Published: March 27, 2008 08:24 am            

Sign owner speaks out

A downtown sign that has received recent scrutiny is in compliance with city guidelines, according to Paul Muncy, owner of “Sign of The Times LLC.”

His electronic, color sign stands in front of Main Street Storage at 455 E. Main St.

The business is owned by H.C. Muncy Co. and Sign of the Times LLC is leasing the bit of land used for the sign, he said.

Muncy has obtained a Richmond business license and building permit for the sign, but Richmond Planning and Zoning officials said at a recent meeting that the sign was not exactly what they were expecting.

Muncy presented to planning commissioners a picture that included the signs location and dimensions. For explanation purposes, the area where advertisements are shown read: “Full Color LED (24-hour advertising.”

“I don’t see anything ambiguous about that at all,” he said. “If someone didn’t understand this, they should have asked for more information.”

The sign rotates a maximum of 10 signs at one time and each advertisement is shown for 10 seconds. It usually costs advertisers about $516 a month, he said.

The sign’s location is on a bit of land in front of Main Street Storage at 455 E. Main owned by Muncy’s mother, Gene.

He has leased the spot where the 6x12-foot sign is located.

“There is a very high traffic count that goes by this sign, plus, there’s the train tracks that back traffic up in front of it,” Muncy said. “It gives them some place to go if they want to have outdoor advertising.”

Legal action is being sought on a state level, said David Thacker, public information officer for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet District 7, which serves Madison County.

In a letter from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet dated Jan. 17, Muncy was given 30 days to take down the sign or adjust it to meet state guidelines.

The letter states the reason why the sign is in violation is because it was “converted from an on-premise advertising device to an electronic sign which displays variable messages not related to the activity conducted or the sale of goods or services within the boundaries of the property on which it is located.”

However, Muncy said he is not concerned about legal repercussions at this time.

“I don’t have any legal representation right now,” he said. “I’m not obtaining any lawyers. I don’t see any need for this thing to get out of control and end up in a legal battle.”

Several representatives of the Louisiana-based outdoor advertising company Lamar are in Frankfort rallying for new laws, and the state will begin to recognize the things being done on the federal level, he said.

Some citizens have voiced concerns about the chances of the illuminated, rotating advertisements causing traffic accidents.

Several studies have been completed about the safety factors related to digital billboards, and so far, no negative conclusions have been made, Muncy said.

The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute released study results on March 22, 2007, that claimed digital billboards were “safety neutral” from a driver’s standpoint.

West Virginia’s Depart-ment of Transportation (DOT) conducted a similar study on July 24, 2007, stating, “We have no knowledge of any wreck or complaints of wrecks or any distractions at any of the (digital) billboard sites.”

South Carolina’s DOT reported on Sept. 6, 2007, that it “has not received any complaints in regard to digital billboards,” and Virginia’s DOT reported, “Our study turned up no accidents reported to local police in the vicinity of the digital signs.”

More information about these studies can be found at www.oaaa.org/government/billboards.asp.

A memorandum from the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration dated Sept. 25, 2007, states: “Proposed laws, regulations and procedures that would allow permitting changeable electronic variable message signs subject to acceptable criteria do not violate a prohibition against “intermittent” or “flashing” or “moving” lights as those terms are used in the various federal/state agreements that have been entered into during the 1960s and 1970s.”

There were never any intentions of misleading anyone, including Richmond Planning and Zoning Commission members, Muncy said.

“If you follow the way things were done, to my knowledge, I did everything I was supposed to do,” he said.

Instead of hearing citizens’ complaints secondhand, Muncy said he would rather those people talk to him directly.

Anyone with questions or concerns can call him at 893-2207 or send an e-mail to main021@bellsouth.net.

Ronica Shannon can be reached at rshannon@richmondregister.com or 623-1669, Ext. 234.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.