Page 10 THE VILLADOM TIMES I • June 22, 2011 Franklin Lakes Ordinance would clarify illuminated sign regulation by Frank J. McMahon Franklin Lakes Borough Attorney Richard Lustgarten has drafted an ordinance that would clarify the regulations pertaining to illuminated signs in order to address public safety concerns. The ordinance states that illuminated signs, if not properly regulated, may be distracting or otherwise hazardous to passing motorists. The proposal would amend the section of Chapter 300 of the borough code covering “Land Sartorial splendor Ramapo High School students Timothy Duch, Zach Mascuch, Patrick Madigan, and Richard Oh went to their prom in style. Use and Development,” which pertains to permitted signs, prohibitions, limitations, and permits. That section currently states that temporary signs shall not be illuminated, but any permanent sign permitted by the provisions of this subsection of the code may be illuminated with certain limitations. The following are not permitted: flashing illumination, action or moving illumination, illumination that may cause confusion or interference with traffic control signs or emergency vehicles’ lights, and illumination that shall cause interference with radio or television signals. In addition, illumination sources must be shielded to prevent the extension of glare beyond the lot lines and beyond curbing or road edges adjacent to property. The draft ordinance would add the following restrictions: No blinking, fluctuating, scrolling, or intermittent illumination would be permitted; no animation effects, including sequential display messages, would be permitted; and illuminated signs would have to have clear, single color lettering. The proposal adds that the provisions of that section of the code pertains to all forms of illuminated signs, including, but not limited to, digital signs, electronic message centers, on-premise digital display signs that can be observed by motorists, systems using light emitting diodes, and neon signs. The council first discussed this digital type of signage in May when a concern was expressed about moving, changing signs from a safety standpoint because scrolling signs can be a distraction to motorists. Lustgarten advised the council at that time that the borough can regulate the flashing nature of the signs, but cannot regulate their content. While the council can regulate aesthetics, he said there would be a problem with regulating style. He agreed to craft the ordinance so it prohibits any signage that creates undue distraction. At the time, the council referred to a magazine article about the emerging use of digital signs written by Professional Planner Matt Jakubowski who explained that digital signs are encompassing electronic message centers that use a system of light emitting diodes to provide an almost limitless display of content. Users can post a static message for any duration, but have the flexibility to display multiple messages or advertisements. Jakubowski wrote that digital signs can be manipulated in-store or off-site by computer, and the message can be enhanced during the day or night eliminating the need to illuminate or manually change the letters. These signs, he said, use less energy and have a longer lifespan than standard lighting options. The signs are similar to the scoreboard at an average football stadium, according to Jakubowski, and municipalities around the state and country have taken note of them because of their potential safety and visual impacts. The professional planner pointed out that a study by the Federal Highway Administration reported that, while numerous factors contribute to accidents, frequently changing, flashing, or moving signage is distracting to drivers, and the distracting impacts from digital signage vary depending on the sign display and the colors, size, and sign orientation. The impact can be greater in different driving environments such as highways versus country roads. According to Jakubowski, an FHWA memorandum in 2007 eased the administration’s stance on digital billboards, indicating that they did not violate the prohibition of flashing or moving type signs that was in the 1965 Highway Beautification Act. That policy change has enabled greater proliferation of digital billboards. Approximately 1,800 of the 450,000 billboards in the United States are digital, and that number is increasing. Industry experts anticipate their use will grow in the future to about 75,000 billboards, or a 15 percent share of the total. Digital billboards are prohibited in about 14 states, some of which prohibit all billboards, according to Jakubowski, who pointed out that, in New Jersey, a state law requires a New Jersey Department of Transportation permit to install any billboard. Those permits generally balance aesthetics, public safety, free speech, and the need to stimulate economic and commercial activity in the state. That state law also gives municipalities the power to establish local zoning regulations on billboards.