An LED Billboard in Guilford? Maybe, Maybe Not...

CBS Outdoor, who currently owns 4 billboard spaces in Guilford (two seperate billboard structures), recently put in application to turn one of those billboards into an LED advertising sign.

The trade-off? They would remove two of their billboards. At a recent Planning and Zoning Meeting and public hearing on the issue, Guilford gave their feedback on what they thought of the proposal.

Currently, billboards are not allowed in town, but the billboards owned by CBS Outdoor were grandfathered in prior to those stipulations. The two billboard structures that are owned currently house four billboard faces are located on Rt. 1. They wish to turn one of the billboards that is visible as one approaches from the Madison into an LED sign. In return, they would eliminate two of the faces. (Please see below for more on the proposal, or click here for the full proposal).

CBS Outdoor has billboards in 65 CT towns, but only has LED signs in Hartford, New Haven and New Britain. They are currently applying to propose similar signage on Wallingford’s Rt. 5, and were recently rejected from Branford for another similar proposal. The existing LED billboards are also mostly on interstates.

Tim Lee, an attorney representing the applicant argued that though state statute requires billboards to change no more than ever six seconds, the billboard they are proposing would change only every 8 seconds.

Lee argued that according to studies done by the National Highway Safety Committee, LED billboards were no more of a risk to traffic than a static billboard. He also stated that because the advertising changes, the cost to advertisers was less.

“Because four advertisers can share the space usually paid for by just one, the cost is less, giving businesses who previously could not afford advertising the opportunity to have a more cost effective option,” Lee said.

He also pointed out that many local advertisers such as The Guilford Fair and Bishop’s, had advertised on the billboards. The LED billboard would also be useful, he stated, for emergency alerts, for both the state and the town, as well as Amber Alerts.

Lee was clear, that without the acceptance of this proposal, which requires 50% reduction of their billboards, because the billboards were grandfathered in, there was no other way to get them removed.

In response to Lee’s argument, the Board raised many questions as to the safety of a low-lying sign that flashed in that area of Rt. 1. Lee responded that the luminosity was not an ‘obnoxious, Las Vegas’ flashing sign that would distract drivers.

“Driving back from Madison, you could see that flashing sign from quite far away, given that location,” said one Board member. “With the angled road approaching and a flashing traffic sign, that could be a distraction.”

The Board also was wary that if the proposal was approved, what would prevent the company from installing two LED billboards. They argued the applicant could just change their minds, regardless of their representation to the public.

“We wouldn’t lobby for two,” said the applicant’s representative. “This is a desirable area for our advertisers, but we still want to be mindful and respectful to the town.”

Board member Walter Corbiere responded, saying, “How is one more respectful of our community than two?”

Though many questions were raised, one resounding one was asked several times: What is the benefit to Guilford??

A representative of Guilford Preservation Alliance, representing their 450 members, spoke against the signage, reiterating their online statement about the proposal.

“This proposal is in conflict with Guilford’s long standing code of signage,” said GPA representative Shirley Girioni. “Branford overwhelmingly denied this applicant and we should as well. It will bring light pollution for surrounding areas, traffic distractions, making it a hazard, and it undermines the towns efforts to upgrade Rt. 1 and respect the history of our town. We would be the first of 169 towns to approve something like this.”

Shirley also referenced a study of Rt. 1 conducted almost 23 years ago that the town invested $40,000 in to develop guidelines for Rt. 1.  

In addition to Shirley’s testimony, the P&Z Board received 67 letters in opposition to the proposal, and none in favor.

Voting on the issue was tabled until a following meeting because the Board felt they were presented with a lot of new information and needed time to review it. Before that, one more resident spoke to a lot of bobbing heads in the audience, saying simply: “I have one word for you- Tacky, tacky, tacky.”

PROPOSED SEC .273-58 L (6)
Existing non-conforming billboard signs may be replaced by LED signs subject to Special Permit approval in accordance with Article X if: (1) the area of said billboard is reduced by a minimum of fifty (50%) percent; (2) the LED sign content change occurs no more frequently than every eight (8) seconds; and (3) the sign is in compliance with all rules and regulations of the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation in effect at the time of the adoption of this regulation.

PROPOSED DEFINITION OF BILLBOARD
Any object, device, display or structure which is used for attracting attention to any use, product, service or activity, not conducted, sold or offered on premises where such advertising sign or billboard is located.

Readers, what do you think? Should an LED sign be allowed in Guilford?? Let us know what you think in the comments!!