“It’s a new era for us,” said billboard owner Frank Nataro (at left in photo), as the city zoning board gave him the OK to revamp his old-fashioned Ferry Street billboard with new, changing digital displays.
A vote by the Board of Zoning Appeals Tuesday night set a precedent for how the city plans to deal with new billboard technology seen popping up along highways across the state and nation. In a 5 – 0 vote, the BZA overturned a city ruling that had prohibited the use of digital displays on billboards.
The reversal came after an appeal from attorney Anthony Avallone. Avallone, a member of the Democratic National Committee and former powerful state senator, has a history of success in the zoning hall.
Avallone showed up to appeal a ruling on behalf of Nataro, who owns a billboard at 654 Ferry St. (aka 25 Fox St.), facing Interstate 91 from Fair Haven soil.
Nataro, president of Coastal Outdoor Advertising of Connecticut LLC, currently has a legal billboard at that spot. It’s a typical, old-style, roll-on-the-paper sign. But the old technology is on its way out, he explained. With a changing digital display, he can fit six times as many advertisers on the sign. He could also change it faster, eliminating the one-to-two day changeover periods where old messages are torn down and new ones pasted up, while revenue is put on hold.
In a letter dated April 3, Avallone requested a certificate of zoning compliance to convert the sign into a digital one that would change its message no more than six times per minute (or once every 10 seconds).
No can do, replied the city’s new deputy director for zoning, Thomas Talbot, in a letter of reply dated April 11. His reply was based on a city ordinance (Section 44.1 of zoning code) that lays down rules for off-premises signs, aka billboards.
The ordinance prohibits billboards to have “lights that flash, shimmer, glitter or lights that give the appearance of flashing, shimmering or glittering.” Exceptions to this restriction are given for signs that “include time, temperature and smog index units, provided the frequency of change is more than a five-second interval.”
Talbot had the task of figuring out how the ordinance relates to new digital signs. Does changing every six seconds constitute “flashing,” “shimmering,” or “glittering”? His interpretation: Yes. The billboard proposal was “flashing signage,” therefore prohibited by city ordinance.
Define “Flash”
Avallone appealed Talbot’s ruling with his own flashy presentation Tuesday night. Breaking new digital ground himself after years of posterboard displays, Avallone (pictured below at left) called on his tech-savvy son, Brian (pictured below at right), to help persuade the BZA with a presentation that included changing billboards and videos of glimmering Times Square.
“Does the mere changing of a sign make it flash?” Avallone asked the board. To make his case, the attorney pointed to how state and federal agencies have dealt with the emerging technology. State law allows changing signs, provided that each ad lasts at least six seconds, and the changeover takes no more than one to two seconds. A 2007 memo from the Federal Highway Administration deemed digital billboards are OK under federal law, and recommended the static displays last at least eight seconds.
Avallone was asking only for a less distracting, 10-second display. He wasn’t arguing that the city needed to incorporate state or federal laws into its own regulations. He argued that the accepted interpretation was that the new technology does not “flash” or “glimmer.”
“Could it be any clearer?” the attorney asked the board, concluding his legal analysis. “You have to do this the legal way,” he argued. “I know you may not like billboards; you may not like other things, but that is not your decision today.”
A Public Interest Pitch
The attorney topped off the legal argument with a public interest perk, depicted through the pleading face of a missing child.
Kelly Barrett, a rep from the digital billboard division of Daktronics, a company that produces programmable electronic signs, elaborated on the matter. She described how the technology cooperates with public safety officials to help send out an “Amber Alert” in the case of a missing child or tornado.
Amber Alert public service announcements trump advertising, typically for four hours, and can be used to fill open slots in an advertising rotation, she later elaborated.
A total 35 states allow digital billboards, according to Barrett. She said her company already has 14 billboards erected across Connecticut.
Overturned
Adjusting their eyes after Avallone’s multi-media presentation, members of the board examined his proposal.
How bright are the signs? Barrett didn’t give a number, but she said they come with beehive-sized sensors that correct the sign’s brightness according to the level of ambient light.
One Fox Street neighbor, Maureen O’Sullivan-Best, showed up in opposition. She called the digital signs distracting. “As a driver, when you see these signs, they’re at the edge of your vision. When I see these signs, is it a truck driving by?”
Talbot, the city staffer who had shunned the billboard plea, gave a final defense: “I don’t have feelings one way or the other about billboards,” he said. He agreed the regulations need to dictate rules for the new technology. “But trying to shoehorn current technology into existing regulations is just not appropriate.”
Talbot warned the board of the lasting effects of their decision. “If you uphold the appeal, then this means this could affect any time someone wants to put up a sign.”
Board chair Cathy Weber weighed in: “As always, Attorney Avallone put on a very, very, very nice presentation.” The changing signs were not “flashy” by her determination.
“I thought the signs were very nice,” she said. “I would rather see those signs than the ones with the paper tearing off, or the kids climbing up on them, putting graffiti on them.” After watching a mock display of what the billboards would look like, she deemed the transitions to be “very, very smooth.”
“As much as we all hate billboards,” said BZA member Chris Vigilante, he agreed that the new technology should be allowed, according to city ordinance.
The board voted 5 – 0 to overturn the city’s ruling and uphold Avallone’s appeal.
Nataro left the Hall of Records in stride with Barrett, his new business associate, walking out into the digital age.