10-13-05 Planning Comm. Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and said no evidence supported the notion that so li mitin~ the content on the display had "anything to do with highway safety or aesthetics." It is a testament Yq the safety of EMCs that, since 1979, the Federal Highway Administration has not seen any need to revise its recognition ofthe legality of on-premise commercial variable electronic message signage. Electronic message centers -like other types of signage - when properly designed, placed, maintained, and illuminated can actually promote greater traffic safety. Regulations that are overly specific of restrictive could have the unintended consequence of creating a traffic hazard as well as limiting technological advances that might offer greater energy-efficiency and communication EMCs that employ copy change display methods in which each change in the display of lights results in the appearance of a new word, words, or graphic, is emptoying a "copy change." It is not "flashing" or "animation." As long as the messages are sequenced on and off, traffic safety does not pose a legitimate reason to interfere with the copy. Because these signs come in many sizes and varieties, aone-size-fits-all sequencing standard could inadvertently contribute negatively to traffic safeTy by preventing a full "read" of the message within a safe period of time. Furthermore, requiring signf e40.pmtl -~~- '-; ' ' ~® lengthy sequencing of message changes may well fall outside permissible legal constraints, essentially constituting censorship ofthe intended message. Legal Protections for Copy Change The subject of copy and face changes on signs, and exactly how much control regulators should ]rave over it, is riddled with complexities. At this time, due to Federal Highway regulations, flashing, scintillating, or chasing -all of which a quality message unit can do - may be regulated along the federal highway system. What benefit is gained by limiting this technology is basically unknown. The federal law was written decades ago without the benefit of technical substantiation. Federal courts have been clear in restricting sign codes to content-neutral regulations oftime, place and manner of display, but what about copy and face changes? Several cases have bearing on the issue. In Kerlin Gray-East Coast Auto Bod,7~ r. pillage ofN,yack, 566 N.YS.2d (N.Y. App. Div. 1991), a local business changed hands and the new owner wanted to reflect this with a new name for the business; a village ordinance deemed this a change of copy sufficient to require the nonconforming sign to conform before the copy change would be allowed. The Court, however, found that the 1 311314003, 12:45 PM -75- 1N/111L~4f~ message ' ri'Ys a t e ul toot for businesses and public facilities, advances in technology have resulted in the deve opment of the elecfronic message center, which often offers a more aesthetically pleasing appear- ance, as well as greater ease in making copy changes.