There has been a lot of conversation around town about the Garfield Center for the Arts’ recent hearings before the Historic District Commission and the upcoming hearings before the Planning Commission and the Town Council. As one neighbor to another, we at the Garfield Center believe it is appropriate to share with the community what we are proposing, and why.
For the past 10 years, our non-profit organization has been working to rehabilitate the historic Prince Theatre on High Street, and to bring a wide range of cultural, educational, and theatrical events to Chestertown. Restoring and updating our historic building is a key objective within our mission. There are critical components of that rehabilitation, however, which do not meet the current zoning ordinances. These hearings are intended to determine whether there are acceptable means to address our proposed alterations.
To put this process in context, Chestertown, like most towns of our size, has a set of zoning regulations which attempt to balance the need to protect the character of our community, the needs of its residents, and its property values with just enough flexibility to allow businesses to flourish and adapt over time. Zoning ordinances for towns the size of Chestertown are purposefully kept simple and clear cut, with few exceptions and variations, in order to minimize the need for bureaucracy. By and large that simplicity works.
However, a down side to simplified regulation is that often, by necessity, it ends up with one-size-fits-all solutions. Those may work acceptably until the codes need to address a circumstance where a building’s historic use and its context do not fit neatly within that simplified zoning. We contend that as a small historic theater, The Garfield Center for the Arts is one of those cases.
We understand that several aspects of the completed and proposed work do not meet the current Downtown Marketplace regulations. The historic marquee is prohibited by the regulations, but the marquee is grandfathered. The sign regulations prohibit the three ‘Garfield’ marquee signs and they are not permitted to be backlit. Neither are they permitted to be 90 degrees to the face of the building, nor mounted at the edge of the marquee.
The proposed exceptions to current regulations fall into two distinct categories. Almost all of the proposed changes are the result of our efforts to restore or replicate the historic features of the “New Lyceum”, as this 1920’s theater was originally named. The one other item is intended as a modern replacement for a functional component critical to the operation of any theater: a sign to announce the current show and the coming attractions.
While our proposed sign employs modern technology, it replaces two previous generations of signs which occupied this very same location on the building. The first of these was a 1920’s era brightly front lit poster box, which displayed the colorful posters of the day. In the third quarter of the 20th century, this was replaced by an internally-lit, fluorescent letter board with plastic letters and a plethora of smaller posters on the walls.
While our proposal may not meet the current zoning regulations, our request is not unusual. Most zoning codes include exceptions, which specifically apply to historic buildings, and particularly to theaters. For example, Savannah, Georgia’s sign ordinance forbids, “Flashing, animation, running light signs, or signs with moving parts,” but purposefully makes an exception “for theater marquees where documented historical precedent exists for such structure.”
The Garfield Center’s current application before the Planning Commission, that will subsequently be presented to the Town Council, is making a request for similar exceptions to adapt Chestertown’s sign regulations to permit the replication, rehabilitation, and/or the installation of historic elements unique to a historic building and its historic use where judged appropriate by Chestertown’s Historic District Commission. That exception would address installation of the otherwise non-conforming components on our marquee, as well as allowing similar historic based details where it can be demonstrated that they were a part of the original building. Being subject to HDC approval, these elements will add to the authenticity and appeal of Chestertown’s Historic Marketplace.
The most controversial element within the Garfield Center’s proposal is our request to install a programmable display within the context of the marquee. In Chestertown’s Historic Marketplace Sign Regulations “Signs may only be lighted indirectly” and “No sign shall have flashing lights or some other illuminating device which has a changing light intensity, brightness or color.” Whether the proposed technology is referred to as a ‘programmable display’, ‘LED sign’, or ‘LED screen’, the provisions within the code are being interpreted to prohibit the technology that we are requesting. This prohibition within the Chestertown sign ordinance clearly was intended to avoid clutter and chaos in order to preserve Chestertown’s historic and traditional small town feel- a goal we applaud.
While the restriction against an illuminating device which has a changing light intensity, brightness or color may make sense as it was conceived, this broad general proscription does not anticipate the variable nature of a technology like LED signage. Zoning laws have often been adjusted in response to changes in culture, technology, and science, and in that vein, we suggest that LED screens are an evolving technology which deserve further consideration.
It is true that improperly used electronic displays can exhibit characteristics which are precisely what the current language in the sign regulations seeks to prevent, but through proper regulation and use, programmable displays do not necessarily violate the intent or objectives which generated these restrictions in regulations. When anyone mentions LED signage, there is a tendency to think of the low resolution highway–oriented signs. But high resolution LED screens have evolved to permit their owners to precisely program their light intensity and visual impact so that the display does not have to exhibit undesirable characteristics.
Properly programmed, a high resolution screen does not have to be a bright flashing object. A unique feature of a modern screen is that its qualitative characteristics result from how it is programmed rather than from the technology itself. Properly selected and programmed these devices can be appropriate at the pedestrian scale of our proposed sign. We contend therefore, that the actual appearance and appropriateness of any screen is dependent on the quality of the device, the restraint of the owner and the skill of the programmer.
We therefore suggest that the goals of the current sign regulations can best be met not by totally prohibiting this new technology, but by tightly regulating how and where it is used. It is not unusual for zoning regulations to limit the use of specific technologies to a specific set of characteristics. In this case appropriate limitations might include size, location, relative and absolute lighting levels, frequency of changes, allowable types of transitions and other special effects, as well as the context in which the screen is being placed.
This was the basis for the action taken by Chestertown’s Historic District Commission, who recently approved our application for a programmable screen on the condition that it is operated within the restrictions set forth in the Garfield’s operating manual. The HDC has given the Garfield Center six months to explore how a properly programmed screen behaves, with everyone watching. After that, the Garfield Center must return to the HDC for another conditional use hearing, at which time the HDC can set any additional restrictions deemed appropriate, including the possibility of continuing conditional use hearings.
As in most towns, Chestertown’s sign and zoning ordinances already contain and qualify similar limitations. For example, Chestertown’s zoning ordinance allows ‘Professional and Business Offices’ to intermingle with residences in RB Zoning, but that zoning contains restrictions on how these offices must behave so as to protect the residential environment of their neighbors. Chestertown’s sign ordinance can similarly restrict the behavior of LED screens to protect the neighbors and neighborhood.
In summary, the Garfield Center is asking the Town of Chestertown to consider the current state of this emerging technology, and evaluate how this technology could be used in ways that are consistent with the goals that shaped the current zoning regulations thereby setting the bar high enough to prevent the haphazard use of this technology.
Our hopes are that the Planning Commission and Town Council will find a way to parallel the HDC’s approval. In other words, we hope they will set standards for the use of our programmable display, and grant a 6 month conditional approval, which would allow the opportunity to judge its success, and after which, adjust the regulations if necessary.
Garfield Center of the Arts
Board of Trustees
Ray Diedrichs says
I feel that this is a well-reasoned and balanced case for the appropriate use of technology in the historic district. The Garfield Center is an asset to the community, and I think that its request for conditional approval is reasonable. I hope that the Town agrees to it.
Carla Massoni says
Whatever the final decision – and I hope all signage requests are accepted as a “special” exception – the Garfield Board is to be congratulated for their efforts to remain transparent in their approach and for providing a well reasoned and researched proposal. I hope they will be thanked for setting such a professional precedent.
Kevin Shertz says
At the risk of sounding pedantic — this is not a signage request. The Historic District Commission determined this was an LED screen, not a sign.
Carla Massoni says
So sorry Kevin. An”exception” for the LED screen.
Kevin Shertz says
Carla, you’re missing my point. There is no guidance regarding the appropriateness of an LED screen in the Historic District Guidelines or our Zoning Ordinance, therefore it’s not an “exception” … it’s now a Pandora’s Box.
Carla Massoni says
Is the only choice to deny it? Are there no other avenues of recourse? What do you suggest?
Kevin Shertz says
My opinion: the LED sign is obviously a violation of the existing Historic District Guidelines, and the whole “it’s a screen!” argument should have never been accepted as a finding of fact by the Commission. The ordinance should have been updated first as needed if it was felt that it was appropriate for the theatre so as to provide guidance and context for future generations.
Carla, in my personal opinion, the way this has been set up, there’s no way for the PC not to approve it — they’ve had their legs cut out from underneath them by the Historic District Commissions’ finding of fact.
I’m extremely disappointed that the Board of the Garfield Center doesn’t realize the long-term implications of what they’re doing — in regards to how their desire to push this through sets a bad precedent — and the only way I personally can try to express my disappointment is to withhold my business advertising from the GC’s programs for 2013.
Keith Thompson says
How does the “i-Sign” fit in with the zoning and Historic District guidelines?
Kevin Shertz says
Were the Chestertown Volunteer Fire Company to request an LED “screen” for their Maple Avenue location, would the Board of Trustees of the Garfield Center be willing to write a letter of support for that situation?
After all, it’s the same technology the GC would use, ample precedent of Volunteer Fire Companies having LED signs already exists all over the Eastern Shore, the organization obviously exists to make us a safer town, and such a sign — located right on a busy street like Route 213 can provide passers-by with important information, such as time, temperature, fire hazard levels, and upcoming events at the fire hall — is obviously in the best interests of the greater good of the community.
Just throwing this out there for consideration…
Alex Smolens says
At the risk of sounding silly –
What do you call the giant sign People’s Bank has on Washington Ave that has the time & temp?
Kevin Shertz says
Outside the Historic District.
Philip Dutton says
Kevin, I don’t think the sign you are proposing for the firehouse is anything like what the HDC has approved for the Garfield Center. The Garfield’s screen is built into the door framing under the marquee where there has always historically been a brightly illuminated sign. Theaters are unique in that they used brightly lit arrival zones to promote themselves and their offerings. The screen is part of that pedestrian-oriented environment, and so, compatible with our downtown Roaring 20’s theater.
What you describe as “a sign — located right on a busy street like Route 213 can provide passers-by with important information, such as time, temperature, fire hazard levels, and upcoming events at the fire hall” is clearly a highway-oriented sign. It’s not that the information provided by the Firehouse isn’t important. It is that a sign oriented to vehicular traffic pushes Chestertown toward sprawl and away from its historic roots. I would think our town leaders will want their sign regulations to continue to prohibit car-oriented signage, especially in the approaches to town which are in the vicinity of the historic district.
On the other hand, is there no way the Fire Company could nestle a discreet screen in its landscaping? Could it develop an Operating Manual as the Garfield Center has done with restrictions on how the screen will operate so as to ensure it is a good citizen downtown? Granted, this is not easy work, but technological advancement will not stop. Let’s manage it and make the most of it while protecting our town’s historic charm. A balance can be achieved, I believe.
I am sorry to read that you are choosing to withhold advertising with the Garfield Center over this sign issue.
Kevin Shertz says
Philip, my point is that nothing — absolutely nothing — of what you describe as a rationale for the difference between the two is codified in the existing Chestertown Historic District Guidelines.
In the rush of the Garfield Center to get what it wants, you’re now creating a precedent that will make it much more difficult for the Town to deny possibly inappropriate signage (oops, I meant LED screens) in the future.
Everybody’s just “winging it” at this point.
Keith Thompson says
Oddly enough, I would believe that such a sign at the firehouse would help draw people downtown especially since it would be visible to the vehicular traffic that otherwise wouldn’t know what is going on downtown. Of course, instead of the firehouse, such a sign might make more sense at the Visitor’s Center…
…come to think of it, wouldn’t the i-Sign have made more sense at the Visitor’s Center?
Linda Kramer says
The video presentation is especially helpful, as it answers many practical questions about the appearance and use of the sign.
Rome Oneil says
First, the Planning Commission must view a decision to permit an LED sign as a precedent for such signs in the Historic District and the entire town. There is no such thing as an exception. Any business or nonprofit can plead its unique case (will the Planning Commission put itself in the position of deciding which request is more unique than the other?) and justify approval. Someone cited the Peoples Bank sign. It only shows digital time and temperature. The LED sign being proposed by GC has limitless formats as shown in the video. Second,the Garfield Center must have a major donor who is pushing for/demanding that the LED sign happen. Otherwise, why is the Board taking a ‘die in the streets’ approach to this issue. How much time/money has been spent on this issue to date and will be spent in the near future? One of the evaluation factors at the end of the six month trial period should be what percentage increase did the GC experience? If you believe the hype, the sign is its panacea.
Vic & Patricia Pfeiffer says
For over ten years we have owned a house on High Street about one block from the theatre. We’ve lived here permanently for six. We have been impressed with all of the renovations that the theater has gone through – all in great taste and in keeping with the difficult balance between historic continuity and the needs of a modern successful enterprise. Yet the theatre, like many, struggles. If they believe that such a LED sign will help them get the word out about upcoming events so as to attract more business, then we ought to support it. The town needs a vibrant downtown.
Additionally, again living on this street, we welcome the light and any added “pizzaz” that might add to the ambience here on High Street. For instance, Evergrain often has its store window lights on and The Massoni Gallery now has its bushes out front lit with white twinkle lights, and we feel that these bring a welcome greeting to that section of High Street. It looks bright, alive and welcoming to anyone – visitors or residents – who come here.
Bob says
Again, something that would help move our aging town into the 21 century is at risk of being denied due to lack of common sense and ignorance! When do we wake up and realize that some changes need to be made? I just signed up for a year of advertising with the theatre. Our town needs to stick together if any of us plan to keep doing business in the area. This pettiness has to stop. If a few guidelines or ordinances need to be changed, than so be it.
Kevin Shertz says
Bob, that’s the point. Update the ordinances, and go from there, rather than create a “wild west” atmosphere that has ample opportunity for unintended consequences. Personally, I don’t think the LED sign will make a bit of difference in the financial health of the organization, but definitely believe that the ability for the HDC to do its job moving forward has been irreparably harmed by the way this has been handled.
Glad you chose to support the Theatre as a result of this situation. Mr. Dutton is likely well aware how much my decision pains me.
Bob says
I agree!
Stephan Sonn says
It is reaching the stage that in perspective can only be described as a fetish fight.
Either there is an artful and tasteful blending of eras or Chestertown will become a shrine.
And that suits some people just fine. We have an undertaker economy. A non-profit windfall
Jeffrey Halpern says
I would like to wade in on some of the points being raised above. The Garfield Op-Ed attempts to make a case that there may be a couple aspects of the current Chestertown Zoning Regulations, which should perhaps be re-examined by the Planning Commission and adjusted if the Planning Commission considers it appropriate.
The first of these has to do with those cases where the current zoning ordinances would preclude the restoration of a historic structure back to its original condition. By their very nature, historic buildings were constructed before most towns had zoning codes. As a result, as originally constructed, historic buildings often contained features which do not meet the current regulations. In many cases, these historic buildings violate the required setbacks, or maximum height limits. In some cases they contain features which may violate some aspect of a zoning or sign ordinance.
If a town is going to promote preservation of its historic resources, it would only seem logical to have a mechanism within its zoning codes that allows missing portions of historic buildings to be replaced even if these components do not meet the current zoning. The good news about this kind of ‘exception’ is that it is self-regulating. There are only a limited number of historic buildings that would need to replace missing portions that also happen to violate the zoning code and which can be definitively demonstrated to have historically existed.
If I understand Rome Oniel’s comment that “There is no such thing as an exception’, I assume that means that the Chestertown Zoning Ordinance does not have items which are labeled as ‘ an exception’. In that regard, that comment appears to be literally correct. But the Chestertown Zoning Ordinance is full of excepted cases.
Take for example, Section 170-43.F.1 that describes Front Yard setbacks for the C-3 Zone and which permits the Planning Commission to “permit buildings closer to the street frontage to foster a streetscape that provides a sense of enclosure in keeping with the intent of this district.” Or, Section 170-38.A, which purposefully allows special treatment, “In order to facilitate compatible development in this district, flexibility in lot size and setback regulations are encouraged.” Or, 170-53, which makes a special case allowing owners to build on sub-standard lots created before the zoning “provided that such improvements conform in all other respects to applicable zoning regulations and restrictions.” Or, Section 170-59.F, which allows exceptions to the normal setbacks for accessory structures while stipulating specific rules limiting the use of those exceptions.
When it comes to the programmable screen, the Garfield is not asking to be treated as a unique exception. They are trying to make the case that given the variable nature of LED screens, it should be possible to operate a screen in a manner that is consistent within the intended objectives of the sign regulations.
There should be no mystery about why the Garfield Center wants the programmable screen. A theater without “now playing” and “coming attractions” signs is like a restaurant without a menu. If you look at the historic photos of the Prince Theatre, the entrance was festooned with a disparate collection of photos, signs and posters. The programmable display, affords the theater a chance to use a single, smaller, pedestrian-oriented electronic sign to fill this function.
In fact, the thrust of the discussion at the HDC centered on the variable nature of LED screens, and whether they could be consistent within the intended objectives of the HDC Sign Guidelines. Having participated in the actual HDC hearing, it was very clear from the deliberations of the HDC Commissioners that the HDC’s ultimate decision was not predicated on a re-branding of these devices as ‘screens’ rather than signs, as has been suggested above. Instead the conditioned approval resulted from determining that these types of signs were not specifically precluded in the HDC Guidelines, and that if operated properly, could potentially exhibit characteristics consistent with the Guidelines.
That said, the Garfield Op-Ed is not proposing the indiscriminate use of programmable displays. They are suggesting leveraging the variable nature of this technology and creating limiting standards that allow the use of electronic displays in a manner that does not make them an eyesore, and which minimizes their visual impact to a level that is no more intrusive than the front lit signs which are explicitly permitted within the current sign regulations.
It comes down to this, as I read Chestertown’s sign regulations, they are constructed in a manner designed to keep any one sign from becoming overly prominent and distracting, and collectively avoiding clutter and glitz; allowing the downtown to be enjoyed for the people and its charming settings rather than leaving an overall impression of crass commercialism. Those are reasonable objectives.
The questions being heard before the Planning Commission are whether a programmable screen, electronic display, or LED sign, no matter what it is called, can be sized, and programmed to conform with the purpose of the Zoning Regulations. If the capabilities of this technology can be made to conform with zoning objectives, what would be the specific limitations that would keep it from having any greater adverse impact than any other currently permitted sign technology? And, and once limited, how should such signs be approved and regulated? It is the answers to those questions will dictate, whether, where, and how these signs are used.
Kevin Shertz says
Page 46 of the Historic District Guidelines:
“Internally illuminated cabinet signs, neon “Open” signs, and flashing or blinking lights will
not be approved.”
Are you going to tell me with a straight face that this LED sign doesn’t match this criteria? Seriously?
Why is it so hard for people to understand…. if you don’t like the regulations — change the regulations — but don’t decide to call it something other than what it is, because it’s liable to bite you in the butt down the road.
Jeffrey Halpern says
Kevin,
Looking at your work online, as a broad general rule, I suspect that you and I would have a whole lot more that we would be in total agreement on in life than we would find ourselves in disagreement upon, but I suspect that no matter what either one of us said to each other, this probably is not one of those cases where agreement is likely.
But when you ask, “Are you going to tell me with a straight face that this LED sign doesn’t match this criteria?”
(Internally illuminated cabinet signs, neon “Open” signs, and flashing or blinking lights)……..
My unequivocal answer is , Yes, I would tell you with a straight face and a clear conscience that as proposed the LED sign does not meet this criteria. This may be one of those ‘you had to be there’ discussions, but here is basis of why I, and more importantly why the HDC believed this to be the case.
During the HDC Hearing Kees De Mooy had testified that the language in the current HDC Guidelines was written in 1981. In discussion that followed, the HDC majority concluded that the LED technology did not exist in 1981, and that the term, “Internally illuminated cabinet signs” would have been meant to apply to the fluorescent lit, plastic faced technology of the day. The Commission then compared the visual characteristics of that technology to the LED being proposed, and the majority concluded the back lit fluorescent sign would be harsher and more apparent than the LED sign used as proposed.
You don’t have to take my word for this. Here are HDC Commissioner Siudzinski’s own words from an early SPY commentary.
“Among the reasons I and the other Commissioners who voted in support of this application did so is because the HDC guidelines were written prior to the existence of LED screens and, in our opinion, an internally lit cabinet sign is not an LED screen. Rather, that type of sign is exactly what was torn down during the current rehabilitation project. The HDC guidelines do not define flashing, but upon hearing the definition used by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the supporters all agree that definition does not apply to what the Garfield plans for its displays. Further, because we think the Garfield is unlike any other in the historic district, it warrants the chance to make a case for a previously untested sign to be operated sensitively and in good faith. The Garfield applicants took the time to carefully consider how this advertising method could be used. They understand the stakes of offending their neighbors and patrons. In our opinion, they should be given six months to try it.”
These comments are completely in line with the HDC approval motion that is contained within the minutes of the HDC hearing:
“Ms. Siudzinski moved to approve BP2012-117 for the Prince Theatre at 210 High Street for an LED screen as submitted, under Section 3.13 [the Sign restrictions], as it was not, in fact, an internally illuminated cabinet sign and the definition for “flashing” by the Planning Commission was not the behavior of the sign, for use of the sign only by the Garfield Center and no succeeding tenants, to be operated under the operation manual presented by the Garfield Center for the Arts for a period of 6-months after installation and then the applicant will return to the Commission for further approval”
To your other point, “if you don’t like the regulations — change the regulations”, the Garfield Center seemingly agrees with you on that point since changing the zoning regulations is the explicit purpose of the application that the Garfield Center currently has before the Planning Commission. The case for that zoning change is contained within the Op-Ed that we are both commenting upon.
To the issue of changing HDC Guideline, the Commissioners did review the LED under the sign restrictions within their guidelines and the majority determined that the LED sign (whatever you chose to call it) may be a sign, but it is not “an internally illuminated cabinet sign” . After reviewing Commissioner Yeager’s very clear illustration of how an LED sign could be used in a manner that was in violation of the Guidelines, the majority of the Commission ruled that as described in the Garfield Manual, the proposed use would not meet the criteria as “Flashing” and as such was approvable within the Guidelines.
But the HDC also acknowledged that the proposed use was yet to be tested and observed, and so inserted a requirement for a six month trial period. At that time, they have the option of either granting permanent approval, or a conditioned approval with a time frame and perhaps more stringent stipulations. In the interim, and totally independent of this application, the HDC also has the option of developing language for the Guidelines that would address LED’s.
Respectfully,
Jeff
Stephan Sonn says
The first of you two professionals that changes channels wins the day ,by not only making the current issue moot but with smart negotiations or a minimum of legal action that creates a protected limbo for these loose ends.. Anybody that puts large amounts of money for the benefit of this town, should have something to say about what are reasonable judgment criteria. This started out to be a good deal for all concerned but was soiled by ego banter, gossipy notions and second rate input. This entire controversy belongs in Gulliver’s Travels or Kafka.
Rome Oneil says
So if I hear you correctly, if an organization/business owner presents an ‘acceptable’ self regulating plan for an LED sign/screen, then the HDC and PC should ‘except’ the request. Who will verify if the self regulation is occurring? The fox in the hen house? It makes sense to do a trial/test period and see if all the so called advantages/promises are being kept. If so, another extended test period should be considered before a final decision is made about ‘acceptance ‘ of new technology.
Stephan Sonn says
The issue is will the graphic presentation offend in the manner suggested by the regulations. The alternative is to bolster the impression that Chestertown is anti-business especially to strangers. Regulation has its place but not as a private cat’s paw.
Stephan Sonn says
I do know something about computer enhanced design signage. I created two prototypes for Omni Miami back in 1977 using Apple computers and reverse yoke nine pin monitors in back lit reverse yoke technology. It was 18 feet high with passive advertising and customer interactive mode. They were interfaced into the great columns at either end of the complex to provide directions at main portals. Advertising was piggybacked to generate income.
But that was 35 years ago in a large commercial structure. The concept is classic for airports and in indoor usage, but today it is considerably more sophisticated.
So what does that have to do with Chestertown. It is a matter of semantics. A computer can make a phone call and more. Would you call it a telephone. The circuitry in a Garfield like sign can be suppressed to the point of zero animation but it is innovation and the liberty to express it in a technology hostile environment that wants everything to blend in, that is the fault here. The design of the theater is dramatic architectural innovation in its time. Innovation is a continuum of thought and theme or even, contrast.
The beauty of computer art is that it accesses and enhances as accessory art. So morph as you will,you have the vehicle to do so. And just maybe you will create something wonderful instead of having sandbox macro-sagas taint this exquisite effort.
Stephan Sonn says
There is another dimension to all this.
I consider that space is the plasma of architectural design.
The functional beauty of electronic visuals is that so much
gets said, in so little space, so beautifully.When the message art rests,
intermission can be anything tasteful. That kind of creativity could
bypass current issues. And just in case anybody has missed
an LCD sign that follows the current rule of setback
why not walk to the next block and see it. Cant miss it
It has only been there for 2 years.
Stephan Sonn says
Correction offered here
The Signs in the New York Deli are actually Neon.
My apologies.