Billboard Builder Seeks ​“Spectacular” Relief

An Ohio-based advertising firm seeking to erect another billboard by the Q Bridge has run into a ​“spectacular” roadblock, in the form of an expanded highway and a decades-old zoning map.

That ​“outdoor advertising” dispute entered public view during the latest monthly online meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals.

The zoning board heard an application by Dan Nielsen of Kenjoh Outdoor Advertising for a use variance and coastal site plan review to permit a two-sided, 63-foot-tall electronic sign at 26 Water St.

The board didn’t take a vote on the application, instead referring it to the City Plan Commission for review before taking the matter up for an expected final vote in July.

26 Water St. is the MacKenzie Machine Shop property at the southeastern corner of Water, East Street, and Forbes Avenue — just across the street from the I‑95 highway bridge and Pearl Harbor memorial park.

As Nielsen told the board at the June 18 BZA meeting, each side of the sign would be 12 feet by 37 feet, or 444 square feet, large. While the sign would stand a total of 63 feet tall, it would be only around 35 feet above the I‑95 ramp, thus bringing it into compliance with the city’s height restrictions for such billboards.

The zoning relief Nielson’s company is seeking, therefore, has only to do with ​“use” — that is, putting a billboard in a part of the city not legally zoned for billboards.

Nielson argued that a billboard should be allowed on this particular parcel, per a reasonable reading of the city’s ​“Spectacular Sign Zoning Map Overlay District.”

“This map is very old,” Nielson said. It was likely drawn and adopted by the city in the 1950s or ​’60s.

At that time, he said, there were three billboard signs on this same side of the highway — within the bounds of the ​“spectacular sign” overlay district.

But the highway has expanded significantly since then — with highway ramps and lanes gobbling up land where billboards can legally be erected.

The nearest practical area to put up a billboard on this side of the highway now, he argued, is the 26 Water St. location his firm is applying for a use variance for. As evidenced by the zoning relief application, they can’t put up a billboard as of right — because the highway expansion has bumped them out of the ​“spectacular sign” district.

“Basically, this map is 60 years old, and it’s not actual to today’s layout of real-world conditions,” Nielson said.

“This area was assigned as a positive area for billboards” back when this overlay district was first adopted, he continued. ​“This map never was altered with the expansion of the highways.” And so the zoning board should recognize that hardship and grant them permission to build.

Nielson presented his application as a rebuttal to city zoning staff’s advisory report recommending denial.

The report, written by city zoning director Nate Hougrand, recognizes that the ​“spectacular sign” overlay map is due for an update. But that doesn’t mean the correct remedy is granting this billboard use variance, Hougrand argued.

“While staff agrees that the boundary area should have been altered to reflect the changes made to the interstate, this in itself does not constitute a hardship,” Hougrand wrote. ​“An appropriate pathway for this remedy is through an amendment to the boundary area of the zoning map through the Board of Alders.”

Hougrand continued: ​“It seems clear that the essential character of the area will be impaired by the proposed billboard. The purpose of the restriction on billboard placement along this portion of I‑95 was to prevent the obscuring of the view to New Haven Harbor. While, as previously mentioned, the interstate has expanded since the Sign Overlay District was created, it does not seem reasonable to believe that a billboard meant to be viewed by passing traffic would not also obstruct the view of that same traffic to the Harbor.”

Nielson countered that there is already another, taller billboard on the other side of the highway. ​“We’re not blocking the Harbor,” he said. ​“We’re blocking an oil distribution terminal, some oil silos.”

So, BZA Commissioners Errol Saunders asked, just to be clear: The hardship as articulated by the applicant is that the zoning map is old and should have been updated?

Essentially, yes, Nielson replied. He said that one of the definitions of a hardship that would allow for a variance is if the applicant would have difficulty carrying out the strict letter of the law. ​“I think there’s difficulty to interpret where these things can go” given the highway’s expansion and the map’s stasis for decades.

Another interpretation, Saunders suggested, is that ​“it’s clear where these can go, and there’s no longer any spaces” available for billboards to go, because of the highway expansion.