Michigan Sets Limits on Billboards

Policy Statement - Roadways

State Should Limit Outdoor Advertising - Letter to the Editor of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Help save Federal Highway Beautification Act

Lawmakers that Voted on the Scenic Side

Governor Doyle signed Billboard Bills

Ask Governor Doyle to Veto Billboard Bills

Policy Statements - Summary statements on scenic issues

Changeable Messages - Statement presented at public hearing 3/23/06

Cutting Trees & Shrubs - Statement presented at public hearing 2/9/06

Roadsides - Rules for vegetation and outdoor advertising along highways

Shoreland Stewardship - Support proposed new shoreland protection rules

No New Billboards - Senate Bill 77 would prohibit new Billboards along
Highways

Public opinion - Roadways - Survey of public opinion on roadways

You should take their voting records into consideration when you vote in the upcoming primaries and elections this Fall.

Senators

Tim Carpenter

Michael Ellis

Mark Miller

Fred Risser

Representatives

Chuck Benedict

Terese Berceau

Spencer Black

Frank Boyle

Pedro Colon

David Cullen

Gary Hebl

Mary Hubler

Frederick Kessler

James Kreuser

Margaret Krusick

John Lehman

Louis Molepske

Joe Parisi

Mark Pocan

Sondy Pope-Roberts

Marlin Schneider

Jennifer Shilling

Christine Sinicki

Tony Staskunas

John Steinbrink

David Travis

Barbara Toles

Robert Turner

Terry VanAkkeren

Sheldon Wasserman

Annette Williams

Leon Young

Robert Ziegelbauer

Governor Doyle signed SB548 and AB967, two bills that ease regulations on billboards, into law on May 25.

SB548 will allow electronic billboards that can change advertisements every 6 seconds and AB967 will allow more cutting of trees for a better view of billboards.

Scenic Wisconsin has opposed these bills to the extent of our resources, as you know from previous postings.

Our thanks to all the individuals and like-minded organizations that wrote to lawmakers or spoke at hearings against these bills.

Ask Governor Doyle to Veto Billboard Bills

A bill that would allow electronic billboards that could change advertisements every 6 seconds (SB548) and a bill that would allow more cutting of trees for better views of billboards (AB967) are in the governor’s office awaiting his signature.

The outdoor advertising industry pushed these bills through a state legislature that is more interested in the big campaign contributions from billboard companies and outdoor advertisers than in the benefits of scenic beauty.

Changing messages on electronic (LED) billboards will be a nuisance to the general public and a distraction to drivers that adds to inattention to the roads which causes accidents.

More trees being cut along the roads means a loss of the pleasant view that a driver will experience. Trees are also valuable noise, light and dust barriers, and prevent soil erosion.

These bills are not in the public interest. They will mean more advertising in the landscape – outdoor telemarketing – and people would like to have less of it, not more.

Reports are that the Governor plans to sign these bills. (They both passed the legislature by large majorities.)

If you want to express your opinion about these bills to the governor, act quickly. If enough people tell him, maybe he’ll veto them.

Governor James Doyle, PO Box 7863, Madison WI 53702.

608-266-1212

www.wisgov.state.wi.us Click on Contact Us and use the email form.

Remember to refer to the bill numbers: SB548 Electronic Billboards and AB967 Cutting Trees

For more information on these bills, read the articles below.

Policy Statements

SCENIC ISSUES

People want pleasant surroundings, and since our landscape is vulnerable to visual degradation, we must continuously maintain and update measures that protect it.

Scenic Byways: The Scenic Byways program, which is due to go into effect this Summer, will be a great benefit to our state. It allows communities to establish 30-mile sections of highways that have outstanding scenery as Scenic Byways. The purpose is to attract tourists and to foster business. A management plan is established that provides for good stewardship of the landscape along the Byway. The Dept. Transportation is preparing procedures for implementing Scenic Byways. Publicize the Scenic Byways program to community leaders.

Billboards: More and more large off-premise signs (billboards) on tall steel posts are going up all over the state. These oversize signs are taller than the trees and have a deleterious effect on the scenery behind them. Only a few wealthy companies like automobile dealers, big beverage companies, and major chains of hotels or restaurants can afford to advertise on those huge billboards, leaving small businesses are at a disadvantage. Support SB77 Prohibition on Construction of New Billboards Visible from State Highways.

Trees and Shrubs: Trees and shrubs in the public right-of way along our highways are a great benefit, providing not only scenic beauty, but erosion control, light and noise barriers and snow screens. Trees and shrubs should not be cut down for the express purpose of providing a better view of billboards. Our roads are paid for by taxpayers and are not meant to be advertising corridors. Presentregulations for managing vegetation along highways are reasonable. Don’t change current regulations, except to make them easier to implement .

Small Directional Signs: More small signs could be put into use by more businesses without spoiling scenery. We believe that the Tourist Oriented Directional Sign program of small signs close to the road could be expanded, and that the program of logo signs at freeway exits (Specific Information Signs) could be expanded. With more small signs available there is less need for large billboards. Support AB20 Logo Signs for Tourism Attractions.

Amortization: Cities, towns and villages have been enacting ordinances to increase the attractiveness of business districts and other neighborhoods, to improve property values and the business climate. Affected structures are usually eyesores that the community would like to eliminate, such as excessive signage, or oversize billboards. Cities have long had the right to enforce new ordinances by requiring the eventual upgrading or removal of non-conforming structures by a method known as amortization. Under amortization, the owner of an affected structure is given a period of time, usually 5 to 15 years, during which income continues to be derived to pay the cost of the structure, before it must be upgraded or removed. Oppose AB155 Disallowing the Use of Amortization by Municipalities.

Non-Conforming Billboards: These are billboards that had been put up in areas not zoned commercial or industrial, before the law changed to prohibit them. Non-conforming billboards are spoiling the view of some of our most scenic areas. The intent of the law is that they come down after the course of their normal useful life, not be rebuilt and used indefinitely. Strengthen current regs.

Changeable Messages

March 23, 2006

Presentation to: Assembly Transportation Committee

By Chuck Mitchell
CITIZENS FOR A SCENIC WISCONSIN

Subject: Opposition to SB548 (and AB985)
Electronic Changeable Message Signs

Citizens for a Scenic Wisconsin is a non-profit organization whose mission is to preserve the scenic beauty of our natural landscape and maintain the special character of our cities and towns. We believe that scenery is a precious resource important to our quality of life and to our business climate. We believe that urban sprawl and over-sized billboards are detrimental to scenery. Founded in 2000, we have members in all parts of the state.

Billboards are unsightly structures that invade the landscape and detract from scenic beauty. Many of them present commercial messages of little immediate use to the traveler. It’s the outdoor equivalent of telemarketing, and – as with telemarketing - many people would like to have less of it, not more.

Currently, mechanical changeable message (“tri-vision”) signs that change every 6 seconds are intrusive on the landscape and distracting to drivers. Electronic (light-emitting diode) changeable message signs which change as often as every 6 seconds are slowly scrolling signs that would be just as much or more of a nuisance, and should continue to be prohibited.

While these signs are directed at passing drivers, it is unavoidable that nearby homeowners, business proprietors, shoppers and pedestrians will be subjected to the demanding, constantly changing sign in the background.

Even with limits on brightness, electronic signs are still lighted and will be more visible than mechanical changeable signs. This bill puts no restrictions on size, so signs could be as large as 14 x 48 feet, a “bulletin”, which is a common size. At these sizes, there is the possibility that signs will be visible for miles before a person can actually read the message. This is an unacceptable use of our highways and our landscape that will result in excessive visual clutter, light pollution and distraction for drivers, who should keep their eyes on the road.

This concern about electronic signs is shared by many environmental groups. Refer to the Memo dated March 3, 2003, co-signed by eight groups. (A copy is in the hand-out that I will leave with you along with this testimony and a Survey of Public Opinion.)

We know that many people have reservations about outdoor advertising. This has been shown by many surveys. A recent survey, professionally done, in Wisconsin, was Survey of Public Opinion – Highway 36 Corridor in Racine County. There were 910 people who participated in
Presentation to Assembly Transportation Committee page 2/2

the survey, all owners of property along the highway. 92% said they “care about the view experienced along the highway”. Regarding signs: 76% agreed “Signs should be regulated because some significantly detract from visual character”. 72% agreed “Low, ground- or monument- type signs of natural materials should be encouraged”. 58% agreed “Very large signs, including billboards, should be prohibited”. These are selected pieces of data. You can read the whole survey for more details.

Because electronic signs will intrude on the everyday lives of most citizens in this state, we need to be sure that people consent to allowing them. We propose that this bill be amended such that before electronic signs are installed, approval by the local municipality or county government be required that specifically allows electronic signs, and that this approval be in the form of an ordinance, properly enacted. Local governments may want to set limits on the use of electronic signs. For example, a government may want to allow change of message no more than every half hour instead of every six seconds.

I welcome your questions about any part of this testimony, including our proposed amendment.

In summary, we are opposed to SB548 in its present form. We ask that the committee take action to incorporate the proposed amendment before you vote on this bill.

Citizens for a Scenic Wisconsin
Chuck Mitchell, Executive Director
7525 Oakhill Ave.
Wauwatosa WI 53213
414-258-8604

Cutting Trees and Shrubs

February 9, 2006

Testimony at a Hearing of the Assembly Transportation Committee

By Chuck Mitchell, executive director

Subject: Opposition to AB967 Removal of Trees and Shrubs along Highways

This bill sets new rules for management of trees and shrubs growing along highways. It allows removal of more trees and shrubs that affect the view of billboards bearing outdoor advertisements.  It would almost double the amount of trees and shrubs that could be removed.  It provides benefits for owners and operators of billboards, but it neglects the interests of the general public.

We must manage our trees and shrubs in the public “right of way” along roads carefully. Billboards detract from scenic beauty, while trees and shrubs provide an attractive setting for our roads, a setting that people enjoy and that is attractive to tourists and good for business.

At stake is the beautiful setting that trees and shrubs provide, the setting that is Wisconsin to a motorist who drives in Wisconsin for the first time.  The natural vegetation is a big part of what Wisconsin is, what distinguishes Wisconsin from elsewhere.  If we emphasize billboards and commercial development, Wisconsin becomes like everywhere else.  (James Kunstler explains this phenomenon in his respected book “The Geography of Nowhere”.)  The characteristics of Wisconsin will be diminished and with them any mystique that we have - mystique that attracts visitors and is a source of pride to residents.   

At issue is a basic value of our society.  How much of our natural landscape do we want to allow to be consumed to provide advertising?  What is the limit on the amount of public space – the “right of way” beside our roads is public property – that we devote to increasing the profits of private commercial interests?  Surveys show that people prefer to see trees rather than commercial development.

Trees and shrubs in the strip of public land beside our roads are a great benefit,providing not only scenic beauty, but erosion control, light screens, noise barriers and snow containment.  Trees and shrubs should not be cut down for the purpose of providing a better view of billboards without regard to these benefits.  Our roads are constructed for the purpose of transportation and are not meant to be advertising corridors.  Outdoor advertisers have no constitutional right to trimming or removal of vegetation for a better view of billboards. 

1.The bill proposes viewing zones of 243, 350, 500 and 600 feet along the highway, depending on the location of the billboard.  The rule currently used by the Department of Transportation is 350 feet and they maintain the vegetation at the same level as it was when the billboard was erected.  We believe that 500 and 600 feet is unnecessarily wide and will result in the destruction of too much valuable vegetation.  Vegetation is especially beneficial in industrial areas where trees provide a welcome green screen.

2.The bill proposes that permits be granted to the owners or operators of billboards to do the trimming and/or removal of vegetation and that private contractors may be hired.  Currently, the DOT does all such trimming or removal of vegetation, at the request of billboard owners.  There will be less expert oversight if owners and operators to do this work, and that could lead to excessive or improper trimming or removal.  

3.The bill subordinates the rights of owners of adjacent property.  Viewing zones will often extend along neighboring property.  Neighbors often want trees and shrubs between them and the road.  This bill diminishes the validity of complaints from neighbors and diminishes the authority of the municipality to object.  It directs the permittee to give notice to neighbors, not the DOT directly. 

4.There is no mention of billboards that may be improperly or illegally placed or that are non-conforming to current law.  We assume that vegetation is not to be trimmed to provide views of non-conforming billboards, since it is the intent of the law that non-conforming structures will eventually be removed, albeit at the end of their useful life.  It would be better if the bill was specific on this.

The DOT follows a Natural Roadsides policy, a policy that allows new trees and shrubs to grow naturally from seeds of nearby trees & shrubs and allows cutting and mowing only where necessary for safety reasons.  This policy results in the most attractive outgrowth of mostly native species at practically no cost.

Present regulations for managing vegetation along highways are reasonable.  We see no pressing need to change the rules for management of trees and shrubs.  We consider the changes proposed by AB967 as not in the public interest.

Rules for Vegetation and Outdoor Advertising Signs along Highways

Policy statements on some of the issues regarding signs and billboards visible from our highways that are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation following administrative regulation Trans 201.

Vegetation (Trees & Shrubs)
We believe that trees and shrubs in the public “right-of way” along our highways are a great benefit, providing not only scenic beauty, but erosion control, light screens, noise barriers and snow containment. We don’t believe that trees and shrubs should be cut down for the express purpose of providing a better view of billboards. Our roads are paid for by taxpayers for the purpose of transportation and are not meant to be advertising corridors. Outdoor advertisers have no constitutional right to trimming or removal of trees and shrubs near billboards. Trees and shrubs provide an attractive setting for our roads, a setting that people enjoy and that is attractive to tourists.
We believe that present regulations for managing vegetation along highways are reasonable and should not be altered, except to clarify them or make them easier and quicker to implement. We agree that vegetation in front of signs or billboards should be taken care of in accordance with present regulations a timely way. [Vegetation is maintained at the size it was when the sign was put up, by periodic trimming by the DOT at the request of the sign owner.] Requests from sign or billboard owners or operators should be satisfied promptly. However, we don’t agree with allowing more vegetation to be removed to provide a better or longer view of billboards, because billboards are generally unattractive and disruptive to the surroundings.
We agree with the Natural Roadsides policy that the DOT follows. This policy allows new trees and shrubs to grow naturally from seeds of nearby trees& shrubs and allows cutting and mowing only where necessary for safety reasons. This policy results in the most attractive outgrowth of mostly native species at practically no cost. Schemes for plantings of short or decorative species require constant maintenance to prevent the plants from dying and to remove the naturally-growing
taller native species that always grow back. There is a tendency for that maintenance not to get done and for the replanted area to look unnatural and unkempt. Special planting sounds like an improvement, but the practical result, even well-maintained, is a less pleasing vegetative cover.

Non-conforming Signs
We believe that signs that do not conform to current laws should be taken down at the end of their normal useful life as the law intends. Non-conforming signs should not be re-built indefinitely. Most of these signs are non-conforming because they are in unzoned rural or agricultural areas, not in areas zoned commercial or industrial as required by current law.

Directional Signs
We believe that the program that allows “directional signs” for sites or businesses of major interest to travelers and tourists is a valuable public service. [Signs up to 150 square feet in size are allowed, and they may be placed practically anywhere, even in unzoned, scenic landscapes.] However, there are many signs put up by businesses and other organizations that do not qualify for them. The rules for directional signs, which can be in very scenic locations, should be strictly enforced. Recent strict decisions by the DOT are more consistent with the intent of the rules.

Lighting and Changeable Message Signs
There is a need to set a limit on the brightness of signs. There are some signs that can be seen for miles before a person can read the message, and that is excessive and a nuisance.
Changeable message signs are distracting and a nuisance. Currently, mechanical changeable message (“tri-vision”) signs that change every 6 seconds are intrusive and disturbing, in the same way that telemarketing is. Electronic (light-emitting diode) changeable message signs, would be more of a nuisance and should continue to be prohibited.

Small Signs
We encourage greater use of Specific Information Signs, which are the logo signs at freeway exits. We also encourage greater use of Tourist Oriented Directional Signs, which are small signs with very limited wording on the public right of way near roads.

General Note on Outdoor Advertising
Taken to excess, outdoor advertising can damage the business climate instead of improve it. That’s why many communities have sign regulations, often including a ban on billboards. Several states prohibit billboards outright. It is not necessary to advertise ordinary products of no immediate use to travelers out in the countryside.
The outdoor advertising industry says there are less signs in use because the rules are strict. This is doubtful, just making observations from the highways. In any case, the signs are much bigger, taller and more intrusive. Anyone can see the impact of tall billboards on the horizons along I94 between Milwaukee and Madison in recent years

Conclusion
As our natural landscape gradually succumbs to sprawling development and oversize signs, it is ever more important to make sure that public policy in Wisconsin provides for good management of signs and billboards along our main roads. Scenery is a precious and fragile resource. Once defaced, it is difficult to get it back

Support Proposed New Shoreland Protection Rules

Wisconsin has thousands of beautiful rivers and lakes, and one of their best features is that we all own them. The health of each lake and river and the abundance of fish and wildlife that rely on those waters are inextricably tied to naturally functioning shorelines. Natural areas and wetlands next to rivers and lakes prevent flooding, filter out polluted stormwater runoff that causes algae blooms and detracts from recreational uses, and serve as nurseries for many fish and wildlife species. Protecting our shorelines doesn?t mean stopping all riverfront or lakeshore development - it means doing it the right way to ensure fish and wildlife can still live in and around the rivers and lakes.

The Department of Natural Resources? proposed update to NR-115, Wisconsin?s Shoreland Management Program, reflects current science and responds to a rate of shoreline development never anticipated when the rules were first approved in 1968, nearly 40 years ago. The current rules are confusing, applied inconsistently throughout the state, and clearly are not providing sufficient protection for water quality and wildlife habitat. The proposal goes a long way toward maintaining and restoring natural areas adjacent to our waterways to capture pollutants resulting from development and to provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, while at the same time providing greater flexibility and certainty for property owners. Further, the proposal was developed with broad public participation and diverse representation, resulting in consensus on most aspects.

One of the most difficult issues addressed in the proposal is the future of pre-1968 cabins and homes built too close to the water - so called ?nonconforming structures.? The conservation community in Wisconsin supports the proposal, which allows most of these structures to be improved and expanded, because improvement and expansion carries with it the responsibility to restore some of the natural shoreline vegetation. It is crucial this increased flexibility for property owners remain coupled with enhanced vegetation requirements.

The proposal also recognizes the importance of preventing stormwater runoff from roofs and driveways into waterways, and directs counties to develop the most appropriate stormwater controls for their locale.

The conservation community urges support for the proposal, with the following recommended improvements:

· Increase the primary shoreland buffer to 50 feet (now 35 feet) - most studies across the nation recommend 50 feet as the bare minimum to protect water quality and fish and wildlife habitat.

· Set the minimum lot size for all new lots at 20,000 square feet, with a minimum lot width of 150 feet (now 100 feet) - higher density means more cumulative impacts to waterways, even with sewer service.

· Require counties to adopt wetland buffer standards for all new development in the Shoreland Zone. (Now there are none.) Buffer widths should be 10-75 feet, consistent with NR 151.12(d), and should be established prior to any land disturbance activity -wetlands improve water quality in adjacent lakes and rivers by filtering pollutants and trapping sediments, and provide important fish breeding and migratory bird nesting habitat.

· Set a maximum impervious surface limit per lot at 4000 square feet or 20% of the total lot size, whichever is smaller. (Now there is no limit.) Research indicates that in Wisconsin, when a watershed exceeds 15% impervious surface, water quality is degraded and fish communities are severely impacted.

A bill that would prohibit the erection of new outdoor advertising signs (billboards) along primary and Interstate highways has been introduced in the state senate.

Senate Bill 77 would be very effective in slowing the proliferation of unsightly and oversized billboards that are ruining the scenery in Wisconsin.

SB 77 would prohibit new billboards from being constructed along state trunk highways and Interstate highways. All existing billboards would be allowed to remain, to be maintained and to have advertising messages changed without restriction. Billboards would still be allowed to be built on the premises of the business conducting the activity advertised on them, and to have their messages changed.

The bill, authored by Senator Fred Risser, is very simple and brief. Only a half page, it changes, adds and subtracts a few words in the existing law to accomplish its objective. It will be very easy for the DOT to administer, and will cause no additional costs in the DOT budget.

Large and tall signs have been going up that disturb the horizon and ruin the view of the landscape behind them. Any more signs will be deleterious to the business climate and will make our state less attractive to tourists. There are enough signs in place to provide advertising space to the travel oriented businesses that really need them.

This bill would supplement the new Scenic Byways program which will be administered by the Department of Transportation. Billboards are prohibited on sections of highways that become designated Scenic Byways. Applications for Scenic Byway status may be initiated by a city or town on a section of highway that meets certain standards of scenic beauty.

What it will take for this bill to succeed is significant voter support for it. To express support for the bill, write or email your state senator and your state representative in the assembly. A short message will be effective and a personal touch counts (so we are not providing a sample letter). To find out who your senator and your representative are, and their office address and email address, call the legislative hotline 800-362-9472 or 608-266-9960, or go to the legislative website www.legis.state.wi.us.

Survey of Public Opinion                                                   

Summary of the Report of the Survey done by

University of Wisconsin Extension and Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission

This survey was undertaken to obtain public input related to a State Highway 36 North Corridor Design Plan that Racine County was preparing with assistance from the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission in cooperation with local communities adjoining the highway corridor.

The survey was administered to all property owners, including businesses, within one-half mile   of Highway 36 between the City of Burlington and the Waukesha County Line.  This study area includes most of the four-lane Hwy.36 “viewshed” for a distance of 15 miles.  A total of  910 respondents replied with answers to questions in time for tabulation and statistical analysis. The total response was 964, or 41% of the survey requests delivered, considered a very good response rate. 

Respondents

All respondents use the Hwy.36 survey area, 75% travel on it at least weekly, 74% have used it for 10 years or more, 70% use it for shopping, and 76% live within ½ mile.

92% of the respondents care at least somewhat about the views experienced along Hwy.36 and 62% like at least somewhat the visual quality of developments along the highway.

1.Preferences

2.Vision Alternatives                                                                          

4.Signs                                                                                                              

Indicate if you consider any of the following a visual concern:                                  

6.Lighting                                                                                                                       

The existing amount and type of lighting is not a concern	51
or   Lighting visible from the highway has become a problem in certain areas	39
For convenience and safety, increased light is not only expected but essential	29
or  Destinations along the highway are so easily recognized, lighting can be reduced	59
Short, subtle lighting in developments serve the purpose	74
or  Tall, bright lighting seen from a distance is important for reaching destinations	10
Tall spreading lights in parking lots help identifying entryways, etc	12
or  Short, shielded lights are less distraction to drivers & less detraction to neighbors	74

Architectural design guidelines can achieve visual themes for buildings and structures,     50%

such as the side of the building facing the highway, entire building exterior, accessory

structures or walls and fences.

Minimum open space requirements can also be set (as a percentage of the parcel) for        62       

multi-family, commercial or developments

From the standpoint of appearance, do you prefer a height limit of 3 stories?                      66

Conclusions    The respondents in this survey:

     1   Prefer to look at natural areas, agricultural land and open space.

      2   Prefer development to be concentrated in urban centers with open space in between.

     3   Want landscape and architectural design standards.

     4   Don’t like very large signs such as billboards.

      5   Like natural vegetation as part of landscaping.

      6   Don’t like excessive lighting.

      7   Don’t like the appearance of parking lots and want them screened.