Circuit Court Judge Paul M. Bowman ruled on Friday afternoon to reverse the Chestertown Historic District Commission’s decision in January to allow the Garfield Center to install a LED sign at the entrance to the Prince Theatre on High Street.
Judge Bowman found that the HDC decision was prohibited under current historic guidelines, failed to provide written findings of fact, and was not a legal decision because a majority of voting members did not cast a vote in the 3-2 decision. The HDC is made of seven members and required four favorable votes to approve a measure.
Bowman also ruled that the Town of Chestertown must pay the court costs of the lawsuit brought by Chestertown resident Richard Balaban and Cross Street Associates, which local attorney Phil Hoon is a partner.
The ruling is another setback for the Garfield Center in their desire to install the sign as the final phase of the Prince Theatre’s renovation plan. The ruling clearly restrains the HDC from approving requests that are clearly prohibited in the guidelines for the historic district.
Bowman’s decision was essentially moot for the Garfield Center, because the Chestertown Planning Commission overturned HDC’s decision on Feb 21 and killed the chances of ever approving an LED sign in the historic district.
MBTroup says
So a keystone to economic and cultural development of downton C’town is put in the corner, and we the people pick up the tab for this decision made “on our behalf? Do the lords of the fiefdom want us to bring our dogs down to Fountain Park so they can get in a few more kicks?
Stephan Sonn says
Bravo! Spot–on
Mike Hunt says
In an kindness, there are some people who should be run out of town….don’t we throw tea into the harbour each year?
Keith Thompson says
And yet the I-sign is OK.
z milash says
Isn’t it funny how towns and cities that actually are trying to make significant improvements always find ways to beat regulations that slow down progress. Chestertown needs to make rebuilding the town a priority, and attracting tourism through centers like Garfield would be a great first step. Regulation and zoning law don’t always reflect the future.
Peter Newlin says
To quote the story above: “Judge Bowman found that the HDC decision was … not a legal decision because a majority of voting members did not cast a vote in the 3-2 decision.” HUH?!
The law suit claims “Voting Members” means all of the HDC members who can vote, whether they are present or not. In my opinion the term voting members is subject to two possible interpretations, the one the court chose (all HDC members whether present or not) and the interpretation all the rest of us ordinary folk would naturally assume (the number of HDC members who are actually voting, not counting recusals or abstentions). If the first is meant, then every time I go before the HDC I would be wise to count the number of members present, because any time a member is not present my chances of prevailing go down, and if two members are not present, my chances go lower.
Here are the facts:
According to ~ 93-5. Historic District Commission: “The Commission shall have a membership of seven (7) persons…”
Section II.4.2 Hearings and Resulting Actions of the Historic District Guidelines states: “All motions and business of the Commission are carried by majority vote and require a quorum of four members.”
Messrs. Balaban, Hoon and His Honor would have us believe, if three members are absent, abstain or recused, it’s impossible for any motion to prevail short of a unanimous vote.
Here’s how the numbers work assuming one absence:
7 – 1 = 6 If (1) opposed and no abstain, the vote >>> 5:1 Prevails
7 – 1 = 6 If (2) opposed and no abstain, the vote >>> 4:2 Prevails
But 7 – 1 = 6 If (3) opposed and no abstain, the vote >>> 3:3 FAILS
Assuming two members are absent:
7 – 2 = 5 If (1) opposed and no abstain, the vote >>> 4:1 Prevails
7 – 2 = 5 If (2) opposed and no abstain, the vote >>> 3:2 FAILS
Assuming three members are absent:
7 – 3 = 4 If (1) opposed and no abstain, the vote >>> 3:1 FAILS
Note, that any abstention makes the odds of prevailing that much worse. For example, if three of the HDC are absent, no motions can carry if anyone abstains, or is recused. There can be no majority rules. The quorum is irrelevant. I’d be stupid to present my client’s case.
If “voting members” means what the Judge et al says it means, all of us who regularly present to the HDC will soon catch on. In fact, we’d all be doing an injustice to our clients if we don’t ask for a postponement any time any Commission member is absent. Postponements will sky rocket, gumming up the works.
Why can’t this court recognize Reductio ad Absurdum?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
And, has this law suit accomplished Mssrs Balaban & Hoon’s true objective: To overturn a majority decision made by people with special expertise, using national standards?
(Peter Newlin is the Project Architect for the Garfield Center’s lobby, marquee and sign proposals. The opinions expressed are based in his decades of professional experience with the permitting practices of many jurisdictions on the Upper Eastern Shore, and not necessarily those of the Garfield Center for the Arts.)
Holly Geddes says
Last week one of our judges ruled that the LED sign that the Garfield Theater wants to install is not in line with current town code. The Historic District Commission, which usually rules on these questions, approved the sign twice. This is a body that is known for rather strict observance of the code. But apparently allowing the sign was not the answer that someone else in another commission wanted. So the court was drawn into the fray and came out with the answer that others wanted. The judge ruled accurately that the sign is not currently allowed. The answer is to change the code.
This whole conflict is about the size and shape of the light bulbs, which is ridiculous. They were not here 50 years ago so they may not be here now? The other stated concern has been that all the businesses will want one. To me, the solution is obvious. Only a theater may have a sign that is LED lit. There are only two in town. So only two businesses get to use these signs.
Every theater I know of has at least two types of signs. One says the name of the theater. The others lists the shows currently running. Many also have lit frames with posters of upcoming shows. Many theaters present these signs with flashing and/ or neon lights with very intense colors, frequently in neon lights. The Chester 5 has its name over the door and a sign for each theater inside. The additional signage was allowed in a zoning amendment (# 4-96) passed in 1996. So amendments to the zoning can be enacted for special cases.
Last fall, residents from near by neighborhoods sent a petition to the town asking to allow a sign containing show information. I took this to my Queen Street neighbors. It is quoted at the end of this paper. The DCA also sent a letter (November 2012) to the mayor and council asking for the LED sign to be allowed on the Garfield. So both the closest residents and the local businesses have asked for the sign.
The question should not be what size and shape bulb is permitted. The question should be, “How can the sign’s light be controlled?” The answer is that a number of things about these lights can be controlled. Brightness of the sign, color saturation, type of change and rate of change can all be controlled. Brightness indicates the overall intensity of the light. Color saturation indicates the strength of the color that may be used. Are all the colors “jewel tones” or are they muted? An LED sign can change images. Do those change in a blink or fade into the next image? Are changes made every 10 seconds or every 10 minutes?
My suggestion for the new ordinance is that it should fit the standards of both the National Trust and our own Historic Commission. The two theaters are different their distance from the street. Therefore the ordinance for each could be different. The new ordinance might include words like the following:
“Only theaters may use LED signs. In the case of the Garfield, the operating hours can be limited to one hour after the last event in the evening and not turned back on until 8:00a.m. The automatic dimmer should be set to change with the darkness of evenings. The text changes must happen slowly and smoothly. The number of colors should be limited and muted. There should be no abrupt image transitions.
The Chester 5 may use LED signs to promote current and upcoming shows. The colors may be more intense and brilliant so they can be seen from Route 213. Transitions may be shorter but no flashing effects. ”
I further suggest that the Planning Commission monitor the Chester 5 implementation and the Historic District commission monitor the Garfield’s sign. This could be an experiment that could produce valuable information for future signs. Members of the Planning Commission privately acknowledged that these signs are in the future of all commercial spaces. This would be a good opportunity to evaluate how we want to incorporate this reality into our lives.
With only two theaters within town, the number of LED signs will be severely limited. The colors will be soft and “grayed down”. The changes on the screen will be subtle rather than abrupt.
But it is ridiculous to expect a theater to not have its shows posted in lights.
*****
The following is the top of the petition that was signed by almost all the residents near the theater. I collected many of the signatures on the first block of N. Queen Street. Only one of the persons that I contacted declined to signed. Everyone else was happy to sign and give their “Yes” vote. Some even encouraged extra lighting on High Street in the evenings.
“To: Mayor Margo Bailey and Town Council
As residents of Chestertown’s Historic District and neighbors of its historic theatre, we are writing in support of the Garfield Center’s request for amendments to the Town’s Sign Ordinance and permits for the theatre’s marquee to be restored with its three authentic marquee signs as well as a new programmable LED screen (sign) over the new entry doors. We have reviewed plans provided by the Garfield Center as presented to you and considered the “Two Central Questions.” Is the theatre unique in our historic marketplace? Can the Theatre help our historic marketplace thrive?
We believe that the marquee and screen are tasteful as proposed and appropriate for a historic theatre downtown. We believe that our theatre in Chestertown’s historic district is unique in its need for signage. Theaters need signs to attract patrons and thank sponsors. Significant assets, both public and private, have been invested in the purchase of the Prince Theatre building, the renovation of the lobby, replacement of the roof, and, now, the historic renovation of the marquee and the addition of a modern, economical sign. As a tax exempt 501c-3 organization, the Garfield needs our help to be financially viable and sustainable. We are asking our Town leaders to please work with the Garfield’s leadership to amend Chestertown’s Sign Ordinance and approve the marquee and programmable screen as requested.
Thank you.”