As a property owner and business owner in the Chestertown national historic district, I am writing to you to express my opposition to the referenced application. The basic reasons for my opposition are several.
First, I think that a sign such as proposed clearly violates town law which prohibits signs with flashing lights or other illuminating devices. Frankly, I believe the pending theater application is just the type of device for which the prohibition was written.
In this regard, your review of the pending application is about the rule of law not popular opinion or the singular interests of a specific property or owner.
Second, it would indeed be a “slippery slope” to approve the sign because the town will have no effective control on how it is used, including by future owners of the structure. If a restaurant is put in the theatre, could it too advertise on the sign?
Third, an approval by you would be an affirmative precedent for other businesses to request and justify permits for similar signs. Actually, on that point, has the town approved the LED TV signs that are currently in use in a few local real estate offices? They do not seem to contribute to the genteel aura and integrity of the historic district after dark, probably just the opposite.
Parenthetically to the comments above, it seems that some of the support for the pending application is with an interest in reviving the commercial viability of the historic district. While that surely is an interest that we all share, I am of the view that this is no time to panic.
Even though it is experiencing some of the same recession pains that are being experienced nationwide, Chestertown’s historic district will be fine. Actually, there is good reason for hope and confidence going forward – two prominent examples are Flow Salonspa and Evergrain Bread Company where new commercial and entrepreneurial initiatives are being pursued with apparent success.
In short, those businesses and others are prospering without electric signs and so can the theater and the rest of us in Chestertown’s very special national historic district. After all, that is what it is all about, not vice versa. Think about it like this … if one owns a beautiful historic wooden boat, does it make sense or seem appropriate to fiberglass the hull with a 21st century material simply to make it “more modern?”
Thank you for your consideration of these comments and thoughts. Please make this letter a part of the formal record of your proceedings.
Yours truly,
Philip Hoon
Chestertown
rick balaban says
I fully support Phil Hoon’s point of view, and have written to the planning commission to say so.
The new marquee at the Prince/Garfield is a terrific contribution to our townscape and to the spirit of our downtown. The subordinate LCD TV signage is an unnecessary and distracting add-on; a superfluous ‘look at me’ statement.
It is spec-ed to change image every seven seconds. Please count to 7 right now. We don’t need that. And it won’t sell more tickets.
If as Mr. Hoon says its also against the law, then the planning commission should clearly say no.
Keith Thompson says
If the proposed LED sign for the Garfield is illegal, then so is the i-sign.
Rebecca Spilich says
Respectfully, I disagree. I think the new sign looks nice. Maybe it WILL sell more tickets. Chestertown should be careful that it doesn’t regulate the remaining downtown businesses right out of business.
I think its great to have the new business Flow Salonspa downtown, but it hardly looks historic! And I certainly miss some of the other businesses that have closed up. Perhaps a more open environment would encourage more businesses to move in.
matthew weir says
Mr. Hoon raises an interesting point. If the sign is against the law presently on the books then it seems to me that the law needs to be changed if the sign is to be approved. As I have stated in other posts regarding this subject, there should be no ‘one off deal.’ Whatever is decided needs to apply to whatever other business wishes a similar sign. I do not know enough to speak to whether the sign will benefit the theater or not. I think that the Board and staff of the theater need to be thanked and congratulated for all their wonderful hard work and their reinvestment in downtown Chestertown. Nonetheless, approval of this sign needs to be considered in the context of other sign applications.
Bob Ramsey says
Dear Mr. Hoon:
I, too, am a property owner and business owner in Chestertown’s historic district. I am writing to express my support for the Garfield Center’s signage request.
First: There are exceptions to all laws and particularly for a sign ordinance.
Second: A waiver to the current ordinance can be written to be specific to The Garfield. The Garfield Center is a non-profit theater in a historic district. If for some remote chance a restaurant opens in that location, the sign would be null and void based on the fact it is not a theater or a non-profit. Write it into the waiver in any way necessary for the proposed sign to be specific to The Garfield (a non-profit theater in a historic district).
Third: Since it would be a waiver to the current sign ordinance, no other business could apply for a LED sign.
Parenthetically you say it’s “no time to panic”. You are a law office, not trying to make a living selling retail in a town that has seen more than a few retail businesses close their doors, nor seen the steady decline in sales. Yes, there are bright spots downtown that I celebrate, two of those you mention. One of the very brightest spots is The Garfield Center for the Arts. It is truly a jewel in our town. The quantity and quality of people it draws to downtown is huge. They have proven themselves in every way to “do it right”. I wonder, if not for the energy and money to make the Garfield into what it is, what would be in that location now? Would it be another shuttered business?
Will The Garfield fail if it does not get approval for its LED sign? Probably not. But the request isn’t about failure; it is about success. It is about being as successful as possible and using every tool to achieve that success.
Think about this: If one owns a beautiful historic wooden boat which has a few holes that might threaten its integrity, why not use a 21st century material to insure its integrity into the 22nd century?
Sincerely,
Robert Ramsey
The Finishing Touch
Carla Massoni says
I respectfully agree with Mr. Ramsey. I appreciate the concerns of Mr. Hoon and Mr. Balaban. I disagree with Mr. Weir that approval needs to be across the board. An exception to the rule – is just that – an exception. If necessary, tighten the controls – 15 seconds delay. Lower lighting, elimination of advertising, etc. If it is to be an exception to the ruling – it can be written to include numerous controls.
Phil Hoon says
Should Sultana and the Kent County Historical Society also get exemptions because they are non-profits?
Bob Ramsey says
Neither the Sultana or the Historical Society are theaters. Essentially what the Garfield is trying to do is replace a back-lite sign that was there for decades (which announced what was playing at the time). They just want a modern version of it.
matthew weir says
WHy an exemption? Why not take a look at all the signage rules?
Steve Johnson says
It should come as no surprise that downtown merchants support the sign, they voted unanimously in support of it weeks ago. Merchants will support merchants.
Just like like Historic Trusts will support Historic Commissions… or will they? Maryland Historic Trust that said the “LED signage will result in a loss of historic character associated with the original lighting scheme and intensity in a manner that is inconsistent with not only the historic district, but the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
So, the MD Historic Trust, which has a bit more clout than the Chestertown Historic Commission, said NO to the sign. The law, Chestertown’s Historic Guidelines, says NO to the sign, on page 47 that “Internally illuminated cabinet signs, neon “Open” signs, and flashing or blinking lights are not permitted in the Historic District.”
Why do we continue to debate this? At a time when we should be celebrating the Garfield’s beautiful renovations, we’re instead getting caught up in this ugly mess which should’ve been shot down weeks ago by the Chestertown Historic Commission if they’d only done their jobs.
This isn’t a question of support for the Garfield or downtown merchants. It’s a question of the law. The law and the sign cannot coexist.
eliott bruce says
Think you pose interesting situation. We schould put up a clock tower at begining of town says the current time and turn back watch to 1920.Of course should not let new cars in town built after 1920, turn off lights from any light post put up in last 50 yrs.How about lights at churches during holidays.Where were you when the building at main and main turned over to non-profit and now do not pay taxes, where were you when town bailed out developer of marinia.But to complain about retrofiting most important building in town of which was paid for by out of towners and is non-profit is why Chestertown is dying.
Rob Comfort says
Is it possible that, at the end of the protracted approval process, the community, through its various authorities, will reject the Garfield’s signage request having approved that eyesore, that worthless heap of LED technology on the Cross Street sidewalk (adjacent to the former Compleat Bookseller), adorned with its summer canopy and rain barrel stanchions? How can this community take the Historic District guidelines and concepts seriously when presented with such raging inconsistencies?
However, on balance, it feels like the level of controversy over the Garfield request is wildly disproportionate to the intrinsic value of the sign. Is the sign really that critical to the future success of the performing arts center?