs are environmentally efficient, acknowledging that these billboards do consume power, but he said an argument could be made that mitigation from disposal of the vinyl used on
traditional billboards is more environmentally harmful.

He recalled a discussion at an industry conference of the porn hacking referenced by one speaker, saying that security breach involved a physical break-in of a secured room. He said most manufacturers have system locking and alarms; that no one buys unsecured system.

Mr. Satti asked for copies of letters of agreement referred to by Attorney Curseaden in his presentation and confirmed with David Gannon, of Outfront Media, 955 Washington Street, North Haven, that 14’ by 48’ is an industry standard. Mr. Gannon said that the existing structures would be refaced rather than replaced wherever possible. Mr. Satti asked if the public service announcements follow some standard display interval or ratio, saying he would wait for an answer if necessary.

He further asked how often surrounding towns take advantage of the public service displays. Mr. Satti expressed dissatisfaction with the HFA synopsis, calling it an advertisement and asked for the original study.

Mr. Moore was told that the 10-second interval could not be extended to 15 or some other value.
Mr. Marlow said he looked at FHA study online and found another link to an independent think tank called Enotran.org, which asserted that the data used and collected for the FHA study was flawed. Mr. Marlow posited that since the idea of a billboard is to get people to look at it, how can it fail to distract?

Mr. Sulkis asked for decibel level of the billboards and how much more power they use compared to conventional billboards. He also asked how the FHA study relates to Interstate highways in urban areas. Mr. Qian agreed that the FHA study results should be evidence-based. He referenced a series of 8 studies analyzed by the University of Alabama in 2014 with a conclusion consistent with the handout provided.

Attorney Curseaden said he would provide copies of the FHA study, a draft sample letter of agreement which would require review by the City Attorney’s Office.

Mr. Sulkis pressed for more information on sound levels. Mr. Qian quantified the decibel levels of noise created by billboard fans stating it stood to reason that it would be below the ambient noise of highway traffic.

Attorney Curseaden confirmed for Mr. Moore that ads are sold in 8-10 sec increments, but would research further any possibility for variation. He confirmed for Mr. Sulkis that 10 seconds is the interval used by neighboring communities.

Attorney Curseaden and Mr. Gannon confirmed for Mr. Satti that the 14’ x48’ size is an industry standard and that if structures had to be replaced; they would be replaced in kind.

PUBLIC REBUTTAL

Donna Dutko expressed doubts about the federal study, comparing it to vaping and saying that nothing is deemed hazardous until someone is hurt.

Richard Platt said that even public service announcements can be driving distractions.

Jeanne Cervin said more questions needed to be clarified before the regulation could be changed. She wanted to know the cost to City versus the benefit to the developer, saying tax issues should be researched. She acknowledged that the 2012 POCD doesn’t have billboard info, but said the topic should be added and examined.

Sandy Griefzu said given the recent election, the board was about to change, and new members should be able to consider the decision.

With no further public comment, Mr. Sulkis read his administrative summary and suggested that the public hearing be left open, which it was.