By Brandon T. Bisceglia
You won’t see any of those digital billboards with rotating displays along I-95 through Milford – for now.
The city’s Planning & Zoning Board failed by one vote at its Dec. 17 meeting to approve changes to the zoning laws that would have allowed the billboards.
The vote, though 5-4 in favor, failed because regulation changes require at least six votes to pass.
Attorney Kevin J. Curseaden of Milford-based Curseaden & Moore had brought the proposed change before the P&Z on behalf of his client, Dominic DeMartino, who owns an industrial building at 45 Banner Dr. that already has a non-digital billboard that faces the highway’s northbound lanes.
At public hearings in November and December, Milford residents came out against the electronic billboards, arguing among other things that they would contribute to distracted driving and would detract from the New England charm of the region.
Digital billboards allow for displays to change, often at a rate of around every 10 seconds. Though research has shown that such displays do attract drivers’ attention to a greater degree than billboards with static images, there is little conclusive evidence to date that they have any impact on traffic safety.
In opening the discussion, P&Z Chair Jim Quish came out in favor of the of the billboards. He said he had heard some of the arguments against them and rejected some of those that cited safety.
“The DOT allows them in cities and states all over the country,” he said.
Board member Tom Panzella concurred with Quish, saying it would increase tax revenue to the city and allow greater visibility for small businesses.
“You could have public service messages, amber alerts – it’s got a lot of good benefits to it,” he said.
Board members John Grant, Robert Satti and Scott Marlow, however, all pushed back on the perceived benefits.
Grant said he always goes back to the purpose of zoning regulations when considering such decisions, and couldn’t find how allowing digital billboards served that purpose.
“It doesn’t do anything about protecting or promoting the public health, safety or welfare of the community,” Grant said. “It has nothing about preserving the existing community or neighborhoods. It doesn’t promote new development. It doesn’t do anything for our open space. It doesn’t do anything for public facilities. There’s basically no benefit to this, other than maybe a little bit on the economic side.”
He also pointed out that because billboards are taxed as personal property, their taxable value declines over time.
Member Jim Kader said he had initially supported the regulation change but was moved by public testimony against the billboards.
Kader described own experience driving along I-95 and seeing a sign for a concert that interested him. The sign had just changed, and he was watching it, waiting for the display to change back.
“I said, ‘What am I doing? I’m supposed to driving,’” he said.
Quish and Panzella voted for the change along with Carl S. Moore, Nancy Austin and Brian Kaligian. Grant, Satti, Marlow and Kader voted against it.