It's bright and blinding, ugly and interfering.
It's disrupting and disturbing, dangerous and damaging.
It's a public nuisance and visual pollution.
And it's now up along Route 22 in Palmer Township, with the above description reflecting the dismay of a group of residents who live along Hay Terrace.
Residents came out in force Monday night to protest to the Board of Supervisors a new digital billboard that they say is ruining their quality of life, killing their property values, illuminating their homes and causing sleepless nights.
After signing off to entertain offers from vendors to put up digital billboards along two spots in Palmer Township, officials got an earful from residents who say their eyes are telling them this big, bright and bold billboard is going to drive them bonkers.
"Shining light like this is a form of torture," said Jim Duffy, one of 10 Hay Terrace residents who spoke out against what they describe as a public nuisance.
"It's like sitting outside and watching a great big football screen," said Brenda Febbo about the sign in her back yard. "I feel like I'm going to a Drive-In movie."
Supervisors Chairman Dave Colver tried to ease the crowd, telling them that the billboard's activation Friday caught him off guard and that Monday was the first day he was able to address the issue since township offices are closed on weekends.
Colver stated that the township held numerous public hearings and multiple meetings on digital billboards and stated that their regulations for spots on Routes 22 and 33 were modeled and regulated by the state Department of Transportation.
He said the billboards are being tested and have not received a certificate of occupancy yet from the township.
"They're legal to be there," he said. "I can't answer about the lighting cause they are being tested. The lighting is the biggest culprit."
Many residents said the light from the billboard shines into their homes and is even interfering with their television reception.
Duffy cited studies on how the billboards are a highway safety issue, causing disruptions that lead to accidents.
He mentioned a Wisconsin study that suggested a 35 percent increase in accidents due to digital billboards and a $30,000 decrease in property values, according to another study.
Duffy suggested that the billboards be shut off at 9 p.m.
While Colver said that the permit does not mandate time limits, he believed the township could control the light spillover into residential homes.
"I guess 99.9 percent of this is light and night," he said.
Colver said the township would look into the complaints.
Also, FYI, the "concerned & caring" owner is leaving this monstrosity on at full intensity 24/7, without an occupancy permit, until the zoning meeting in May. (if that is not cancelled either). The only time it has gone down, so far, is when the generator that currently powers it runs out of fuel. After all, why should he care? It's not lighting up the neighborhood where he lives. As I said before about attending the public meetings, there was minimal, even though there was, hopefully, legal notification about this billboard, not too many people if any, showed up at the meetings before the supervisors approved this eyesore. From now on, I can guarantee you that I will be at every meeting that actually happens I am able to attend. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
bringing in studies and other data from other areas and states does no good for two reasons, it is too late in the permitting process and because the studies pro and con are all biased. to influence the process pressure the town, the builder and the land owner to get some remediation. light shielding with trees and other blocks, time allowed to operate and boycott the advertisers
You mention planting trees to act as a shield from the light pollution but they will only work until they can grow to sufficient height to block the view of the billboard and, regardless of their height, will only be effective while they have leaves on them. As far as the "other blocks" you mention are concerned, please elaborate on what could realistically be done?
My first instinct was to read the Town ordinances on signage... 190-171 and 190-187. Easy to access from the Town Web site. Looking at those laws there had to be a variance given to the builder, especially as it relates to light nuisance. That meant hearings. There is a state statute as well 36PS 2718.10 but I have not gotten to that yet. It has been my experience that this Board of Supervisors favors the developer and development more than the resident. I would bet the Board never took a field trip to the site to see the proximity to Hay Terr. Who owns the property on which the sign stands, they are part of this as well, and will be collecting a couple of thousand dollars a month in lease fees onvce the sign is operating. As to other blocks of the sign other than trees or foliage... what ever is developed needs to shield the homes from the sign. A substantial earthen berm with trees on top helps get the height required to form a block. Building of the berm (10-12 ft) with trees of a minimum height (Town specs allow for 4 ft trees) needs to be the responsibility of the sign owner and the property owner
I appreciate your response; thank you for the references. Blocking the light with anything, in this case, will be problematic. The neighborhood is situated on sloping ground and the billboard is sitting at the highest point above all the houses. Any berms, walls, or trees would have to be very tall indeed to block the light, especially for those situated further down-slope. Because of this I am not sure any light barriers would be practical or cost effective.
- how they were met; - what was the timing in which they were met; - the degree of openness in which the deliberations were made; and - who exactly benefits from where this sign is placed???
Now if you want to say that the Supervisors should have recognized the importance and impact of these signs and their actions... and they should have held sign specific public hearings... I totally agree. But it is the habit and practice of this Board of Supervisors, and many if not most others, to act "for" the public. Often the results favor a developer, builder and in this case sign operator.. to the detriment of the public. Your course of action sue and vote them out! There are two Supervisor positions open for this November election. What will you do.
It's a nice idea to intend on going to every supervisors and zoning board meeting but many people may have other obligations that limit their ability to attend. Are you suggesting that one should go to every meeting in order to keep the supervisors focused on doing their jobs? This current bunch does not deserve to be re-elected. No comments at this time concerning lawsuits. As far as throwing my hat in the ring? I do not know, will you?