Dear Mr. Strichman [Steve] and Mr. Shilling [Eric],
As you know, I am a private citizen (and retired lawyer), living in the Stockade neighborhood, and I have no business interests in competition with Proctors. I would like to lodge a complaint against Proctors current use of electronic variable message signs, now at 8-second change intervals, at the front of the Proctors Theater complex, 432 State Street. (See first attachment) To fully present my argument, I have made a weblog posting at
http://tinyurl.com/ProctorsCEVMS *, which is a part of this complaint, and which I urge you to consult. That posting has discussion, photos, a short video clip, quotes and cites to relevant authorities and experts, etc.
In short, I allege in this complaint that:
A special use permit under §264-61(I) is needed to make the change from 60-second to 8-second intervals, after the required public hearing and showing that the display does not have a substantial impact on traffic conditions, or public safety and health, etc. (See 2nd attachment) The Proctors location seems to be more appropriate for §264-61 (I)(2) review than any other in Schenectady, given its location on downtown Schenectady's busiest block, a few yards from the State and Jay Traffic Signal, with heavy vehicle and pedestrian traffic, only one travel lane in each direction, much stop-and-go driving, significant parking difficulties, many young and older audience members needing to enter and exit the theater complex, a demographic of drivers and pedestrians who have been using alcohol, and more.
The Proctors display violates a clear ban with regard to the Spacing of such signs, that is found in the recent NYS DOT Statement, "Criteria for Regulating Off-Premises Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS) in New York State". The Requirement states: "Spacing = If more than one CEVMS sign face is visible to the driver at the same time on either side of the highway, the signs must be spaced at least 2500’ apart on controlled access highways, and at least 300’ apart on other types of highways." At the Proctors location, not only can the front and one side panel be seen simultaneously by drivers heading east or west on State Street, but Proctors has an 8-second variable message sign a few feet away, over the entrance to its Apostrophe Cafe, which is visible to traffic heading east.
The marquee lights at Proctors seem much too bright under the Schenectady Zoning Code and under DOT's criteria. NYSDOT's CEVMS criteria Statement sets a maximum for night-time brightness, saying it should not appear brighter than in daytime: "Maximum Brightness = 5,000 cd/m2 (daytime), 280 cd/m2 (nighttime)."
The DOT Criteria Statement also says, in more practical terms: "The brightness of CEVMS is not only potentially distracting due to its ability to attract increased attention, but may also create problems with dark adaptation among older drivers. In order to minimize these dangers, the brightness of this technology should be constrained such that CEVMS do not appear brighter to drivers than existing static billboards."
The City's webpage for the Department of Development has this to say about signs (emphasis added):
Sign Approvals – The City of Schenectady has Sign Regulations for all new or changed signs. Please verify conformance prior to purchasing any signs by looking in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The change from a 60-second to an 8-second interval for Proctors electronic message signs is simply too significant to allow without first assuring that there is no threat to public safety or to traffic flow on the "Proctors block." There is no indication in the recent amendment fixing the minimum interval at 8 seconds that such a rapid rate of change on electronic signs can be undertaken at the whim of the owner.
I therefore request that your office take the steps available to it to prevent the continuation of the 8-second CEVMS display along State Street by Proctors until the necessary public hearing is help before the Planning Commission, and the special use permit is granted or disapproved; and also test the illumination of the signage under the Schenectady Code and the DOT criterion.
Thank you for your time and attention.
David Giacalone
Schenectady, NY 12305
__________________
*/ Although the website where I have posted the Proctors CRVMS material is currently called "Stop the Schenectady Casino," it has for many years been the location of my weblog discussing matters that affect and seem to threaten the safety, beauty, and environment of Schenectady. As someone who often comments on safety issues in Schenectady, I would be making this Complaint even if I were favorable to the coming casino.
Logged
