LED sign proposal

[Kim McCoy]

I thank the board for this message and some attempt at background/explanation. Some of us met today to share our concerns about the LED sign proposal. 

First, we find unconvincing the idea that the sign must be moved closer to the relocated Shore Drive for visibility. We do not think Shore Drive near the intersection is/was a good place for drivers (or bicyclists or joggers) to read a detailed sign; the priority there should be attention to traffic/safety/signals. I recall (however I've been travelling) only reading the sign while headed north on Holden St, not from Shore Drive, even before the realignment. The visibility of the existing sign is fine from Holden St.

Second, we believe UU's and friends/sympathizers/souls tend to chose churches by searching online, or by word of mouth, or by viewing our symbols outside the Lounge (also well visible now especially from Holden St), not by squinting at a bright digital sign (though some evangelicals might do so).

Third, Worcester Zoning Ordinance includes:

"Signs with Digital Display

 Note 28: The digital display portion of an accessory sign shall be limited to 33% of the permitted sign area. If the sign area is less than what is otherwise permitted by right, the maximum permitted digital display shall still be 33% of that which is allowed by right for the sign type and zoning district. Accessory signs with digital display ... shall be set back a minimum of 75’ from residential districts...."

As we're in a residential district, the 75' setback from residential districts seems to be a prohibition against digital signs in residential districts, except that a sign bidder wrote that "The city zoning office has confirmed that the Church- and whatever sign they choose to erect on their property- is protected under the Dover Amendment. " but https://www.mma.org/dover-amendment-can-present-challenges-for-cities-towns/ suggests that this matter may not be settled, or so simple. Also, zoning requires that "Signs shall not be erected or maintained in any location which will unduly obstruct traffic visibility or reduce visibility at entrances, exits and intersections of a street.", so I think we need to discuss the sign with the Planning Board (and DPWP?) and not just rely on the sign bidder's interpretation. And I think the city-wide prohibition on flashing signs (if we're considering that in our range of digital displays) would not likely be overruled by the Dover Amendment.

Fourth, members and B&G teams have listed other B&G project priorities that in total could easily cost more than the easement payments from the City. Though I don't agree with all of them, or strongly support any, I find most more palatable or cost-effective than this sign proposal, as I think many other members do/would.

Fifth, I'm not clear on the depth of the proposed sign foundation or conduits, but we need to avoid utilities etc, including the outlet pipes from the bioretention basin.

So I hope at least that this proposal is properly vetted with the congregation, City officials, and maybe abutters, possibly resulting in its defeat. I plan to vote against it.

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Unitarian Universalist Church of Worcester <off...@uucworcester.org>

To: "mcbs...@yahoo.com" <mcbs...@yahoo.com>

Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 02:07:32 PM EST

Subject: 2023-02-16 E-Blast - Warrant of Special Congregational Meeting for New Church Sign on February 26 after Worship

E-Blast February 16, 2023 From the Board – Notice of Special Congregational Meeting – February 26, 2023 Kate Bejune, Clerk, Board of Management Notice Pursuant to the by-laws of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Worcester, a Special Meeting of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Worcester (UUCW) will take place following the service at 11:15 a.m., Sunday, February 26th, 2023 on Zoom and in-person. The meeting is open to all. However, voting is restricted to members of record of the UUCW. This is an important event in the ongoing business and life of our congregation and reflects the principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregation and in society at large. During this meeting we will vote on the following proposal from the Board of Management: Spending monies (not to exceed $42,000) from the sale of land to the City of Worcester in order to purchase and install a new outdoor sign for the church. Respectfully submitted, Kate Bejune, Clerk Board of Management, Unitarian Universalist Church of Worcester Please CLICK HERE to see the Sign Proposal Information. Please CLICK HERE to view the proposed sign designs from Serrato Signs. Please CLICK HERE to register to attend the meeting on Zoom (choose February 26 Worship from the drop-down date menu).  UUCW Mission & Beliefs  *  Welcome to UUCW  Simple Give Donations Sermon Archive *  UUCW Google Calendar "Believing in a community that unites all people" Unitarian Universalist Church of Worcester  90 Holden Street, Worcester MA 01606 Phone: 508-853-1942 | Fax: 508-853-2065 | Emergencies: 508-853-1942 ext. 6 off...@uucworcester.org | uucworcester.org ‌ ‌ ‌

Unitarian Universalist Church of Worcester | 90 Holden Street, Worcester, MA 01609 Unsubscribe mcbs...@yahoo.com Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by off...@uucworcester.org powered by Try email marketing for free today!

[Kim McCoy]

Michelle indicated that the City agrees to a sign up to 24 sq ft, 8-10 feet off the new shore drive sidewalk, mid way between the rain garden and the corner, and that the approved bidder would need to get the permit.

I easily found https://www.scenic.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/EXCERPT_The_Basics_of_Digital_Signage_and_Energy_Consumption1.pdf and 

https://www.darksky.org/our-work/lighting/lighting-for-industry/emc/#:~:text=Electronic%20billboards%20can%20be%20up,and%20contributes%20to%20light%20pollution., suggesting greater concern than I had expected. The table in the first link seems to be for a region with electricity costs per kWh about a third of Worcester's; the "average US home" comparison seems on the high side (over 3 times my home's usage); our proposed sign is closest to the 36"x60" sign in that table, so our player and display would use more than half as much as the entire church uses - more than many of us use to power our homes; that seems an unreasonable use of electricity. Light pollution is another story.

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 04:05:45 PM EST, Linda Morse <lwmo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Kim. I'm indebted to you. I also plan to vote no.

Linda Morse

[mcbs...@yahoo.com]

It was natural to be appeased by the board's and members' sentiment and hard work for this proposal. But we have done a crazy thing. There is no way on Earth or heaven that we will draw enough business to recover our costs. We would be lucky to get 1/10 of it or even to recover the cost of the electricity. What part of not cost effective do we not understand? 

Sent from my LG Mobile

------ Original message------

From: Kim McCoy

Date: Sat, Feb 25, 2023 8:07 PM

To: Mara Pentlarge;Linda Orcutt;Ana Gregory;Ruth Silver;Carole Howe;LEONARDO DASILVA;

Cc:

Subject:LED sign proposal

for some likely greenteam supporter friends who apparently are not on uucwgr...@googlegroups.com ... $3 per day to power the sign would be $1096 per year ... see you tomorrow .... I still plan to vote no for many reasons I describe below.

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Michele Hernandez >

To: Kim McCoy >

Cc: Greenteam UUCW >; Linda Morse >; Leslie J. Linson >; Peter McKone >

Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 06:44:59 PM EST

Subject: Re: LED sign proposal

Hi Kim,

I do understand your concerns.  

But please know that these issues regarding light pollution and energy usage were on the list of issues our sign team discussed with the potential sign vendors.  

We chose the sign vendor,  and the Watch fire brand LED display in part due to the software capability of the Watch fire signs. For example,  the signs can be programed to go to half power (or other power levels) at sunset,  and can be turned off at a reasonable hour each evening in respect of our neighbors.  The sign team had discussed 8pm being a reasonable hour.  

We were told to expect about $3 per day for the LED sign usage, although I have not personally done the research. 

I hope this addresses a few of your concerns.

Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. 

Thank you

Michele Hernandez